Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Open Letter to the Editor Re: Confederate Statue on Georgetown Courthouse Lawn

August 30, 2017

The Williamson County Sun
Georgetown, TX

An Open Letter to the Editor in Reply to the editorial “Fight symbols—or problems?” 

Dear Editor:

The August 30, 2017 editorial “Fight symbols—or problems?” indicated a cloudy editorial attitude regarding the growing issue facing Williamson County and the city of Georgetown over the United Daughters of the Confederacy statue that defaces the lawn of our historic courthouse and downtown.  I will address each major point made in the editorial, and I apologize in advance for the length.  Hopefully, the length will not be a deterrent to reading with a mind open to hearing a more nuanced point of view on the topic.

If the fight continues, it will give white supremacists a local cause and publicity they did not have before and will result in growing their numbers.

You are using a non sequitur here (something that does not follow) to attempt to play on people’s fears.  The issue here revolves around a desire by some to move a statue that venerates soldiers who were insurrectionists against our own country, seceded from our own country, and fought (and killed) men from our country.  These men were fighting for one singular issue:  To assert their own supremacy as white men and continue the debased practice of enslaving people with brown skin.  As evidence, simply look at the Declaration of Causes of Texas secession from February 2, 1861:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
[Emphasis Mine]

No matter how much the post-Reconstruction propagandists have worked to reframe the conflict as some sort of divinely patriotic fight against an over-reaching government, the bottom-line is that the moral underpinning of their argument always goes back to the indisputably immoral practice of slavery—a problem our country had been struggling with since before the Constitution was even written.  The tide of history had finally turned and the southern states formed their own government and then waged war on the United States of America.  Those who participated were anything but patriots to our country. 

If we’re being charitable, perhaps they could be called patriots of the Confederate States of America, but it stretches all concepts of patriotism and love of our country to exalt enemies of the United States of America even in light of Lincoln and his successors magnanimously pursuing a sort-of surgical reattachment of the severed limb known as the CSA .  Whether Reconstruction was the best way to accomplish this is a separate debate.  We really can only speak to where we are now in terms of the issue at hand – whether it continues to be appropriate in 2017 to maintain memorials in the public arena that glorify the Confederacy.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 2:  Fighting for removal of the statue will bring in outsiders who just want to cause trouble.

This is a commonly used argument that holds no merit.  In fact, when local residents showed up to address the issue with the city council, the knee-jerk response by those on social media and in formal media was to make assertions, without evidence, that these concerned citizens were “plants” or “transplants” or even “bussed here from Austin.”  This is another useless argument that does nothing other than prop up some imaginary outsider “boogeyman” as a villain to feed emotionality rather than rationality.  Pushing the implication that anyone local would be intrinsically opposed to positive change is not only false but absurd.  And yet, it seems entrenched in the commentary culture of Georgetown.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 3:  Posing the removal as a two-value question—for or against racism—turns the issue into a litmus-test of goodness and creates a fake fight to polarize people.

Yes.  Posing the removal as a “for or against racism” certainly is a polarizing way to approach it.  However, the people I speak with about this topic do not frame it in those ways.  I mostly only hear that argument from the side that wants to keep the statue as they attempt to dubiously reframe the issue as a way of buttressing their own shaky position.  It is similar to the pattern of reframing the issue as one about weak sensitive types being indefinably “offended” as a way of devaluing and dismissing the other side without actually hearing their concerns.

Those of us arguing to move the statue to a more appropriate location—such as a local museum or cemetery—are not framing the issue as a two-value question for or against racism.  We are framing it as an issue about societal growth and cultural appropriateness.  The racism that undergirded the war between the USA and the CSA is not actually the issue, although it is not irrelevant to the issue either.  There is a profound inappropriateness to the idea of maintaining a monument venerating those who fought against our country with imagery of (1) an armed Confederate soldier, (2) a branding image of “CSA” which was a country formed in rebellion against the USA, (3) the battle flag of the Confederacy which has evolved to become a symbol of hate flown as a mark of intimidation towards other Americans and to elevate the insurrectionist Confederacy as some sort of divinely right cause, and (4) “No Braver Patriots Ever Fought. No Braver Deeds Were Ever Wrought.” engraved prominently.  This is not only offensive to everyone who fought for the Union and were killed by the insurrectionists but also with the hindsight of a hundred years it has become increasingly offensive as the only downtown marker we have honoring our soldiers.  It leaves the Georgetown historic downtown looking as if the only soldiers this community values are those who fought against our country rather than those who fought for it. 

And as a sidebar, it occurs to me after doing some research, that it is extremely odd that  we in Georgetown and Williamson Country have chosen to allow and maintain this blight on our historic courthouse lawn in light of the fact that Williamson County was one of the few counties who actually voted against secession.  That is historic and well worth erecting a monument in recognition of our forebearers for being on the right side of history at that important moment.  Rather than glorifying those who fought against our country for the right to keep owning slaves, perhaps we might want to consider lifting up those in our county who did not agree with that decision.

Just a thought.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 4:  Fighting over the courthouse statue is just attacking symbols and hardening opinions and will lead to less calm and less respectful discussion.

I disagree.  A hundred years of having that statue standing there and people like me walking by and just rolling our eyes or tsk-tsk-ing about it have done nothing to encourage respectful debate or bring any change.  Avoiding the topic does not make it go away—it just keeps the cover on a silently simmering pot until one day the pot starts boiling over and then it is too late.

The key point here is that I have noticed and muttered about that statue.  And so have many others.  The events in Charlottesville brought our attention back to that simmering pot and we are not content to just ignore it anymore and wait for the boil.  It’s an embarrassment to have the “most beautiful downtown in America” where the single most prominent marker is one that lifts up and glorifies the Confederacy. That should prompt action at this point in our country’s history to stop the southern whitewashing of our history and be clear and honest about our shared past.

I know how difficult it is to change.  Change is not easy.  We have a built-in safety valve as human beings to resist change.  For example, the Supreme Court uses stare decisis to hold onto past decisions even when they seem out of step with the times.  But even the Supreme Court has made profound reversals in their thinking when the issue is substantively important.  One of the important factors considered by the Court is whether the current state of the country and our perceptions of facts have changed (ending segregated schools, for example). To believe that we, in 2017, have the same prejudicial mindset as the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1916 is absurd to the point of being joke-worthy.  But the fact that so many stubbornly choose to keep two fingers in their ears and their eyes closed so as to avoid having to admit that perhaps they’ve been thinking about this issue wrongly for most of their life should bother anyone who is open to self-growth and community growth.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 5:  Those who push for removal of the statue are elevating the moral authority of the supremacist by placing them into defensive mode.

Were this argument valid, then any attempt to aggressively right a wrong or fight a war for a right cause would be defeated by this same sort of illogical proposition.  Pushing white supremacists so that they are figuratively “on the ropes” in no way elevates them morally.  In truth, the fact that there even is a fight over this issue is the result of obstinate people unwilling to even consider the reality that cultural standards have changed and what was, at best, arguably appropriate in 1916 is not necessarily appropriate in 2017.  This “fight” you speak of is only a “fight” because those who want to keep the statue find it easier to force a fight than have the difficult conversation.  And the only reason someone forces a fight to avoid a conversation is because deep-down they know their position is rooted in questionable nostalgia rather than a foundation of rational reason.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 6:  Fighting over symbols is a distraction from the more important work of healing.

This is not ultimately a fight over symbols.  And this issue is also not a distraction from the important work of healing.  In fact, the courageous conversation being pushed right now is of the height of importance to the substantive work of healing. 

When secession happened, it was as if someone severed a limb from our collective body.  The Reconstruction Era was an attempt to graft that limb back on and begin healing.  But a few decades later, with the rise of the new Ku Klux Klan and other segregationist organizations that glorified the cause of the Confederacy, that healing process was stunted as the Jim Crow era began and these generic pro-Confederacy monuments were erected en masse across the South.  Every time a citizen of our country saw a “Whites” and “Colored” sign distinction; every time a citizen of our country watched fellow citizens forced to the back of the bus; and every time a citizen of our country has had to walk around town squares seeing Confederate soldiers and flags raised up in pseudo-worship it has picked at the scabs and kept that surgical wound raw and infected.  This is where we are now.  To keep these types of monuments in place is to accept cultural gangrene rather than remove the infection and allow the wound to finally heal.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 7:  Speaking up about this is political and is an example of the Democrats falling into a Republican trap.

This is overly simplistic and wrong because this is not actually a political issue—this is a cultural and moral issue.  It does not matter if the president frames it as “taking away our history.”  He is objectively wrong on this topic.  Aside from the anarchists (who are not actually on either side of the issue) who are just feeding the flames of chaos that they need to exist, this is not about Democrats or Republicans.  Those who push that dichotomy are using it as a way to avoid thinking about the issue.   As soon as someone starts hurling the Democrat or Republican label around with this issue it becomes an epithet and is a way of halting the conversation and I am unwilling to allow that.  Politicizing this issue is simply a way of avoiding it.  Media claims of political bandwagoning actually distract from the substance of the issue and impede the healing.

TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 8:  Fighting over symbols prevents us from tackling substance and will set back race relations.

Symbols are substantive.  If you do not believe me then take an American flag to a Veterans Memorial celebration on Memorial Day and stand up in front of everyone and start burning it.  The reaction would be swift and strong. Why?  Because symbols mean things and they are substantive.  And more importantly, symbols can change.  As I mentioned earlier, a symbol that might arguably be appropriate at one time in history does not guarantee it is appropriate forever. 

The courageous conversation is not about symbols in the abstract.  It is about the substance behind the symbols.  And the only way that symbols override that substance is if we allow the conversation to stop and devolve into chants and riots.  When I listen to the voices raised in support of moving the statue, I do not hear support for illegal actions or vandalism.  That sort of behavior is the purview of anarchists who have no moral high ground to stand on.  I see and hear people in our community who are desperately seeking a real conversation and opportunities to be heard on this issue without being shut down by closed-off thinking and propagandist slogans.  And it is particularly disturbing when the journalistic voice for the area becomes tone-deaf to the situation and misses the point entirely.

What will “set back race relations” is to continue pretending  there is a moral equivalency between the Union and the Confederacy.  We all know that the issues that led to the War Between the States were more complicated than just slavery.  However, by the time  secession occurred, as evidenced above by Texas’ language in their Declaration of Causes of Secession, the explicit reason for the War was to assert the supremacy of the “White Race” and the inferiority of the “Black Race.”  And that should be universally abhorrent to any thinking American as should flying  the Confederate battle flag and especially to erecting monuments lionizing that despicable cause.


Keith Howell

Georgetown Resident

Wednesday, March 1, 2017


My current reading includes an interesting book from 2015 by author Michael Shermer entitled The Moral Arc: How Science Leads Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom.  In light of the current political and social trends since the current president took office in January, I thought it might be beneficial to distill and share a chunk of information from the tail end of Chapter 2 regarding terrorism in light of the ongoing attempts by government representatives to foment fear as a method of distraction and control of the citizenry.

Let me start by first dealing with what terrorism actually is.  According to Shermer, "[t]errorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare by nonstate actors against innocent, noncombatant civilians. As its name suggests, it does so by evoking terror.  This exercises our alarmist emotions, which in turn confound our reasoning, making clear thinking about terrorism well nigh impossible."  However..."[d]espite the seemingly constant barrage of media stories of suicide bombers blowing themselves up, the long-term trends in social change over the past half century are in the direction of less violence and more moral action, even with terrorism."

So, Shermer then presents 7 myths about terrorism and explains briefly why they are myths and not truths.


Actually, "[i]n a study of fifty-two cases of Islamic extremists who have targeted the United States, for instance...terrorist motives include instrumental violence and revenge" stemming from the United States interventionist foreign policy.  Religious ideology "was a part of the consideration for most" but it was not because they were attempting to spread Sharia law but rather generated by a protectionist fear of what is seen as a war against them by the United States government.  The other motivation was "dominance and honor," that is the desire by mostly young students and immigrants to establish a heightened status for them and their families.


As much as we speak of the Taliban and ISIS/ISIL, the reality is that this idea of a "vast global network of top-down, centrally controlled conspiracies against the West" are not true.  Terrorism is decentralized and tends to be a "constantly evolving complext of social networks."


Actually, if we look here to the US, aside from the most obvious event of the 9/11 attack, which itself was pretty clearly more successful than the terrorists themselves even expected, terrorists are more often caught quickly and successfully or wind up doing more harm to themselves than those around them.


Studies show that terrorists "instead of being drawn from the ranks of the poor...[they] tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families.


"In comparison to homicides in America, deaths from terrorism are in the statistical noise, barely a blip on a graph compared to the 13,700 homicides a year.  By comparison, after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, the total number of people killed by terrorists in the 38 years before totals 340, and the number killed after 9/11 and including the Boston boming is 33, and that includes the 13 soldiers killed in the Fort Hood 2009.  That's a total of 373 killed, or 7.8 per year.  Even if we include the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11, that brings the average annual total to 70.3 compared to that of the annual homicide rate of 13,700."


Regardless of the scare language of politicians seeking votes and money, "most experts agree that acquiring the necessary materials and knowledge for building either weapon is far beyond the reach of most (if not all) terrorists."  In case you didn't know it, there's still never been a single case of a successful casualty-inducing detonation of a dirty bomb by a terrorist group. Also chemical and nuclear weapons attempts by terrorists have demonstrated them to be incompetent in this area as well.  "In short, the chances of terrorists successfully building and launching a nuclear device of any sort are so low that we would be better off investing our limited resources in diffusing the problem of terrorism in other areas."

If you're wondering just how difficult it is to make an atomic bomb, here's an excerpt from an old Analog article entitled "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood":

As a terrorist one of the best methods for your purposes is the gaseous diffusion approach.  This was the one used for the earliest A-bombs, and in many respects it is the most reliable and requires the least sophisticated technology.  It is, however, a bit expensive and does require certain chemicals apt to raise a few eyebrows.  You have to start with something on the order of a dozen miles of special glass-lined steel tubing and about sixty tons of hydrofluoric acid which can be employed to create the compound uranium-hexafluoride.  Once your uranium has been converted into hexafluoride it can be blown up against a number of special low-porosity membranes.  The molecules of uranium hexafluoride which contain an atom of U-238 are somewhat heavier than those containing an atom of U-235.  As the gas is blown across the membranes more of the heavier molecules are trapped than the light ones.  The area on the other side of the membrane is thus further enriched with the U-235 containing material; possibly by as much as 1/2% per pass.  Repeat this enough times and you wind up with uranium hexafluoride containing virtually 100% core atoms of U-235.  You then separate the fluorine from the uranium and arrive at a nice little pile of domesticated U-235.  From there it's all downhill.