San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 26, 2015

Taylor Swift Is An Economic Nit-Wit

I didn't know who Taylor Swift was until a couple of days ago.  That is not surprising since I have learned that she is a country music star.  Despite growing up in a family that frequently played country music on the radio I never developed an appreciation for songs about liking one's dog and missing one's wife because a dunder-headed man got drunk one too many times.  Not only do I find the lyrics to be insipid, the twang that seems to accompany the music of every country song grates upon my eardrums like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But the Welsh motto is live and let live so I do not disparage those who find aesthetic enjoyment from country music.
Ms. Swift came to my attention because of an open letter she posted recently somewhere on the internet that received a lot of scrutiny.  The purpose of her letter was to address what she considered to be injustices involved in Apple's use of her songs in a new music service Apple has offered to the public.  Let me be the first to confess that I am not up on all of the current music services offered on the internet.  I still play my music on a CD player.  It was a significant personal challenge for me to move from a one CD changer to a six CD changer.  My wife has tried to get me to do all sorts of "I-things" with various musical devices but I have always resisted because they seem unnecessarily complicated to me.  A CD I understand.  Push it in and the music starts.  Press the button and it stops.  I can do without all of the fancy electronic gadgets.
Taylor's main beef, as I understand it, has to do with royalties she receives each time of one her songs is played, or downloaded, or purchased, or something, via the Apple program.  I know the music business has been running to the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika ever since I was born asking for protection of its alleged right to charge a surcharge every time a song is played on the public airwaves.  Swift's complaint is just another on a long list coming from artists who believe that once they create a song and sell it to the public they have a right to derive income from that song for the rest of their lives.  That is the issue I would like to address today.  In economics it is referred to as "copyright" and it has been a political hot button throughout the history of this sad country.  Although Ms. Swift is the impetus for this post, and a true economic nit-wit, you should not conclude that I am singling her out for her stupidity.   Anyone who believes in the moral propriety of copyrights is equally ill informed and, quite possibly, a worshiper of government.
The dubious rational basis for the belief in copyright is the proposition that if I have created an item of tangible or intellectual or creative property and then sold that property to the public, I have a moral right to derive an exclusive stream of income from that property for a period of time to be determined by the government.  The government enforces copyrights by refusing to allow any other person to derive any income from that protected property until the officially determined period of time ends.  Once a copyright expires the property is then described as being in the public domain and it may be used in any way the public deems desirable without penalty or the requirement to pay a royalty to the original creator. 
Artists love copyright because it allows them to make money for doing nothing.  I once read that the richest prisoner in the federal prison system was the fellow who co-wrote the song "Layla" back in the 1970s.  Ever time that song has been played he has received a couple of pennies.  Over time that built up to a huge reserve of cash.  Since the co-author was in prison there was not much to spend his money on and his royalty checks built up over the years.  If he ever gets out he will have a rich retirement, I am sure.  The point is, once a copyright on a song has been granted the author of the song gets paid every time it is played, sold or distributed.  Capture lighting in a bottle with a hit song and you can sit back and let the cash roll in the rest of your life.
Copyright is a government granted and enforced monopoly to profits that is almost always defended as necessary by strictly utilitarian arguments.  We are told that if an entreprenuer is not granted monopoly profits for a number of years he would not expend the time, energy and resources to first create a new good.  That may or may not be true.  I really don't care because utilitarian arguments are irrelevant.  The only question that needs to be answered is this....is a copyright moral?  The answer to that question is simple.  NO!
The government has no right to grant monopoly privileges to special groups of people.  The government has no right to tell other groups of people that they can't do something because someone else already holds a government copyright, patent or any alleged right to monopoly profits.  The government has no right to determine how long a particular person or group can garner monopoly profits before the good in question becomes public domain.  Indeed, the entire concept of granting monopoly profits hinges on a complete and total misunderstanding of the right to private property.   If a singer writes and song he is free to keep it to himself.  Nobody has a moral claim on his song and as long as he keeps it to himself nobody can earn any money by reproducing it.  But when a singer decides to take the song that he has written and sell it to someone else, as is the case when an Apple customer downloads a song, the singer gives up all rights of control over that song.  That song is no longer his exclusive property.  The person who paid the fee to download the song is now the exclusive owner of that song and he is free to do anything he wants with it, including reproducing it and selling it to others.
All attempts to control the use of items that are sold to others after the point of sale are immoral.  Unless the sales contract specifically says that certain uses of the good are not permitted after the point of sale the person making the purchase is free to do whatever he wants with the good he has purchased.  In reality, if a sales contract does reserve the right to determine how a good can be used by a purchaser after the purchase it is not technically a sale.  It is a rental.  Rental contracts can specify how a item is to be used.  Sales contracts give up all of those rights.  Vain attempts to control the future use of a good by declaring that purchasing the item is a tacit agreement to not reproduce it in the future, as software companies do all the time, are immoral precisely because the seller of the good cannot specify those conditions of future use for a good he no longer owns.  When I buy something from you it is no longer yours.  It is mine and I am free to do with it what I want.  If you don't like that then don't sell it to me.  What you cannot do is invoke the coercive power of government to try and force me to only use the good I purchased from you in a particular way. 
Musicians will decry the doctrine of the immorality of monopoly profits because they believe sales of their music will decline, and that may be true.  But that is the nature of the free market.  Nobody has the right to control the behavior of others.  When you sell something to someone else you give up all control over what you have sold.  If musicians do not like that they should go into another line of work.  Better yet, if musicians want to make more money they should hit the road and tour.  There is plenty of money to be made, especially if they have a couple of hit songs, from playing for live audiences.  If Taylor Swift does not like that she can marry a drunken wife beater with a dog.  That will give her plenty of fodder for future songs. What she needs to stop doing is running to the government and demanding that the government enforce her immoral monopoly.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Microaggressions

Have you heard about the latest fad on college campuses?  It is called microaggressions and the goal of its proponents is to create a new class of hate speech that will allow the objects of that hate speech to claim victim status and grant themselves special access to additional government privileges.  Harvard Medical School professor Chester Pierce came up with the term in the 1970s.  According to an article by Cass Sunstein (male) of Bloomberg News (really?  Bloomberg has descended to this level?), "microaggressions describe the kind of behavior that can really hurt -- and that deserves stigmatizing."  I first read about microaggressions about a month ago when I saw a story about a group of racial minority students protesting the actions of a professor at some California university, I forget which one.  They staged some sort of coup designed to get him fired for using all of the alleged microaggressive hate speech against them.  So just what sorts of things rise to the level of microaggressive hate speech?  The official definition given by Cass is, "words or behaviors that might stigmatize or humiliate women or members of minority groups, with particular emphasis on African-Americans, disabled people, and gays and lesbians."  Let me give you some examples from Sunstein's article:
  • It is a microaggression whenever a professor refers to African-Americans as "you people."
  • It is a microaggression whenever a professor approvingly states that a student "does not act like a normal black person."
  • It is a microaggression if you proclaim that today's African-American students are "amazingly articulate."
  • It is a microaggression if a professor informs a female student that she is "good at math."
  • It is a microaggression if a professor informs a female student that when he looks at her he "does not even think about your gender, I just see an outstanding young person."  
  • It is a microaggression if a university administrator expresses astonishment that a football star is gay.
  • It is a microaggression if a university administrator raises his voice when speaking to a blind person.
  • It is a microaggression if a university administrator mistakes a person of color for a service worker.
  • It is a microaggression if a university administrator assumes that a female medical student is training to be a nurse.
  • The University of Wisconsin has declared that microaggressions include a "statement made when whites deny their racial biases and statements made that indicate a white person does not want to acknowledge race."
Sunstein concludes that microaggressions "can be humiliating, especially if people are exposed to a lot of them.  In their worst forms they insult people's dignity, giving them a sense that important people think they don't really belong....persistent microaggressions make people think that they are second-class citizens -- and can impose real psychological damage....It is useful and important to identify and stigmatize the most serious microaggressions, which can be genuinely damaging."  
I don't know about you but I am feeling a lot of microaggressions right now.  I feel like I am under attack by blacks, cripples, women and homosexuals.  I feel that they are unwilling to acknowledge their innate bias against the Welsh.  As a result of their continuous stream of microaggressions I am beginning to feel like a second class citizen.  In fact, I think I have just now developed a mental illness.  My mental illness causes me to be insensitive to the use of microaggressions.  It is a defensive mental illness brought about by years of hearing people talk about how one person "welshed" another person by means of an immoral business transaction.  Regardless of the source of my mental illness, I suddenly feel the need to make some statements about the nature of the universe and my place in it.  Here they are:
  • I was at the gym yesterday and I saw a fat girl working out.  She wasn't sweating very much so I went up to her and complimented her by saying, "For a fat girl you don't sweat very much."
  • I went to a restaurant called the Celtic Tavern, in downtown Denver,  a couple of weeks ago.  While in the restaurant I saw an Irishman who wasn't drunk.  I went up to him and said, "Good for you.  You are the first sober Irishman I have seen this week."
  • After dinner I went to a Rockies game.  I was sitting in a seat just beyond the left field fence.  A black player for the other team made a fantastic play in which he jumped high into the air and robbed one of the Rockies of a home run.  Even though he played for the opposing team I shouted out praise to him.  I said, "Way to jump, homeboy!"
  • I went to my favorite Taco Bell for a couple of tacos yesterday.  As I walked in I saw a notice on the door informing me that they would be closing their doors that evening, never to open again.  Putting on my best sympathetic tone I went up to the manager and said, "What happened?  This is my favorite Taco Bell in town.  Did you run out of cheap wet-back labor?"
  • I had to spend about 15 minutes with a Scot last night.  It seemed like forever.  Finally I could stand it no longer and I blurted out, "You are attacking me with your microaggressions.  From now on every sentence you say must first be prefaced with the following statement, 'I will not deny my racial bias against the Welsh.'  After making that statement you may continue with what you have to say.  But make it short.  I have better things to do than waste my time talking to a cheap Scot."
  • I was riding my bike up a mountain road a week or so ago.  While riding along I slowly came up on a one-legged rider.  He looked to be about my age and he was peddling along at a slow pace up the hill.  Not wanting to be guilty of a microaggression by failing to recognize his disability, I stood up and sprinted past him.  As I flew past him I yelled, "Ha! Ha!  I beat you!  There isn't a fat woman or a one-legged guy I can't beat on this hill!"
  • I am guilty of one microaggression in the past month.  While attending a gala event a month or so ago I noticed two homosexuals holding hands under the dinner table.  I failed to go up to them and confirm their lifestyles.  I failed to affirm their choice of sex partner as moral and pleasing to God.  I failed them in every way because I ignored them.  I can see that I still have a lot of work to do to overcome my microaggressive behavior.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Sanders, Not The Colonel, Is A Socialist

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made an appearance in Colorado last week.  He gathered a large crowd of 5,000 people at a University of Denver gymnasium who cheered raucously as he delivered his message of hate for the free market.  Sanders is a 73 year old Independent who sounds like an old school Communist.   He decided to run against Hillary for the Democratic nomination for the next King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I think we all know that Hillary is destined to be the first Queen of the SDA.  It is inevitable.  Bernie Sanders, I like to call him the Colonel, believes that he can shake things up a bit and provide an alternative to what he perceives to be Hillary's centrism.  Let me tell you a bit about the Colonel's message to the Colorado faithful.
Before his speech the Colonel granted the Denver Post a brief interview and he said that, "I think there is a hunger on the part of Americans for some straight talk and some honesty."  What followed was anything but straight talk and honesty.  According to the Colonel, "what we are doing tonight is we are sending a message to the billionaire class, and that is:  You can't have it all!  The unquestionable greed of the billionaire class is destroying this nation, and it has got to end...I am creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up loudly and proudly proclaim that this nation and our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires."  Although there were no quotes about his hatred for corporations in the article that I read, the headline for the article was, "Sanders rips billionaires, corporations."  Let's consider some of the Colonels' comments for a moment.  But first, look at this graphic:



Maybe you have seen this box before.  It is used by many organizations who are attempting to rate the various candidates according to their views on a variety of topics.  This box represents the Colonel and shows that he is about as far to the left as he can get without falling out of the box.  He favors laws requiring businesses to hire women and minorities, regardless of their ability to do the job.  He believes Obamacare needs to be expanded to the point where all citizens of the SDA get free government provided medical care, well, almost all citizens.  The premiums for the government provided health insurance would be free to everyone but millionaires and billionaires.  Obviously he wants much higher taxes on "the rich" (never defined) because they are not paying their "fair share" (never defined).  He believes the government should subsidize the greenies and their various boondoggles and he opposes all free trade agreements of every sort.  He loves Social Security and would fight any attempt to privatize it.  He also strongly believes that the government is far more able to manage the economy than the free market can.  He never met a Fed stimulus he didn't like.  Conversely, he never met a profit seeking businessman he didn't hate.
Sanders believes that the "billionaire class" has somehow managed to structure the economic affairs of this country so that they now "have it all."  He sees his job as a modern Robin Hood, taking away the filthy lucre of the billionaires and giving it to everyone who votes for him. As far as I can tell the Colonel made no attempt to describe how it came to pass that the billionaire class managed to steal all of the wealth in this country.  He also made no attempt to describe how that wealth was created in the first place.  According to the Colonel wealth just magically appeared and then those evil billionaires conspired together to take all of it before the rest of us could figure out what they were doing.  Sanders has no clue as to how wealth is created.  He has no concept of what it means to serve others and to be financially rewarded with profits for doing so.  He cannot understand how it is that it is the very citizens of the SDA who are applauding his message of hate for the free market and profit seeking businessmen are the same people who made those billionaires he hates so much into the billionaires they are.  Every idiot who cheered his speech was likely holding a phone made by a billionaire.  Many of them were no doubt taking pictures of themselves as they derided the very men who created, designed, produced and sold them their phones.   Every numbskull who attended his rally also likely has a computer somewhere made by a billionaire.  Every envy-filled sinner who flailed about in ecstasy as he blamed rich people for all of the SDA's woes drove or was driven to the meeting in a car produced by a profit seeking corporation, probably headed by a billionaire.  Billionaires are billionaires because we, the rank and file, buy the goods they produce.  Colonel, please explain to me how that makes them evil.  I would also like to know why we are not evil since we are the ones who made them into billionaires.
The Colonel also believes that the "greed of the billionaire class" is destroying the nation, whatever that means.  He offers no additional insight into his position.  Every billionaire that I can read or discover biographical information about is famous for how much he or she has done to produce goods for the citizens of this nation for a price that we are all willing to pay.  How does that constitute greed on their part?  Far from being bad for the country, the tiny number of billionaires in the SDA pay an enormous amount of the total federal tax bill.  Since tax payments are calculated based upon income and not net worth it is impossible to say precisely how much they pay but it does stand to reason that the more you have the more you will pay.  Taxes on earned income, dividends, rents, royalties and capital gains for billionaires must be over the moon.  Colonel, just how much does this tiny class of SDA citizens have to pay in taxes before you will be satisfied?  Must they give you everything they make to make you happy? 
In a bizarrely inaccurate understanding of the way things work, the Colonel somehow has come to believe that billionaires have taken over the government and are using it to hold on to their wealth.  If that is true they are not doing a very good job of it.  If billionaires really wanted to keep their boots on the throats of the poor and if they really have all of the political power in what is essentially a democracy, how has it come to be that the upper 49% of the income population pays 95% of all the federal income taxes?  I think the Colonel has lost touch with reality on this one. When I look at the federal government I do not see capitalistic billionaires pulling the strings to their own advantage.  What I do see is hundreds of millionaire career politicians who have become millionaires by manipulating the system in their favor.  What I do see, unlike profit seeking corporations, is an entity that cares nothing about serving the public.  What I do see, unlike profit seeking corporations, is an entity that cares only about perpetuating itself at the expense of the public.  Colonel, please explain to me why it is not the case the the career political class is what is destroying this country.
Although the Colonel had promised to tell the truth when he spoke he did no such thing.  Let's be honest.  All the Colonel is doing is peddling old school communism, dressed up as democratic socialism.  He wants the government to run everything.  To garner that power for himself, after all he is a career politician, he panders to the masses by exploiting their sinful envy in his favor.  He tells them exactly what they want to hear. Everything the Colonel said during his trip to the University of Denver was economic nonsense.  Everything the Colonel said during his speech was shot through with sinful envy and hatred for people who are doing nothing more than serving the public the best they can, via the free market.  Meanwhile, social parasites like the Colonel receive standing ovations from crowds filled with economic idiots and envy-filled sinners who want nothing more than to live off the effort and income of others.  You know, I just might have to rethink my prediction about Queen Hillary.  The message brought by the Colonel resonates with the citizens of the SDA.  Maybe we will all be eating fried chicken a couple of years from now. 

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Only Idiots And Fools Care About Idolatrous Symbols

As all of the various special interest groups swarm down upon Charleston in multi-pronged attempts to exploit the situation in order to advance their agendas, one that has risen to the top in the popular discussion is the alleged impropriety of the state flag of South Carolina.  Let me be the first to admit that I am not a patriot.  By that I mean I do not worship the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Neither do I worship the government of the State of Colorado.  So when cloth symbols of the ever oppressing state are marched past me I do not get bleary eyed and choked up.  Indeed, just the opposite is the case.  I have a powerful negative reaction to idolatry.  I guess that is because I am a Christian.  Seeing people worship false gods always rubs me the wrong way.  So when I see people obsessively discussing a cloth symbol of state worship I get upset.
I grew up in the government schools and I was once a true patriot.  I knew all of the terms of the Code of Honor for the SDA flag and I would dutifully follow them.  I remember once, while taking down our family flag at night, tripping while walking back into the house and almost allowing the flag to touch the ground.  I was aghast at my potential sin and, as I correctly folded and stored the flag for the night, I vowed to never let that happen again.  I don't know what I would have done if the flag had actually touched the ground.  Perhaps I could have recited 50 Hail Obamas and flogged myself with a wet noodle 50 times.  Needless to say, I was well indoctrinated in government worship.  It took years to overcome that handicap.
I understand the utility of a flag.  A flag allows for quick identification of the national registration of ships.  It also allows for quick recognition of the thousands of enemies we are constantly in a state of war with.  Many flags, by means of the way they are designed, make comments about the particular history of a geo-political entity that is important to the people who live within it.  A flag has social utility in those senses and I have no problem with social utility.  My problem begins when men demand that I worship their idol.  That is when the line must be drawn. 
Apparently the flag of the State of South Carolina resembles the Confederate flag of the historic confederacy of southern states.  Given the fact that a racially motivated series of murders just took place in South Carolina, it makes perfect political sense that various groups of northerners would take this opportunity to agitate against the South Carolina flag.  It is easy to imagine the same sort of thing taking place if some sinful murderer had walked onto an Indian reservation and killed 9 Seminoles.  There would be immediate calls to change the names of various college mascots.  Social activists and other people who are unable to control themselves but spend all of their lives attempting to control others love these sorts of opportunities to get their faces plastered all over the public square.  Liberal white northerners are taking advantage of the Charleston murders to advance their agenda of anti-Confederacy.
Mitt Romney (remember him?) has come out to say that "many see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred" and tweeted that "South Carolina should remove it now to honor the Charleston victims."  That was a couple of days ago.  I awoke this morning to discover that the SC governor has declared that the flag is to be removed or changed or something.  I am not sure what she can do but her statement about wanting to do something has resulted in every state worshiper in the land getting all excited and agitated.  Many citizens of SC are quite properly telling the career politicians from other states to mind their own business.  In addition, many citizens of SC are quite proud of their cloth idol and have no inclination to change it whatsoever.  It is hard for northern white liberals to understand but for many southerners their flags are more than just a symbol of their desire to go around killing black people.  For many southerners their flags are symbols of the War of Northern Aggression and they proudly display them to remember their valiant fight for independence from the Union.
There is so much historical confusion surrounding the Civil War, largely due to the fact that the winner writes the history books that are used to indoctrinate all government school children in the state's official version of what happened.  Just the other day I had a plumber give me a lecture on how King Abraham Lincoln was forced to go to war against the Confederacy because, "despite giving them two warnings, they still refused to remain a part of the Union.  He just could not allow them to split off,"  I was informed.  The rather obvious fact that the plumber simply presupposed that federalism is gospel truth was lost upon him.  The little known and often ignored truth is a bit different.  According to Wikipedia, "At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying:  'A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction.'"  Although the right to secede is not specifically described in the Constitution, I believe it is an easy case to make that secession is not unconstitutional.  Lincoln, as is also not taught in government schools, was willing to allow those states south of the Mason-Dixon line to continue the practice of slavery, provided they remained members of the Union.  Lincoln was a government worshiping federalist, not a liberator of slaves.  If citizens of SC want to have an idol that reminds them of the fact that they were killed by the millions for attempting to secede from the SDA, what harm can there be in that?  To claim, as white liberal northerners love to do, that the Confederate flat is a symbol of the sin of slavery is specious at best, and a lie at worst.  
I have strayed far from my point so let me get back to the reason I decided to post on this topic.  In the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today all flags that represent various branches of the omnipresent and allegedly omnipotent and beneficent civil government are little more than idols.  They are treated as the idolatrous symbols of pagan gods have been treated throughout history.  Those who do not bow down to the idol are punished.  When a batch of dirty foreigners, all of whom deserve to be killed by the way, are conquered, the first thing that is done is to remove their idol and replace it with the true idol.  Busy-bodies and other obsessive-compulsive controlling types are exploiting the Charleston tragedy in an attempt to impose their will on people who are not under their authority.  They are doing it in the name of their god, just as the people of SC are operating in the name of their god.  The one thing they all agree upon, and which is also lost upon all of them, is they are all nothing more than a filthy, vile, disgusting batch of idolaters who worship the government and its caste of priests known as career politicians.  Idiots and fools, all of them.

Three Observations About Charleston

I have been out of town for a few days and I returned home to the firestorm of news coverage that is associated with the shootings in the Charleston church.  I was not surprised to see the usual things being said by the usual people.  One group of people is saying that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika needs more gun control laws, or better yet, a complete ban on all firearms.  Another group of people is saying that the SDA needs more education since, as one letter writer put it, "People are not born racist....they are taught and learn to be racist by example."  Her solution to the problem of murder and murderers was more government schooling.  Yet another group believes that the problem is entirely one of mental illness and the alleged inadequate response to the problem by the federal government.  "Inadequate response," of course, means throwing more taxpayer dollars into the hands of government trained mental health experts.  Only then, they tell us, can the problem of human evil be solved.  All of these groups are idiotic and their solutions to the problem of human evil, even if implemented with unlimited government funding, will never have the slightest impact upon the problem. Before I give you my solution to the problem of human evil, allow me to make three observations on what has been going on in Charleston.
The first and most dominant response to the murderer that I have seen in the articles I have read indicates a grossly distorted doctrine of forgiveness.  The Denver Post has dedicated the front page headline of several editions to expounding the corrupt doctrine of forgiveness being practiced by the members of the church in Charleston.  Saturday's edition said, "Ungodly Deed Forgiven."  There is no evidence that the murderer has asked forgiveness of anyone for his deeds.  That does not stop the members and leaders of the Charleston church from making blanket pronouncements of unilateral forgiveness upon him.  Secular God-hating newspapers love this sort of thing.  It allows them to continue to trumpet the doctrine that God is in the business of unilateral forgiveness and everyone will eventually get to heaven because God is somehow compelled to forgive everyone. Rubbish and nonsense. 
Make no mistake about it, nobody should ever forgive another person if that person has not first asked for forgiveness and then followed that request up with deeds indicating genuine repentance and the desire to make things right.  Even God Himself does not unilaterally forgive anyone.  I am always amazed at how Evangelicals can get this doctrine so messed up.  They tell people all the time, when engaged in the practice they call witnessing, that God will not override the free will of men and force them to do things against their will.  No, they claim, God patiently waits for men to reach out to HIm and receive the free gift of forgiveness being offered in the atonement made possible by the Second Person of the Trinity.  If God will not forgive anyone unless he first repents, why should Christians be required to do so?  The answer to that question is easy...they should not.
Telling the murderer that he is forgiven prior to any action on his part sends out the clear message to him and everyone else that justice is irrelevant and that God has no opinion about what should be done to murderers.  According to the biblical doctrine of forgiveness only the victim of a sin/crime has the right to forgive.  Nobody can forgive another person by proxy.  It therefore necessarily follows that people who murder others cannot be forgiven for their sins because the victims are dead.  There is a class of sins found in the Bible for which God says the perpetrators are to be immediately executed, with no opportunity for a lesser sentence.  Murder is one of those sins.  It is God's revealed will that murderers be immediately sent to His throne room for His most holy and perfect judgment.
I am also bothered by the fact that racism is the only issue that is being discussed.  Granted, the prime motivation for this group of murders does appear to be racial, but religious motivations may be in play as well.  How would the media report a case where 9 Jews were gunned down in a synagogue by a black man?   Do you believe that it would be called racism?  I think we all know the headline would talk about antisemitism. How do you think the report of 9 Muslims being gunned down by a white guy would be reported?  Do you believe it would be called racism?  I think we all know it would be called a hate-crime against Muslims.  The Charleston murderer made the conscious decision to murder 9 black people, that is true, but all nine of them were professing Christians.  Where is the report about that?  He could just as easily have gone into a black neighborhood and gunned down 9 random citizens.  Why did he choose to kill Christians? Why is that not newsworthy?  I think we all know the answer to that question.  In the SDA Christians are irrelevant.  Jews count.  Muslims count.  Even witches and warlocks count.  But in the SDA Christians do not count.   Let me ask you, do you think the Charleston shootings would be getting anywhere near the amount of press coverage they are getting if the victims had been white Christians?
All of the usual hand-wringing is going on as people who should keep their mouths shut blabber on and on about why the murders happened.  I am always amazed at how the act of murder is somehow couched in passive terms.  The word 'happened' is the favorite choice of folks who want to assign some socio-economic cause to murder.  Let's get one thing straight, murders happen because murderers kill people.  Why do murderers kill people?  Because they want to.  The elephant in the room that everyone is striving so mightily to ignore is the fact of innate human sinfulness.  The Charleston murderer did not kill those people because he did not have a good government school education.  Neither did he kill those people because he is mentally ill.  Nor did he kill them because he had easy access to a gun.  He killed them for one simple reason....he wanted to.  And why did he want to?  Because he is a sinner, just like every other human being who has ever existed.  The solution to the problem of human evil is not government schooling or psychiatric counseling or reams of new laws created by Congress.  The solution to the problem of human evil is to change the nature of the human heart and only God can do that.  Meanwhile, men would be well advised to stop playing God and simply do what He has told us to do.  Punish evil rightly.  In this case, execute the murderer immediately so that God can deal with him.
Although human sinfulness is sufficient cause for murderer, in the case of many recent high profile mass murders there is a proximate cause as well.  Almost all mass murderers have been taking government approved and administered mind altering drugs.  I have posted about this topic before.  If you want to see the updated list of mass murderers who are taking government approved and administered drugs, go here.