Posts By Dylan Morgan

0 It’s Time to Go Nuclear

January 22, 2020
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Democrats have called climate change this generation’s WWII, indicating that in order to stop it, we need to mobilize as a global force. I think Democrats need to follow their metaphor to the natural conclusion: just as we ended WWII, we can end climate change. That’s right, drop the nukes!

I am, of course, talking about nuclear power. I recently made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the Twitter about nuclear being a better alternative to wind after CNN posted an article about a wind turbine collapsing in New York causing some minor property damage. I found it ironic that a wind turbine would collapse under the stress of 15-20 mph winds. You know, that thing it needs to function. My comment elicited some responses about nuclear I found quite alarmist. I am no expert on nuclear power, and like most people, I can name three nuclear disasters: Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. I have listened to Mike Shellenberger, a nuclear and environmental activist who does a good job of explaining away some of the alarm, but beyond this I knew very little. So, I did some perusing and found the truth about nuclear.

Since 1957 there have been 78 deaths related to nuclear power plants. Nuclear power can be terrifying. The shadows left in Nagasaki and Hiroshima are testaments to this with an estimated death toll of up to 317,000. Nuclear power plants, however, are much less sinister when you look at the numbers. Especially when, of the 78 deaths, 62 are from Chernobyl in 1986, a crisis made worse due to its mishandling by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Most incidents have had zero fatalities and those that do are usually one to three.

It is difficult to account for all casualties related to nuclear disaster, however some have estimated the total number of casualties from Chernobyl would be in the millions when considering the longer term effects of extensive radiation. Epidemiological studies will need to be conducted to determine the complete scope. The Fukushima disaster also falls into the category of unknowns. For background, in 2011, the plant had three of its reactors working when an earthquake struck. The plant shut down its remaining reactors but when a tsunami hit, it overcame the seawalls and flooded the plant,shutting down the emergency generators and causing damage and necessitating the evacuation of the area. There were two fatalities from the flooded reactor, and one payout to an individual with cancer. Long-term effects are of course harder to prove, but an increased cancer rate in areas surrounding reactors would likely increase the overall number of fatalities.

Any nuclear accident is bad and to be avoided, but we can’t look at nuclear in a vacuum; how many people die in other fields of energy? Oil rigs accounted for 1189 deaths from 2003-2013 and coal around 20 per year since 2011. Hydroelectric is one of the least safe forms of energy due to catastrophic disasters caused by flooding – the Banqiao dam failure in China led to the deaths of 171,000 people. Forbes lays out the relative dangers in the “Deathprint for Energy,” where they use epidemiological studies to try to account for the long-term effects of problems with energy, in which nuclear power is still the safest.

The key difference between nuclear and the energy sources listed above is nuclear has zero carbon emissions. It is clean energy that does not rely on the presence of wind or sun. It is not to say that wind and solar cannot be adjuncts, but if they are not producing enough energy to sustain the community, you need to have an energy source to continue to generate power.

Because of the fears surrounding nuclear, it is not heavily used in any country with the exception of France. However, that has not stopped the technology from progressing. New fuels and reactors that decrease waste and increase safety are in the works. Reactors are getting smaller, meaning they can generate 1,000 MWe of power on less than one percent of the land area as wind and solar farms

As has been demonstrated, nuclear is the most productive, cleanest, and safest form of energy – Fukushima was 40 years old and it still took two natural disasters to knock it out! The disasters nuclear sees have so far paled in comparison to the worst hydroelectric disasters and, at a yearly rate, are nowhere close to oil and coal. If you are serious about reducing emissions or just want to see less pollution, go ahead and treat the climate like its WWII and nuke it into submission.

0 China is Bad

October 17, 2019
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

China is bad. There seems to be some confusion by both players and coaches after the NBA responded negatively to a statement supporting #FreeHongKong by Daryl Morey, the General Manager of the Houston Rockets. Morey immediately walked back his statement and issued an apology. Never apologize to dictators, support a free Hong Kong. Here’s why.

Hong Kong was returned to Chinese control from the British in 1997. In the agreement to return control, the Chinese agreed to a “one state, two system” model where Hong Kong would enjoy some of the freedoms they had under British rule – at least for the next 50 years. Because Hong Kong was under British control since 1842, it grew to know a freedom that the communist mainland did not. They are not interested in ceding this freedom to the growing security state ran by Beijing.

The riots in Hong Kong have been going on for over 19 weeks. They began over an extradition bill proposed by Hong Kong’s pro-communist regime. It may seem like the mainland should be able to extradite people from their own territory but the political divide between states is too broad. Hong Kong, for instance, can speak out against mainland policy. The mainland however, has censored anything that goes against the state. NBA preseason games are being cancelled over the comments of Morey. South Park was eliminated from all Chinese media for mocking China’s censorship. President and dictator Xi Jinping has banned Winnie the Pooh because people claimed the despot looked like the stuffed bear.

To put it simply, if Hong Kong allows an extraditions treaty, dissidents in Hong Kong will be extradited to the mainland for the prosecution of their speech.

This is abominable to anyone who believes in free speech, but it gets worse. If you speak out against the Chinese Communist Party, you will be jailed and run the risk of having your organs harvested. That’s right folks, one flippant comment about the Communist Party could leave you one kidney shorter.

Having your organs harvested because you speak out against the government is bad enough. But the Communist Party doesn’t stop there! They are placing Uighurs – an Islamic ethnic minority in China – and political prisoners in literal concentration camps, though they prefer the term “re-education” camp. Survivors of the camps have claimed they were forcibly sterilized.

Do the NBA and other corporations with financial investments in China have the right to force their employees into silence? Sure. But you as a consumer need to know what the protesters in Hong Kong are fighting for. They are fighting to keep their organs. They are fighting to stay out of concentration camps. They are fighting to stay free of the control of the dictatorial Winnie the Pooh look-alike, Xi Jinping.

0 Can We Have a GoFundMe Government?

December 29, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Giving money to the government as it currently stands for an explicit purpose is foolhardy. I make this statement in reference to the GoFundMe started last week with the intention of funding a wall on the southern border. At the beginning of my writing, the GoFundMe had raised $13,694,969 from 224,433 people. The goal is $1 billion, nearly 18% of what the Trump administration requested for construction to avoid and now end the government shutdown.

The argument in favor of the government being funded by GoFundMe (or similar method) is sound. The people directly appropriate funds to agencies and projects allowing them to minimize waste. As they assign each dollar to every department, you can bet there would be a keen eye on both necessity and efficiency. The federal government would no longer be viewed as a source of unlimited cash but instead, funded directly by the people. Want a wall? Donate. Want to fund Planned Parenthood? Donate. No one is forced at gunpoint to participate in projects they don’t like. Such action would often take the government out of the equation entirely; they don’t have to fund Planned Parenthood when private citizens are doing it themselves. Government is necessarily involved when building a border wall. Herein lies the problem with our current setup.

Anyone can donate to the government. What they cannot do is decide what that money is used for excepting debt payment. This is because the government appropriates the money as it sees fit. What will happen when a GoFundMe account donates to the general fund with a note saying, “build that wall”? Likely nothing or, at least, not what the participants intended.

The argument for a GoFundMe now is that it is a demonstration. As the number of people donating to the cause increase we will put the legislative branch on notice we want their campaign promises kept. The problem is the wall was the near entirety of Trump’s 2016 campaign. Trump, the head of the Republican Party which held both houses of congress still did not get funding for the wall. And yet, they are still running a $830 billion deficit which indicates it’s not an issue of funding but politics. Trump won 63 million votes, significantly more than the current motley 224,982. If the electorate’s support of Trump’s border wall platform bore no fruit, why give money to the party who has already shown its inability to fulfill its promises? Not to mention the fact the Republican House was flipped in 2018.

Is a GoFundMe government bad? Not at all. Is it worth anyone’s time or money now? No. Even assuming they raise their goal and send it to the government all they will achieve is reducing the deficit or allowing the government to allocate funds somewhere else. If you are in favor of reduced government, this is not to your interest. If you believe it to be a demonstration people will voluntarily give money to those projects they want, I respect your intentions; I just don’t believe it will lead to any meaningful change. At least not until we have politicians who are brave enough to push for change.

0 There is Still Good News

December 24, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Humanity has been one constant struggle. From inception through the middle of the 20th century, our forebears have fought, often literally, for the ideals and freedoms they knew to be God-given. In the 20th century alone, there were two world wars, the Civil Rights movement, multiple political assassinations, the Red Scare, and the Spanish Flu just to mention a few nation and world-changing events. Even going to work was an everyday battle; as recently as 1980 work-related fatalities were 5.11 per 100,000.

After millennia of struggle, here is the good news. At the end of 2017 Child poverty hit an all-time low of 12.7%. The violent crime rate has steadily declined since 1990. Diseases that were once death sentences such as Tuberculosis and HIV are now reduced and the number of people receiving treatment is increasing. There is a vaccine for cholera and eradication of leprosy is targeted in 2020. Cancer deaths are down 25% since 1991 as cancer treatments become more advanced. Prostheses are getting closer to what we only imagined in science fiction. Workplace injuries have been trending down for the last forty years. The world is becoming a better and safer place to live as harmful external forces are decreased or eradicated.

Setting aside issues of life and death, everyday life has become simpler. In 1903 the first cross-country “road trip” was completed from San Francisco, California to Burlington, Vermont in 63 days 12 hours. Today the same road trip would take a mere 45 hours. Smart phones have provided us all the knowledge in the world at our fingertips. Energy may soon be cleanly and efficiently extracted from ocean waves. Self-driving cars and artificial intelligence are on the horizon. Humanity is accelerating towards a world that could never be dreamed of 100 years ago.

There are a lot of frightening stories in the news every day but remember, it is news because it is an outlier. But just as bad news is noticed because it is an outlier, good news goes unmentioned because it is expected. So, no matter what comes up on the TV screen, remember to take a look out of your own window and recognize the progress we have made and know that more is on the way.

1 I Hate You, Brandon Sanderson

December 19, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Reviews

I have been interested in fantasy books since my mom read C.S. Lewis and Lloyd Alexander to my sister and me. Fortunately for me, there was a significant backlog of genre-forming books I had to catch up on. While this is the case in all genres, fantasy books are written in the form of quests or, often, a series of quests. This made it difficult for me to explore multiple authors because I didn’t just need to see a set of characters complete one individual quest, but all their other adventures as well.

In many ways this was fun; I was chasing authors, hoping to catch up to them before they retired or were finished with the characters. I was successful in this endeavor, however it required me to read nearly 100 books to cover the work of four authors. This has led me to a major crisis of fear of missing out or, FOMO. I spent so much time on an individual author I feared I missed out on other good books. Time is limited, after all, so I felt the need to sample as many authors as possible. I challenged myself to reduce my focus on a single author and add some new letters to my bookshelf. Enter the devil himself.

I first heard of Brandon Sanderson while talking to fellow fantasy enthusiasts about my current diet of Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series. They asked if I had read Sanderson’s Mistborn series and when I replied in the negative they said to put down the Wheel of Time and jump right in. I did not follow their advice because I, of course, had to finish the series I had already started. If you’ve read the WoT series, you know Robert Jordan died before it was finished, and passed the series on to Brandon Sanderson. It is no easy task to be charged with finishing a linear story already spanning eleven books. I read the entire 14 book series in 10-12 weeks and Sanderson did it seamlessly. If anything, the characters gained more depth and what’s more, Sanderson can write laugh out loud funny.

After reading Sanderson’s work with Jordan, I was excited to jump into the Mistborn Trilogy. It was not what I expected. After reading his work on the WoT I expected humor and wit but entered a bleak world where people ingested metals to gain certain abilities. In this series I realized it wasn’t his humor that made his writing so enjoyable, it was his character development. There is not a single character throughout the series who is one-dimensional. None. They could have one line and he would still give you enough information to understand their motivations and how they fit in with the plot. I have read a 24-book series where a leading character doesn’t have as much development. I have never read a book that so succinctly generates a more robust cast than Sanderson’s.

It was about this time my FOMO started kicking in. If I had missed out on Jordan and Sanderson, who else could I be missing? Because of this I did not pursue his considerable catalogue of work at his current 42 years of age. I broke back in later however with his novel, Warbreaker. The tragedy of Warbreaker for me was not until possibly weeks after finishing it did I realized its exceptionality. It has the comedic flare, character development, and layered plot I loved in WoT and Mistborn. It also brought me to another realization: his world-building is the best in the industry.

You can argue that Tolkien has a more well-founded world, but the pure imagination of Sanderson is incredible. In Warbreaker particularly he creates a world in which breaths can be passed to give abilities and people can return from the dead and be gods. He creates cultures between which the tension is palpable. Most importantly, you understand it without having to read the Silmarillion.

I left Sanderson after Warbreaker because I couldn’t risk getting sucked back into his writing. After over a year I finally broke. I read his award-winning introductory novel, Elantris. Again, spectacular world-building in a story of a fallen city of gods. I couldn’t put it down. When I said I broke, I didn’t just crack, I crumbled. I then read his novel The Alloy of Law, which is set in the world of the Mistborn. Any lack of laughs in the original Mistborn Trilogy were wholly made up for here. And now, goddammit, I’ll have to read the rest of the series.

Brandon Sanderson writes too well for me to miss and thus, he will always remain at the top of my booklist no matter how many unread books lie beneath. His prowess makes me at once excited for the magic he will produce and fearful of the authors whom I might miss. So, for putting me into this predicament, I hate you Brandon Sanderson.

8 Is it a Question of Life?

November 21, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

The latest craze by leftist protesters is wearing costumes based on Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale. The fear women’s rights would be stripped from them as Atwood depicted culminated with the nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. Even before the allegations of gang rape emerged, progressive protesters were fearful he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which stated there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.

The debate on the topic of abortion is likely the most contentious in the nation today. The problem with the vehement attacks of pro-abortion groups is they ignore even the possibility they might understand the arguments and beliefs of the pro-life crowd; regardless of whether they might be swayed by them. Therefore, it is incumbent upon pro-lifers to be able to gently and succinctly make their points whenever they engage with someone who is willing to listen.

The logic of life in the womb:

If we are to logically assess life in the womb then we must first determine what life is. Dictionary.com defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Does a fetus meets these criteria? A fetus is not inorganic, is currently and will continue to grow if allowed, will likely be able to reproduce, function, and change until its death. A fetus is then necessarily life.

I would then posit that life necessarily begins at conception. To argue otherwise is like saying your day doesn’t begin until your first cup of coffee; you simply mean you weren’t ready or prepared for the day until your coffee, not that the day hadn’t already begun.

The legality of life in the womb:

The legal question of whether a fetus constitutes life is answered in part by the treatment of the crime of killing a pregnant woman, which constitutes a double-homicide. Homicide meaning unlawful killing; kill meaning cause death; death meaning the end of life. Therefore, for a double-homicide to occur two lives must be ended. This begs the question why is it that when the fetus is deliberately killed by a physician, no charge of homicide will necessarily be brought? Have we given women the power to situationally determine what life is and, if so, at what point does a mother’s ability to make this determination end?

The Roe v. Wade decision also makes a claim about life in the womb. Justice Blackmun in the opinion of the court stated: With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. At the time of the decision, viability was 24-28 weeks. Now, however, according to the decision’s own logic the State’s interest can now be as early as 21 weeks. While this aspect of the decision refutes pro-abortion activist blind support of it, it is also a reflection of how poor the decision actually was.

In the 45 years since the Roe decision, there has been a 16% reduction in time until viability. It is not inconceivable that over the next 50 years we see viability move into the first trimester – a collision of Roe v. Wade into itself predicted by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. Justice O’Connor further stated: Without the necessary expertise or ability, courts must then pretend to act as science review boards and examine those legislative judgments. While her contention is apt, one must further contend that science should not determine morality in the first place. Was a 20-week old fetus less valuable 40 years ago than it is today?

What can we do with life in the womb:

The debate between those for and against abortion is not a debate over what life is, but rather what we can do with it. Hardcore abortion advocates ignore the question of life and instead argue it remains the mother’s choice until the baby is free of her womb. If we admit a fetus is life, then we must allot it the same protections as any other human life. It cannot, for example, be owned by another being.

Some argue that, as the fetus is inside her, it is a woman’s property and therefore she gets to decide what is done to it. So let me ask, if you found a baby in your house could you kill it? Even if someone were to break into your house and leave a baby behind could you kill it? Of course not.

A more common argument is the parasite argument. An abortion advocate may say that because a fetus cannot survive on its own outside the womb and depends on the body of the mother to nourish it, it drains the mother of nutrients and can therefore be treated as a parasite and excised at will. This is a question of human dependency. Yes a fetus is dependent upon the mother until viability, but does 5 months of dependency merit the death penalty?

The question of what we can do with life in the womb is no different than what we can do with life outside. Even the generally accepted exemption, “the life of the mother” is no exception to the rule. If something were to do significant physical harm to someone, you would be within your rights to stop them. Any other justification for abortion is wholly inadequate and doesn’t distinguish between life in and outside the womb.

Common claims such as “it’s just a clump of cells”, while accurate, prove nothing. All life is necessarily a cell – a clump of cells being particularly complex. The argument it is not life if it can’t survive on its own implies someone on life support could be killed without consequence. The most troubling defense of abortion comes from Justice Blackmun’s opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision where he stated:

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

If mental and physical duress give a mother legal power over life and death, why then is there a distinction between life inside and outside the womb? Following this logic, if your three-year-old was too much of a burden you would be within your Constitutionally guaranteed rights to kill him or her. To someone who is pro-life there is no distinction as both lives are sacred. To someone who is pro-abortion the distinction is simply locational.

I have yet to hear a pro-abortion argument that satisfactorily addresses and counters these pro-life arguments and the fact of the matter is there simply isn’t one. We either view life as sacred or something we can determine based on what is convenient for ourselves.

0 A Word on Warren

October 16, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

My background is like that which Elizabeth Warren claims. The Democratic senator from Massachusetts stated in an interview her parents were forced to elope because her father’s family was unhappy with the prospect of him marrying a girl who was part Cherokee and Delaware. While my parents did not have to elope, there was concern about the prospect of my mom marrying a Black man. Don’t worry, everything’s good now. On this level I can relate to Warren except for one little fact: Warren is neither minority group which she purported herself to be: Cherokee or Delaware.

I have the advantage on Warren in being able to see the color of my dad’s skin and concluding he is, in fact, of African descent. Warren did not have this luxury, so she assumed because her family had high cheekbones she must be Native American. This is stereotypical to the point of being racist, but in a world where identity politics is king, one must grasp at the crown any way you can.

Warren’s claims to Native heritage would not be an issue if she had not used it to gain minority status and possibly advance her career or, at best, set herself apart. If this is the case, I can relate to the Senator’s efforts. When I was applying to undergrad I was Black. Despite my mixed racial background, I presented myself as darkness in the flesh. I did this of course knowing it would give me an edge over any White competitors and I was not wrong. Upon acceptance to the University of Washington I received a generous scholarship based on my race alone. Without application I was immediately given access to the university’s tutoring center which got me through all my introductory science courses. In short, it was awesome.

Something didn’t sit right with me though. It is one thing to promote cultural diversity at the school, it is another to give certain demographics resources not afforded to others based solely on their race. I was ruminating about these ideas around the time Elizabeth Warren entered the national scene in 2012. I remember thinking how terrible it was for someone to use race to promote themselves and realized I had done exactly that. I consoled myself by saying at least I was provably half-Black, but it is still much the same. If you cannot stand on your own abilities and credentials, then you have no business in whatever area you are trying to attain enrollment or advancement. Your race or ethnicity is not a credential. You earn credentials, you don’t work to be Black, White, or Native.

I have always poked fun at Elizabeth Warren’s stereotypical logic of her heritage – by the same token a person who speaks with their hands is Italian and someone who likes watermelon is Black. With the news coming out today, however that, after a DNA test, Warren is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American it is even more hilarious. Especially since the ostensibly Native American DNA was Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian. If Warren is Native at all, she is 6 to 10 generations removed. Furthermore, as the Cherokee Nation said in a statement: a DNA test is not enough to claim you belong to the Cherokee or any, tribe. It’s hardly enough to claim you are Native American at all!

I would like to offer a word of sympathy for Warren. If she was raised believing these stories, and they may be true, she had no reason to assume she was doing anything wrong just as there was nothing wrong with me putting Black as the sole race in my applications as my dad often reminds me. However, the ethical implications of using race to get ahead should force someone to reconsider such an approach. Regardless, when faced with the fact you have negligible if any Native DNA, to apologize and desist would be the best approach. Unfortunately, as there is a leftist taboo against being White, Warren has and will likely continue to cling on to this minority status even if it is only 0.098%.

0 What’s Wrong with Reading as Written

August 28, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

The hearings for the latest Supreme Court nominee will define the debate over the interpretation of the Constitution. On one side you have originalists; those who believe the Constitution should be interpreted by the written word and intent of its authors. On the other side you have those who believe in a living constitution; the idea the Constitution should be interpreted via the lens of current society. We can view both arguments in this way:

Let’s say a 14th century author wrote, “the nice gay boy tripped through the small town with a faggot.”

An originalist would claim the interpretation is, a foolish and merry individual skipped through a small town carrying a bundle of sticks. A proponent of a living constitution would say the statement could accurately be interpreted as, a kind homosexual stumbled through the small town with another homosexual. One claim would capture the intent of the author while the other would distort the story to a point incomprehensible to the writer. Is it fair to claim a story’s meaning changes based on the changing definition of words over time, or is the author’s intent more important?

It would be silly to apply the idea of “living literature” to the author’s story. The same can be said for the law. The law was written to capture the intent of the people at a given time. While the times change, the law’s meaning and purpose do not.

Suppose in the future a political party has decided it is in the best interest of the country to force people to house government employees at no cost while they are on an assignment. For instance, you must house the IRS agent who is auditing you. The passage of such a law is not implausible in the sense the party in favor only needs to hold both houses of congress and the presidency – a level of control which has occurred for the last four presidents. The upholding of such a law, however, would prove the greater obstacle.

An originalist judge would look at such a law as a direct violation of the Third Amendment which states: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The intent of the law was to protect the civilian from the imposition of government employees in their homes. In 1791 this meant soldiers. Though the current scope and size of the government is beyond anything the founders could have imagined, a law forcing civilians to accept government personnel in their homes would still violate this right.

Today, you would be hard pressed to find a justice who would find otherwise, however someone who follows the ideology of a living constitution follows societal norms. 100 years ago, abortion would not have been a societal norm and yet in 1973, the Supreme Court found the right to an abortion in the Constitution and it is now virtuous to shout your abortion.

Thus saying, suppose in the future it became an acceptable idea for the government to force civilians to house government employees. If the party in favor of such action came to power, they could appoint justices who agreed rather than adjudicated based on the law. They may say that because the Constitution was written in 1787 it is no longer acceptable doctrine. Or maybe they will claim because the Third Amendment says soldiers it does not apply to an IRS agent. The reason is not as significant as the fact you could have government agents forcibly occupy your home. If justices are nominated simply to do the will of congress or the president, then why not abolish all branches in favor of a group of nine dictators?

Hopefully this example is universally abhorrent, but suppose a more contentious issue arose. Neither party would be in favor of judicial appointments to bend or create laws which are against the will of the people. The country is founded in such a way that citizens elect two of three branches (legislative and executive) who then combine to appoint the third – the judicial. The judicial branch then upholds the law which requires the greatest majority to pass: The Constitution.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to ensure laws written by the legislative and signed by the executive branch abide by the rights guaranteed to the citizens. The Constitution can be amended in two ways. The only way utilized thus far requires the support of two-thirds of both houses of congress to propose and three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify amendments. The other way, a convention of states, requires two-thirds of the states to call for the convention and three-fourths to ratify
any proposed amendments, skipping a congressional vote. Both methods require an
absolute majority of federal and/or state legislative bodies as elected by the citizenry.

The Supreme Court, by way of adjudicating the law as voted on by the people is what protects us from the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches. The utility of co-equal branches of government is lost, however, if one branch usurps power from another. The fear of progressives, in terms of the court, is more originalist judges would hold us strictly to the laws we passed while conservatives fear living constitutionalists would adjudicate by public opinion rather than the rule of law. The distinction of the utmost importance is, one group wishes to have laws written without fear of adjudication while the other wants the laws to be adjudicated as written.

The argument against originalism is truly mystifying to me. Originalists adjudicate based on what the majority of state and federal legislatures have agreed upon and written into law in their time. In other words, originalists do as they are instructed by the electorate. If the electorate wishes for a different outcome, they can put forth an amendment via the legislative branch or convention of states. This ensures a majority of citizens have a say on their rights. It is progressives who wish to remove this ability from the people by way of appointing justices who will interpret the law as it “should” be and not how it is.

Clarence Thomas, a stalwart originalist has often made decisions which go against his own personal interest. For instance, his discussion about the overreach of the federal government by way of the commerce clause would rule anti-discrimination laws and the ban on whites-only lunch counters unconstitutional. As a Black man, one would think Thomas should be in favor of such decisions. Maybe he is, but he insists that rulings, at least his own, be based on the intent lest any law be manipulated as justification to regulate beyond its designation.

It is worth noting that because a law is not constitutional at the federal level does not mean it is illegal at the state level. So, if Thomas were to rule something unconstitutional at the federal level, the states would not necessarily be barred from applying the same legislation.

Because we are a nation that values the rule of law, we have (usually) abided by decisions of the courts with the state or federal government enforcing their rulings. This, however, is done with the understanding that the Supreme Court serves the people through the law, which is why it is an appointed rather than an elected position – the job of the jurors is to be right, not necessarily popular. Furthermore, it is important that the branch that makes the decision is not the one who enforces it. If justices are nothing but legislative or presidential puppets or worse, authors of legislation, then government can simply be vacated and a tribunal of despots put in its place.

The founders understood the nature of centralized power and its inherent tendency to be abused. Therefore, they created a system of checks and balances wherein each branch had specific and enumerated powers. While it may be satisfying to see your party win at the expense of co-equal governance, you cannot then protest when the other side follows suit.

If you want to ensure what you stand for today remains tomorrow, your initial intent must remain intact. Before you castigate a justice for holding this opinion ask yourself why is it wrong to base your justification on those that were given by the author instead of another’s interpretation 100 years later? It is not the job of the judicial branch to manipulate legislation to satisfy society, but that of legislators to make new laws befitting the society they represent. The job of the Supreme Court is to hold us accountable for those we elect and the laws they pass. If you are unhappy with a law, elect politicians who will change it instead of interpreting it as convenient lest convenience replace justice.

0 Identity Politics Puts Ideas Second

July 10, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Conservatism is the ideology of the individual. To be a conservative, you must look at any political movement not on the basis of its effects on a particular group but rather its effects on individuals across all groups. For example, when discussing a federal minimum wage it is insufficient to merely look at the benefits of raised income to minimum wage workers; one must also consider the effect on industries who must now adapt to the increased cost of a minimum wage imposed upon them. You must also look at how an increased minimum wage affects those currently at or above the new minimum wage and consider that the policy’s effects may vary in different locations based on the local economy. A minimum wage supposes all entry level jobs and employees are of equal value and hinders a company’s discretionary ability to pay an employee based on their individual contributions. Certainly, this is a much more complex argument to make than simply saying people need a living wage and something must be done to help them.

This is why the Democrats have more success in modern media. They can capture an image of crying children on the border then attack proponents of stronger border security for the alleged actions taken on that individual. They have the inability to break down illegal immigrants into smaller groups such as asylum seekers and MS-13. (Democrats defended the gang whose motto is, “rape, control, kill” saying they had a spark of divinity.) Another example of this can be seen in the case the cover of one of Time Magazine’s June editions on the topic of family separation at the border. Leftists were not able to individually view the case of a child whose mother had run from her husband in Honduras, taking the young girl on a dangerous journey. This child was, in fact, not separated from her mother as the current border narrative suggests. When Time corrected the error, they stated the facts were wrong but it captured the narrative.

It is a beautiful fact of humanity we can see images of those in need and feel the need to help them. However, when the “do something” crowd is interested in action more than results, it is incumbent upon conservatives to ensure the outcome is in line with the intent. While this is a worthy goal, it often gets conservatives labeled as heartless because they, for example, don’t want to eliminate borders to allow all families into the country. Remember, those families are coming here to get away from something and the border is what protects us from the same fate the families are trying to escape.

Unfortunately, it appears as if the right is tiring of making these cases and is turning to group-based politics themselves. Identity politics, the belief groups based on ethnicity, religion, or race will reliably hold the same values, is modern racism – assuming you like fried chicken and watermelon because you are Black is no different than the assumption you like Maxine Waters because you’re black. Until the 2016 election, identity politics was a political strategy held only by the left. Identity politics holds that, not only can we tell what you think based on your race, but if you think differently than the group, you are no longer part of it. Enter Kanye West.

Kanye blew up the internet with his tweet, “I like the way Candace Owens thinks.” Candace Owens is a Black conservative and is arguably the current leader of conservative identity politics. Her desire is to be the leader of a Black political revolution and turn the 80% of Blacks who lean Democrat to conservative. This, it would seem, is something I could wholeheartedly get behind as that is the case made frequently on this website most notably here. However, I struggle with the idea it is necessary to turn to identity politics to accomplish this goal.

When the left uses identity politics they are saying if you are X you therefore think Y. The right’s reaction to this, it turns out, is if you are X you can only agree with someone who is X. This philosophy is what Candace Owens captures: Black people will listen to what she and all conservatives call reason because she is also Black. Perhaps it is not the notion of right identity politics that bothers me so much as the fact it is apparently necessary. There are two possible explanations I take from this. One is people are too lazy or ignorant to follow the line of logic put forth by conservatives or, more likely, we are hopelessly divided by race and identity group.

The job of a conservative is to be able to tell an individual how their policy would help him/her. It is troubling to think the logic can only be followed when it comes from someone who looks the same. There are indeed individuals from minority groups who are stalwart conservatives but the trick pulled by the left is to remove them from that minority group. Calling back to our earlier equations, if X believes Z instead of Y then X is no longer X. This gets Black conservatives labeled as Uncle Toms and coons. Rather than looking at why an individual turned from a group, they reclassify them in a group which can then be excoriated.

I truly believe in not only the power but the necessity of the individual. If we are resigned to think of ourselves as a member of a group rather than an individual, it becomes incumbent upon us to defend the group even when it’s against not only our personal interests but those of other groups as well. The case needs to be made that while a policy may not be of benefit to a group as a whole, the sum of individuals across all or many groups is enough to merit its passing. The knee-jerk reaction to help a group when we see them crying at the border may not be as beneficial as policy affecting individuals across all groups.

While I am concerned the message may now be less important than the messenger, if the right’s identity politics encourage more free thought then I am open to its use. If instead it promulgates the virtues of identity over ideas, conservatives have lost the battle and have moved to a racist tactic which does naught but drive us further apart. Do not fall prey to the identity another puts upon you, but pick the right identity for yourself and don’t let a group define you.

1 Why the World Needs Dads

June 17, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

Since I was little, I wanted to be like my dad. He did all kinds of cool things like wear chaps, drive tractors, and chop wood. I didn’t know why, but I wanted to do those things too. I wanted to be like my dad so much that when I was in eighth grade I decided I would do exactly what he did with his life: go to university on an ROTC scholarship and become a dentist. My life goals are as original as Will Smith’s music.

My upbringing, however, was much different than his, as when I was five years old my parents got divorced. I lived with my mom five days a week and, when I wasn’t participating in baseball or basketball tournaments, I would spend the weekend with my dad. There was a stark contrast between parents as my mom allowed for more play and my dad always seemed to be working, so much so that he ostensibly created a business just to teach my sister and me the value of a good work ethic. The dichotomy of parenting styles created two different expectations of me: while living with my mom I was essentially held to the same standard as my sister. My dad, however, established different expectations for the two of us. For example, if he needed to go work on a stretch of fencing, Connie was given a choice whether or not to participate. I, on the other hand, was not afforded the same opportunity.

My dad’s expectations of me created a drive to prove myself worthy. This was made more difficult by my dad making it clear he didn’t think we should be wasting our time on frivolous extra-curriculars when there was work to be done. Due to this opinion, he hardly came to any of my sporting events as he wouldn’t take time off work. Since my athletic prowess wouldn’t impress him, I found other ways. I remember the first time I carried a fifty-pound bag of grain on my shoulder not because it was a momentous occasion in my life but because he noticed! He didn’t say good job or anything, but I knew he was thinking it. I also remember his compliments any time I made a good point about some aspect of working the ranch. But more than the good, I remember my failures in his eyes.

I remember getting yelled at for stepping on the track of a tractor while it was moving. I remember almost coming to tears because I couldn’t unhook the gooseneck trailer from the truck before my dad got back from a horse ride. My sister and stepmom asked me what was wrong, seemingly not comprehending the fact that, though I was likely around ten years old, I was the man and it was my job to handle such things as unhooking trailers. How could I prove myself worthy if I couldn’t handle such menial tasks as that?!

My dad also has the ability to make me laugh – usually just at how funny he thinks he is, though his dad jokes often come R-rated or politically incorrect. Like when told a movie he had purchased was going to set off the alarm when he left but just to ignore it, he said to the clerk, eyes lighting up like he had been waiting his whole life for this moment, “I’d better let you take this then because I’m a Black man and they’ll shoot me.” He had a gift for making me laugh when I was angry especially when my ire was directed at him. I would fight so hard to keep from laughing thinking, “shut up dad just let me hate you for the next five minutes” but I never could.

As I got older I came to two realizations: chaps really weren’t as cool as I remembered, and I had a long way to go before becoming the man my father was. The former realization needs no explanation, but the latter came to me in two events. First, I witnessed my dad throwing 100-pound bales of hay 6-8 feet over his head into the loft after the hay elevator broke down. At this point he was over forty and not in good shape throwing the most awkward, cumbersome thing over his head. I mean, holy shit.

The second event came when I was seventeen or eighteen. While working one day, he locked our food in the car and took off on a ride with the keys. This meant I had to wait a full hour before eating! When he finally returned I made a snarky, smart-ass comment to him expressing my distress. The world stopped. There became an epic stare-down between man and boy. My dad who grew up dirt poor looked at me, who had the nerve to mouth off about not eating for an hour. I knew behind that steely gaze he was calculating the odds he could get away with beating me in public. Not wanting to blink lest I lose all dignity I stared back, hiding my fear behind a façade of righteous indignation, calculating the best routes of escape. After what seemed like forever, the battle of wills ended when he simply said, “you’d better remember who you’re talking to” and he threw me the keys. As I walked to get my lunch I almost laughed at loud: the laugh of someone who has just survived a near death experience. I realized that not only did I have a lot of room to grow, but my dad could have snatched my head from my shoulders before my life worked up the nerve to flash before my eyes.

My dad clearly impacted the type of man I’ve become. He is not alone fulfilling the fundamental role of father, a title which is becoming more rarely used. As of 2017 24% of homes with children under eighteen are single-mother. A staggering 55.3% of Black mothers fall within this category. There is some hope, as a study highlighted by the New York Times showed that not only is your own father important, but in his absence, male role models in the community can fill the role of father and negate the deleterious effect of a fatherless home. This could mean reducing the numbers of youth suicides, rapists, high school dropouts, and incarcerations. The issue, however, is there are so many fatherless communities that don’t allow for the realization of this benefit.

My dad never sat me down and said, “son, don’t rape people.” In fact, he only gave me direct life instructions once and that was, “if you get a girl pregnant, you’re pregnant.” The reality was he didn’t have to directly define his expectations. By watching him and listening to him talk about movies or shows we watched, I was able to interpret the expectations of a man: provide and protect.

Provide: As a man, you are the provider for your family. This is not to say a woman can’t provide, but a man needs to be in a situation where he is capable of doing so no matter how arduous a job is. My dad demonstrates this by owning two businesses even though he would do fine in his primary career.

Protect: My dad’s catch phrase, “just kill ‘em,” is likely only slight hyperbole. He leaves no doubt that should something happen to my sister, myself, or anyone in the family they will face the wrath of a mad Morgan. There was never a time in my childhood I didn’t feel safe because I knew my dad would take care of anything that came up; witnessing one such occasion myself. And, after watching him throw bales of hay around I think I can objectively say my daddy can kick your daddy’s ass.

Those are the two basic tenets of being a man. My dad showed me how he exemplified them and now it’s up to me to determine my own way. I will never be as physically strong as my dad but because of what he has instilled in me I know there is no excuse to not be able to protect. I am on track for a comfortable career but I am well prepared to work beyond that if necessary and in fact I plan to.

It was not until I grew older that I realized my dad, while fulfilling the tenets as well as most men could hope to, was still flawed. This was not an earth-shattering experience: in fact it seemed only natural. He was human after all and only a human can be a hero.

I cannot explain why fathers are necessary. It’s not difficult for a mother to explain a man’s role to her son. Maybe the need boys experience for dads is scribbled across the Y chromosome. Maybe it’s because boys love their moms and if she picked your dad there must be something worthwhile there to learn. Regardless of your explanation, it is apparent fathers are the most important aspect for the development of boys and their continued absence will have a negative effect on society as a whole. So today, tell your dad happy Father’s Day or be a dad who deserves one.

Page 1 of 4