There is bipartison support in the West Virginia Legislature for a proposal that welfare recipients be drug tested upon a “reasonable suspicion.”
This is NOT because these people are poor and have zero support in the Legislature. One legislator has called it “a compassionate approach.” Let’s start by acknowledging that State money should not be spent on illegal drugs. It’s offends the people of West Virginia.
But in fact, this proposal is FAR to timid. The proposal doesn’t really touch the drug trade. It’s highly moral, but ineffective as written. We can do better.
About 2,000 welfare (TANF) recipients will be affected. Let’s take a scientific wild guess that this group spends 10% on illegal drugs. That’s the equivalent of 200 welfare checks going to criminals. It is right that we intercept that money.
But the state has 65,000 employees. If they are much more law abiding than TANF recipients, we can take another scientific wild guess that only 1% of their state money goes to criminals. But if that’s so, that’s the equivalent of 650 much larger paychecks going to drug dealers. If we are going to honestly attack the drug trade, let’s really attack it. The State is the biggest employer in West Virginia. The U.S. Government is number two. And U.S. employees make 75% more than people in private industry doing similar jobs. Might we not find that this largely law abiding group is responsible for far more drug profits than welfare people? Surely, we can find reasonable suspicion on some government employees.
And that includes the Legislature.
This is a moral issue. West Virginians don’t want people passing laws who are whacked out on drugs. In 1974, during a legislative session, I was in the bar of the Daniel Boone Hotel. There was a quorum of the West Virginia Senate there, most of whom were intoxicated. In 2015, what is their drug of choice? We have only to test to find out. They have nothing to fear.
Only a druggie has anything to fear from a drug test. One would think that people would be happy to be tested and to take a firm stand against drugs. All that is required of any citizen is that he or she follow the law.
So how about it?
Or is the truth that we really ARE picking on poor people -- just because we can?
Mizpah.
25 January 2016
22 January 2016
The Church, the Emergency Responders and the Snowy Night
Right now, lots of people are working for all of us, bad though the weather may be. 911 dispatchers, firefighters, EMS people, police officers, water operators, road crews all are on a 12 on/12 off schedule. A meditation from me was recently published by the West Virginia Region of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ):
from Roger Curry, Diaconal Minister for the Region…
A fire engine passes your church during worship. They are on their way to a fire. How does the congregation react?
Well, the siren and the air horns are LOUD. You might have to pause the service for a few seconds until the din dies down. It’s no more than a minor inconvenience.
Is that it?
May it shouldn’t be.
Years ago, I worked as a paramedic at a busy station. Often, I worked on Sunday. Rescue 20 was located near a large Methodist Church. We had to drive up a side street to the church to turn onto Main Street. Often, we wondered aloud what the people in the service were thinking.
The partner I usually worked with was something of a philosopher. He wondered if the people in the church paused to pray for the person we were going after or for us. And sometimes, he said, hey, they’re in church, but so are we.
The Emergency Services - Fire Departments, Emergency Medical Services, and Police Departments - live the spirit of James:
These people serve all of mankind. They occasionally are in fear when they do it, but they’ll seldom tell anyone about it. Listen on Youtube to the phone messages left by responders on the way to the 2001 World Trade Center attacks. Lots of them told their families that they may not survive this call, and that they loved them. And many did not survive. But, knowing that, they still ran into the burning buildings.
This happens on a smaller scale every day. The police officer runs the risk of being shot or having a car wreck. EMS people face diseases, car wrecks and when they are flight medics, they face air crashes. Firefighters risk their lives with fire, and with confined space rescues. When a firefighter enters a burning building, usually the smoke is so thick that s/he’s blind. They’ll only see a faint glow across the room and know where to aim the nozzle. They search for victims by touch and if they need to get out of the building, all they can do is follow the hose. If you are watching a fire and the chauffeurs all start blowing their air horns, that’s the signal that the fire is going badly and for everybody to get out of the building. Then they run a “PAR,” meaning that they have to make sure everybody got out.
They particularly fear emergency calls at a church. A fire in a church is bad. They are usually unoccupied, so they are not noticed until they extend. And a church offers big, open spaces for a fire to extend rapidly.
Many emergency responders do not attend church. Most work at least two jobs - we don’t pay these people very well at all. Some of them, the volunteers, do the work for free.
That does not mean that they are not followers of the Christ of all crises. How can they not be? I’m thinking of things I’ve seen, things my friends have seen and things my son - a firefighter-paramedic - has seen. But I cannot write them down here. Stephen King would find them too upsetting and too disgusting for one of his horror novels. But we as a society, and we as a church, are content with letting these emergency servants deal with what we cannot even think about. Their “day at the office” is not our “day at the office.”
What can we as a church, we as true Disciples of Christ do?
The answer isn’t hard. As a church, we need to do what we have done since the Apostles last saw Jesus in the flesh – Pray. And reach out. When that fire engine passes the church during service, someone is in trouble. They are no doubt waiting and hoping to hear the sounds of sirens, which mean that someone is putting themselves in danger to help.
Somewhere, I heard a prayer:
Perhaps it’s appropriate to pause in the service for that prayer or something like it.
Reach out. There are lots of ways to do that Remember that the people are on duty 24/7/365. Through Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, through floods and snow, police are out patrolling. In fire and rescue stations, the trucks stand in a quiet garage with their doors open, helmets on the seats and a coat on the door. Day or night, when a call is dispatched, in less than a minute, you can see the lights go on, the doors go up and the first truck “bust the doors.”
Do you ever visit these people? Actually, they are very nice and they LIKE visitors. They like people to express an interest in them and in what they do. They are proud people. These are caring people. And so seldom does anyone they help ever thank them. I still remember that 30 years ago, our station getting a card from a patient. I even remember his name, Leroy from Chicago. Leroy rolled his semi- over a hill and was badly injured and trapped in the truck. His letter was so heartfelt and so unusual that we all still remember it.
It’s sad that this is so rare. A few years ago, a huge 1920's country club building caught on fire late one evening. It was in an area served by a volunteer fire department. Ultimately, it went to four alarms and ten fire departments were working. Several firefighters were hurt, one seriously when a wall collapsed. The volunteers were there till late the next morning. What do they most remember about that fire? That nobody thanked them.
It doesn’t take much. A “Thank you,” or “We’re glad you’re on the job,” goes a long way. On a hot afternoon, when you see a police officer directing traffic you might ask, What would Jesus do? Well, he might stop at the convenience store and drop off a bottle of iced tea to the officer. At a winter DUI checkpoint, I’ve seen police officers act like kids on Christmas when someone drops off a tray of coffee from McDonald’s.
Invite these people into the house of the Lord. Those who travel the streets need to know where they can go to the bathroom or maybe get a cup of coffee. In the Middle Ages, a church was a sanctuary. There’s no reason it cannot be now. Call the Chief of the Department and offer. It will be appreciated.
When you have a special service or a dinner, go down to your local fire station or rescue station, and tell them that they are welcome. Tell the police officer assigned to that part of town that they are welcome. And then make them FEEL welcome. All you have to do is provide a parking place for the fire trucks in case they need to leave in a hurry. (Warning: These are young and very active people. They burn a lot of calories.)
And keep reaching out. Give these people your time. Time to know you. Time to see that you are on their side and that you appreciate them. Time to listen as they s-l-o-w-l-y begin to open up to you. The emergency responders are a special group of “the least of these” whom Christ told us to care for.
By and large, these people follow the dictates of some religion. Many are Christian, many follow Jesus the Christ. If you doubt that, go to one of their service funerals. At the end of a service funeral, the service of the Last Alarm is conducted, sometimes called “the Last Call.” You can find lots of examples on Youtube. The dispatchers clear a radio frequency, and announce that this is the Last Call for Paramedic Mary Jones. The dispatcher calls her on the radio: “Dispatch to Unit342.” Silence. “Dispatch to Unit 342." Silence. “This is the Last Call for Unit 342, Paramedic Mary Jones. She does not answer. She is now serving the Lord. We love you, Mary.” And then, turn and look at the people who are in uniform. And you will see God.
Mizpah.
from Roger Curry, Diaconal Minister for the Region…
A fire engine passes your church during worship. They are on their way to a fire. How does the congregation react?
Well, the siren and the air horns are LOUD. You might have to pause the service for a few seconds until the din dies down. It’s no more than a minor inconvenience.
Is that it?
May it shouldn’t be.
Years ago, I worked as a paramedic at a busy station. Often, I worked on Sunday. Rescue 20 was located near a large Methodist Church. We had to drive up a side street to the church to turn onto Main Street. Often, we wondered aloud what the people in the service were thinking.
The partner I usually worked with was something of a philosopher. He wondered if the people in the church paused to pray for the person we were going after or for us. And sometimes, he said, hey, they’re in church, but so are we.
The Emergency Services - Fire Departments, Emergency Medical Services, and Police Departments - live the spirit of James:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
James 2:14 - 17, NASB
These people serve all of mankind. They occasionally are in fear when they do it, but they’ll seldom tell anyone about it. Listen on Youtube to the phone messages left by responders on the way to the 2001 World Trade Center attacks. Lots of them told their families that they may not survive this call, and that they loved them. And many did not survive. But, knowing that, they still ran into the burning buildings.
This happens on a smaller scale every day. The police officer runs the risk of being shot or having a car wreck. EMS people face diseases, car wrecks and when they are flight medics, they face air crashes. Firefighters risk their lives with fire, and with confined space rescues. When a firefighter enters a burning building, usually the smoke is so thick that s/he’s blind. They’ll only see a faint glow across the room and know where to aim the nozzle. They search for victims by touch and if they need to get out of the building, all they can do is follow the hose. If you are watching a fire and the chauffeurs all start blowing their air horns, that’s the signal that the fire is going badly and for everybody to get out of the building. Then they run a “PAR,” meaning that they have to make sure everybody got out.
They particularly fear emergency calls at a church. A fire in a church is bad. They are usually unoccupied, so they are not noticed until they extend. And a church offers big, open spaces for a fire to extend rapidly.
Many emergency responders do not attend church. Most work at least two jobs - we don’t pay these people very well at all. Some of them, the volunteers, do the work for free.
That does not mean that they are not followers of the Christ of all crises. How can they not be? I’m thinking of things I’ve seen, things my friends have seen and things my son - a firefighter-paramedic - has seen. But I cannot write them down here. Stephen King would find them too upsetting and too disgusting for one of his horror novels. But we as a society, and we as a church, are content with letting these emergency servants deal with what we cannot even think about. Their “day at the office” is not our “day at the office.”
What can we as a church, we as true Disciples of Christ do?
The answer isn’t hard. As a church, we need to do what we have done since the Apostles last saw Jesus in the flesh – Pray. And reach out. When that fire engine passes the church during service, someone is in trouble. They are no doubt waiting and hoping to hear the sounds of sirens, which mean that someone is putting themselves in danger to help.
Somewhere, I heard a prayer:
The sounds of a siren.
Someone’s in trouble.
God have mercy.
The sounds of a siren.
Help is on the way.
Thanks be to God.
Perhaps it’s appropriate to pause in the service for that prayer or something like it.
Reach out. There are lots of ways to do that Remember that the people are on duty 24/7/365. Through Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, through floods and snow, police are out patrolling. In fire and rescue stations, the trucks stand in a quiet garage with their doors open, helmets on the seats and a coat on the door. Day or night, when a call is dispatched, in less than a minute, you can see the lights go on, the doors go up and the first truck “bust the doors.”
Do you ever visit these people? Actually, they are very nice and they LIKE visitors. They like people to express an interest in them and in what they do. They are proud people. These are caring people. And so seldom does anyone they help ever thank them. I still remember that 30 years ago, our station getting a card from a patient. I even remember his name, Leroy from Chicago. Leroy rolled his semi- over a hill and was badly injured and trapped in the truck. His letter was so heartfelt and so unusual that we all still remember it.
It’s sad that this is so rare. A few years ago, a huge 1920's country club building caught on fire late one evening. It was in an area served by a volunteer fire department. Ultimately, it went to four alarms and ten fire departments were working. Several firefighters were hurt, one seriously when a wall collapsed. The volunteers were there till late the next morning. What do they most remember about that fire? That nobody thanked them.
It doesn’t take much. A “Thank you,” or “We’re glad you’re on the job,” goes a long way. On a hot afternoon, when you see a police officer directing traffic you might ask, What would Jesus do? Well, he might stop at the convenience store and drop off a bottle of iced tea to the officer. At a winter DUI checkpoint, I’ve seen police officers act like kids on Christmas when someone drops off a tray of coffee from McDonald’s.
Invite these people into the house of the Lord. Those who travel the streets need to know where they can go to the bathroom or maybe get a cup of coffee. In the Middle Ages, a church was a sanctuary. There’s no reason it cannot be now. Call the Chief of the Department and offer. It will be appreciated.
When you have a special service or a dinner, go down to your local fire station or rescue station, and tell them that they are welcome. Tell the police officer assigned to that part of town that they are welcome. And then make them FEEL welcome. All you have to do is provide a parking place for the fire trucks in case they need to leave in a hurry. (Warning: These are young and very active people. They burn a lot of calories.)
And keep reaching out. Give these people your time. Time to know you. Time to see that you are on their side and that you appreciate them. Time to listen as they s-l-o-w-l-y begin to open up to you. The emergency responders are a special group of “the least of these” whom Christ told us to care for.
By and large, these people follow the dictates of some religion. Many are Christian, many follow Jesus the Christ. If you doubt that, go to one of their service funerals. At the end of a service funeral, the service of the Last Alarm is conducted, sometimes called “the Last Call.” You can find lots of examples on Youtube. The dispatchers clear a radio frequency, and announce that this is the Last Call for Paramedic Mary Jones. The dispatcher calls her on the radio: “Dispatch to Unit342.” Silence. “Dispatch to Unit 342." Silence. “This is the Last Call for Unit 342, Paramedic Mary Jones. She does not answer. She is now serving the Lord. We love you, Mary.” And then, turn and look at the people who are in uniform. And you will see God.
Mizpah.
07 January 2016
What gun "debate'?
This so-called debate about guns goes around and around, with everyone repeating ad nauseum every quaint aphorism which we already have heard. It’s become like the old “Queen For A. Day,” where an applause meter determined the winner. Nobody seems willing to sit down and talk. That included Congress. The President. The NRA. Gun people. Anti-gun people. Churches. You. Me.
I have to wonder, what you Lyndon Johnson have done. To him, results were what counted, and results meant lasting compromise. Some of the compromises he straw-bossed still exist today. (Remember Medicare?)
Can we begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those against us? Not that they are right, just that they are sincere.
The President doesn’t like guns. He genuinely believes that restrictions on guns will do more good than harm. He does not present this as a being competing interests and he doesn’t say how he figures that the interests compare. He - and Mayor Bloomberg, and other “liberals” - do not see the issue as a mommy-government protecting people who cannot protect themselves or as a plot to take away the rights of the people.
That may be the effect, but they don’t see it that way. Can we at least acknowledge that?
The NRA and pro-gun people genuinely see this as a matter of the rights of a free people to protect themselves. They believe that the same or less restrictions on gun will do more good than harm. They do not present this as a being competing interests and they do not say how they figure that the interests compare. They don’t want anarchy, school shootings or anybody to be shot when they are minding their own business.
That may be the effect, but they don’t see it that way. Can we at least acknowledge that?
Both positions are based on fear. Fear is good. Fear is built into us genetically. It’s how to respond that people disagree on.
“The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Wrong. But AN answer to a bad guy with a gun MAY BE a good guy with a gun. It totally depends on the circumstances. When is a good guy with a gun not the answer? What are the numbers?
“The police will protect us.” Well, they will try. Not perfectly. How often do the police fail to protect us? What are the numbers.
If firearms are in homes and in law-abiding citizens holsters, the people are more secure from one standpoint. They are less secure from another standpoint. What are the numbers? What are we willing to risk as a society? And are we willing to let people make up their own minds?
Gun people - like me - keep beating ourselves up over stupid shit. West Virginia will probably pass a right to carry concealed without any license. Any way you look at it, that is terminally stupid. It's as bad a putting a chainsaw in my hand and tell me to go a-timbering. I'll return with at least one limb missing. We want to see firearms at gunshows. Hell, I like gunshows. There’s one in Morgantown this weekend, and I plan to go. Most people who have tables at gunshows sell guns. Only some have a Federal Firearms License. Duh. You go to a gun show to sell guns to strangers. You should have an FFL. What’s the big deal? When I buy or sell a gun to someone I know or make or receive a gift, it’s a hobby, not a business. Is it hard to understand the difference?
Gun people - like me - hold onto the notion of how great a 100 round magazine or a 50 round mag or a 30 round mag. Pure stupidity. We do so because the anti-gun people want no semi-automatic weapons or very small magazines. We are ALL unwilling to say, well 15 or 20 should be about it. Then, we’ll be “weak.” That’s not weak - that’s called a compromise.
Until we are willing to sit down and quit demonizing each other, nothing will get solved.
Mizpah.
I have to wonder, what you Lyndon Johnson have done. To him, results were what counted, and results meant lasting compromise. Some of the compromises he straw-bossed still exist today. (Remember Medicare?)
Can we begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those against us? Not that they are right, just that they are sincere.
The President doesn’t like guns. He genuinely believes that restrictions on guns will do more good than harm. He does not present this as a being competing interests and he doesn’t say how he figures that the interests compare. He - and Mayor Bloomberg, and other “liberals” - do not see the issue as a mommy-government protecting people who cannot protect themselves or as a plot to take away the rights of the people.
That may be the effect, but they don’t see it that way. Can we at least acknowledge that?
The NRA and pro-gun people genuinely see this as a matter of the rights of a free people to protect themselves. They believe that the same or less restrictions on gun will do more good than harm. They do not present this as a being competing interests and they do not say how they figure that the interests compare. They don’t want anarchy, school shootings or anybody to be shot when they are minding their own business.
That may be the effect, but they don’t see it that way. Can we at least acknowledge that?
Both positions are based on fear. Fear is good. Fear is built into us genetically. It’s how to respond that people disagree on.
“The only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Wrong. But AN answer to a bad guy with a gun MAY BE a good guy with a gun. It totally depends on the circumstances. When is a good guy with a gun not the answer? What are the numbers?
“The police will protect us.” Well, they will try. Not perfectly. How often do the police fail to protect us? What are the numbers.
If firearms are in homes and in law-abiding citizens holsters, the people are more secure from one standpoint. They are less secure from another standpoint. What are the numbers? What are we willing to risk as a society? And are we willing to let people make up their own minds?
Gun people - like me - keep beating ourselves up over stupid shit. West Virginia will probably pass a right to carry concealed without any license. Any way you look at it, that is terminally stupid. It's as bad a putting a chainsaw in my hand and tell me to go a-timbering. I'll return with at least one limb missing. We want to see firearms at gunshows. Hell, I like gunshows. There’s one in Morgantown this weekend, and I plan to go. Most people who have tables at gunshows sell guns. Only some have a Federal Firearms License. Duh. You go to a gun show to sell guns to strangers. You should have an FFL. What’s the big deal? When I buy or sell a gun to someone I know or make or receive a gift, it’s a hobby, not a business. Is it hard to understand the difference?
Gun people - like me - hold onto the notion of how great a 100 round magazine or a 50 round mag or a 30 round mag. Pure stupidity. We do so because the anti-gun people want no semi-automatic weapons or very small magazines. We are ALL unwilling to say, well 15 or 20 should be about it. Then, we’ll be “weak.” That’s not weak - that’s called a compromise.
Until we are willing to sit down and quit demonizing each other, nothing will get solved.
Mizpah.
26 December 2015
The Yawn of Political (In)Correctness
There comes a time when an opponent of “political correctness” becomes, themselves, “politically correct.”
This morning, I read on a public library Facebook page a comment criticizing them of using “Happy Holidays.”
What’s wrong with “Happy Holidays”? I use “Merry Christmas.” If people want to talk about what that means, hey, I’m great with that. If not, no big deal.
I you want to say “Humbug,” go for it.
I suspect that Jesus is OK with “Happy Holidays,” and is more concerned with how we act.
Flyers of the CSA battle flag, you’re not being rebels, you’re being dull and applying your own form of political correctness.
It’s politically correct to focus on fear - Trump and Muslims, Obama and guns. It’s politically correct to threaten the destruction of God - right, like He’s worried - or marriage - Right, the last I looked, it is still OK for heterosexuals to marry.
So the people who tout opposition to political correctness are hypocrites - they are politically correct, just with different politics.
What is uncommon is thinking about an issue and discussing it. And being able to tolerate without rancor views different from your own.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Mizpah!
(Ooops - “Mizpah” is a biblical term. Am I being “correct” or not? Do I really care? Nah.)
This morning, I read on a public library Facebook page a comment criticizing them of using “Happy Holidays.”
What’s wrong with “Happy Holidays”? I use “Merry Christmas.” If people want to talk about what that means, hey, I’m great with that. If not, no big deal.
I you want to say “Humbug,” go for it.
I suspect that Jesus is OK with “Happy Holidays,” and is more concerned with how we act.
Flyers of the CSA battle flag, you’re not being rebels, you’re being dull and applying your own form of political correctness.
It’s politically correct to focus on fear - Trump and Muslims, Obama and guns. It’s politically correct to threaten the destruction of God - right, like He’s worried - or marriage - Right, the last I looked, it is still OK for heterosexuals to marry.
So the people who tout opposition to political correctness are hypocrites - they are politically correct, just with different politics.
What is uncommon is thinking about an issue and discussing it. And being able to tolerate without rancor views different from your own.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Mizpah!
(Ooops - “Mizpah” is a biblical term. Am I being “correct” or not? Do I really care? Nah.)
05 December 2015
If I Owned Gun Stocks, Should I Sell Them?
Mayor de Blasio of New York just called on "his" pensions systems “and others across the country” to sell their stocks in gun companies. He sees this as an economic way to force gun manufacturers to quit selling “assault rifles” to civilians.
Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. Beats me. Some people say that the economic sanctions against South Africa brought down apartheid. Beats me.
The New York pension systems have about $50 billion in stocks. Of that, $2 million are in gun manufacturers. Seems kind of a puny gesture.
But this is America and the Mayor has every right to pick up the phone and talk to the people who decide what stocks to buy. And this is America and he has the right to prance boldly in a press conference, even when a phone call would be more targeted. I'd like people with different ideas to calmly talk over a cup of coffee, but that's a very minority opinion. The "grand gesture," the "oh, the humanity" approach makes good press.
Who knows, maybe the Mayor's idea is a good one. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
But everybody is not entitled to their own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that years ago.) If the Mayor and the pension people and everybody who thinks guns are the sole problem kicks back and says, Hey, I did good today, he, she and they are wrong.
If society decides to ban this gun or that gun or big magazines or what not - and enforces those limitations which, based on the last 50 years history, isn’t likely - some lives will be saved. That’s what the pro-gun people ignore. And some lives will be lost. That’s what the anti-gun people ignore. Violence is not a simple graph.
Why? Because the human heart and the human penchant for doing violence hasn’t changed a bit. In every episode of violence, some person has decided that violence is the best choice. Sometimes, it is. Not often, but sometimes. The San Bernardino shooters decided that killing was what God wanted them to do. That is theologically unsound, but they acted on it. Had someone else there been armed and able to think and act quickly, then violence would have been a good idea.
Let’s leave for another day the likelihood that having an “good guy” armed there would have justified the social cost of having enough alleged “good guys” armed so that one or more would have been there. We don’t debate guns. We repeat fixed opinions and call the people who don’t agree with us vile names. Some debate.
Humanity everywhere is afraid of critically discussing the human heart. We get tied up in knots about who somebody is attracted to, what God they worship, whether they are Republican/ Democrat/ Green/ Socialist/ Labour/ Conservative/ Liberal/ and on and on. That's a lot easier than talking about what is good and justified behavior and what is bad and evil behavior.
Killing people for God, politics or because you’re just generally pissed, is bad behavior. Shares of stock don't make you do it. It starts in the heart and mind.
That’s the ball that we should keep an eye on.
Mizpah.
Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. Beats me. Some people say that the economic sanctions against South Africa brought down apartheid. Beats me.
The New York pension systems have about $50 billion in stocks. Of that, $2 million are in gun manufacturers. Seems kind of a puny gesture.
But this is America and the Mayor has every right to pick up the phone and talk to the people who decide what stocks to buy. And this is America and he has the right to prance boldly in a press conference, even when a phone call would be more targeted. I'd like people with different ideas to calmly talk over a cup of coffee, but that's a very minority opinion. The "grand gesture," the "oh, the humanity" approach makes good press.
Who knows, maybe the Mayor's idea is a good one. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
But everybody is not entitled to their own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that years ago.) If the Mayor and the pension people and everybody who thinks guns are the sole problem kicks back and says, Hey, I did good today, he, she and they are wrong.
If society decides to ban this gun or that gun or big magazines or what not - and enforces those limitations which, based on the last 50 years history, isn’t likely - some lives will be saved. That’s what the pro-gun people ignore. And some lives will be lost. That’s what the anti-gun people ignore. Violence is not a simple graph.
Why? Because the human heart and the human penchant for doing violence hasn’t changed a bit. In every episode of violence, some person has decided that violence is the best choice. Sometimes, it is. Not often, but sometimes. The San Bernardino shooters decided that killing was what God wanted them to do. That is theologically unsound, but they acted on it. Had someone else there been armed and able to think and act quickly, then violence would have been a good idea.
Let’s leave for another day the likelihood that having an “good guy” armed there would have justified the social cost of having enough alleged “good guys” armed so that one or more would have been there. We don’t debate guns. We repeat fixed opinions and call the people who don’t agree with us vile names. Some debate.
Humanity everywhere is afraid of critically discussing the human heart. We get tied up in knots about who somebody is attracted to, what God they worship, whether they are Republican/ Democrat/ Green/ Socialist/ Labour/ Conservative/ Liberal/ and on and on. That's a lot easier than talking about what is good and justified behavior and what is bad and evil behavior.
Killing people for God, politics or because you’re just generally pissed, is bad behavior. Shares of stock don't make you do it. It starts in the heart and mind.
That’s the ball that we should keep an eye on.
Mizpah.
21 October 2015
Rules of Engagement for Police – The Need to Know
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently said that crime is increasing in Chicago because “We have allowed our police department to get feral ... They have pulled from the ability to interdict ... They don’t want to be the news story themselves.” (Washington Post)
While the Mayor expressed himself in unfortunate terms (“feral”), he has a point. The Ferguson-Baltimore effect has changed the way we evaluate police actions. Over the years, the prevailing view has gone from police actions being nearly conclusively OK to being a little - or a lot - inherently suspicious. Maybe the change is a good idea; maybe it’s a bad idea; but it’s still the truth.
So far, the attention of both the pro- and anti-police critics have been formed only after-the-fact. What should an officer have done in such-and-such a situation, and so did the officer do the right thing?
This is a negative feedback cycle. People do learn when they screw-up and others they hear about screw-up. But the (alleged?) screw-ups have still happened, and somebody got hurt. So the officer is called to answer for something that has already happened and that can’t be undone.
Sometimes that is fair. There is a video going around showing an officer shooting an obviously unarmed guy in the back from 30 feet away. That’s almost impossible to justify. The officer has been criminally charged. But sometimes, doing an after-the-fact analysis is distinctly unfair because we are applying some standards we just came up with.
It’s relatively easy to be a civilian. The rule about confrontations is simple: Avoid them. Unless you have a real, REAL good reason not to. That is fortunate because the most people continue to have a warped perception about personal violence. Life does not have a reset like a video game. You cannot do violence and make it go away. When a movie-style fight erupts in a bar, and cue-sticks, tables and chairs are used as weapons, injured people do not get back up, dust themselves off, and have another drink. They are hauled away in an ambulance or coroner’s wagon. Some of them will be checking into a nursing home to deal with injuries for the rest of their lives. I had a client a couple of years ago who got into a brief bar fight. From his perspective at the time, it seemed like a minor thing. He didn’t want to hurt anybody badly or permanently. But owing to very bad luck all around, he killed a guy with one punch. He served jail time because he broke the rule about a citizen’s duty to avoid a confrontation.
With police, the Mayor said it all: “They have pulled back from the ability to interdict.” The police are supposed to go toward trouble. For my money, that’s the primary difference between citizens and public service people. Who in their right mind wants to get in a gun fight, run into a burning building or deal with gruesome injuries?
An image often used by police is the sheepdog. There are lots of sheep – people who lead normal, ordinary and even boring lives. There are a lot of wolves, who depend on violence or the threat of violence to get things from the sheep. And then there are the sheepdogs. They take care of the sheep. The role of the sheepdog is not a directly productive one. The sheepdog does not furnish wool. If there were no wolves, we would not need sheepdogs. But there are wolves. So we need sheepdogs.
For a sheepdog to function effectively, s/he has to know what the rules are. In the military, these are called “Rules of Engagement.” In other words, they should know in advance what is an acceptable response is to a given situation. And the Rules of Engagement need to be specific. A rule that says “Don’t Screw Up” helps no one.
Let’s make some factual assumptions. These are not universally true, but pretty accurate as a general rule:
1 - Most police officers want a quiet shift without undue conflict.
2 - Everyone wants to go home in one piece after the shift.
3 - Everyone wants the other guy to go home in one piece, too.
4 - Everyone wants to use enough force to reach whatever their goal is - to stop someone from hurting people or to stop a major crime - but no more than necessary. (The invention of pepper gas and the Taser have helped that one along.)
5. No one can fire a firearm safely. It’s not designed to be safe when it’s fired. It’s designed to hurt and kill people.
6 - No officer specifically wants to kill people. But officers know that they may be called upon to shoot someone and that if they do, a death is likely to happen. Shooting the gun out of someone’s hand is pure movie fiction.
7 - Some wolves will continue to do things which requires deadly force to stop them.
I think those rules are fair.
We need to make an another assumption which is unpleasant, but true. Race and other ethnic stuff matters. This is America. It’s not supposed to matter. But it does. Different people interpret ethnic stuff differently, but few people say that it won’t be considered. Yesterday, a guy was shot in killed by a police officer in Miami. A news report included “[The guy who was shot] was black. [The officer’s] race was not immediately known.” So at least to the reporter who wrote that, race matters.
So if we want to decrease inappropriate violence, isn’t it a good idea that we decide in advance what the Rules of Engagement for police are?
There have been several incidents where police have shot a kid carrying a toy gun by mistake. (What a moronic idea toy guns are. Along with all the kill-them-all video games. What are parents thinking?)
So let’s set the stage. It’s a hypothetical, but it will happen. It’s 10 PM. Most kids are off the street, but not all of them. An officer sees someone the size of a 14 year old boy carrying a realistic looking (but unbeknowst to the officer, a toy) gun. The kid is 30 feet from the officer. The light is bad. What do we as a society want the officer to do?
This is the part where I’m supposed to give you my answer. But my answer is just that - Mine. I’m not in charge of society. It will be the collective answer which the officer will be judged by. So, tell me what the officer should do. Warn the kid, such as “Drop the gun!” Ok, if the officer does that, how long does s/he wait? How often does s/he repeat the warning? Wait until s/he sees a muzzle flash and knows that the gun is real? Duck? Withdraw? What if the gun is pointed at the officer? Come on, people, if we are going to judge the officer - and we will - let's have the decency to tell the police what the rules are.
And that’s just one scenario. In the summer, should an officer approach someone with a long coat to see if s/he is hiding a gun? How should an officer deal with people who are legally carrying a weapon openly? (Yeah, yeah, it doesn't happen in Chicago, but it happens in lots of places.) How about if they are doing so in a strange place? Should an officer question someone who just “doesn’t belong”? Or when someone is acting furtive or are apparently nervous? Should the officer ever consider their race or distinctive clothing? Maybe, maybe not. But our public servants need to know what we expect.
We owe it to everyone to have this conversation.
Mizpah.
While the Mayor expressed himself in unfortunate terms (“feral”), he has a point. The Ferguson-Baltimore effect has changed the way we evaluate police actions. Over the years, the prevailing view has gone from police actions being nearly conclusively OK to being a little - or a lot - inherently suspicious. Maybe the change is a good idea; maybe it’s a bad idea; but it’s still the truth.
So far, the attention of both the pro- and anti-police critics have been formed only after-the-fact. What should an officer have done in such-and-such a situation, and so did the officer do the right thing?
This is a negative feedback cycle. People do learn when they screw-up and others they hear about screw-up. But the (alleged?) screw-ups have still happened, and somebody got hurt. So the officer is called to answer for something that has already happened and that can’t be undone.
Sometimes that is fair. There is a video going around showing an officer shooting an obviously unarmed guy in the back from 30 feet away. That’s almost impossible to justify. The officer has been criminally charged. But sometimes, doing an after-the-fact analysis is distinctly unfair because we are applying some standards we just came up with.
It’s relatively easy to be a civilian. The rule about confrontations is simple: Avoid them. Unless you have a real, REAL good reason not to. That is fortunate because the most people continue to have a warped perception about personal violence. Life does not have a reset like a video game. You cannot do violence and make it go away. When a movie-style fight erupts in a bar, and cue-sticks, tables and chairs are used as weapons, injured people do not get back up, dust themselves off, and have another drink. They are hauled away in an ambulance or coroner’s wagon. Some of them will be checking into a nursing home to deal with injuries for the rest of their lives. I had a client a couple of years ago who got into a brief bar fight. From his perspective at the time, it seemed like a minor thing. He didn’t want to hurt anybody badly or permanently. But owing to very bad luck all around, he killed a guy with one punch. He served jail time because he broke the rule about a citizen’s duty to avoid a confrontation.
With police, the Mayor said it all: “They have pulled back from the ability to interdict.” The police are supposed to go toward trouble. For my money, that’s the primary difference between citizens and public service people. Who in their right mind wants to get in a gun fight, run into a burning building or deal with gruesome injuries?
An image often used by police is the sheepdog. There are lots of sheep – people who lead normal, ordinary and even boring lives. There are a lot of wolves, who depend on violence or the threat of violence to get things from the sheep. And then there are the sheepdogs. They take care of the sheep. The role of the sheepdog is not a directly productive one. The sheepdog does not furnish wool. If there were no wolves, we would not need sheepdogs. But there are wolves. So we need sheepdogs.
For a sheepdog to function effectively, s/he has to know what the rules are. In the military, these are called “Rules of Engagement.” In other words, they should know in advance what is an acceptable response is to a given situation. And the Rules of Engagement need to be specific. A rule that says “Don’t Screw Up” helps no one.
Let’s make some factual assumptions. These are not universally true, but pretty accurate as a general rule:
1 - Most police officers want a quiet shift without undue conflict.
2 - Everyone wants to go home in one piece after the shift.
3 - Everyone wants the other guy to go home in one piece, too.
4 - Everyone wants to use enough force to reach whatever their goal is - to stop someone from hurting people or to stop a major crime - but no more than necessary. (The invention of pepper gas and the Taser have helped that one along.)
5. No one can fire a firearm safely. It’s not designed to be safe when it’s fired. It’s designed to hurt and kill people.
6 - No officer specifically wants to kill people. But officers know that they may be called upon to shoot someone and that if they do, a death is likely to happen. Shooting the gun out of someone’s hand is pure movie fiction.
7 - Some wolves will continue to do things which requires deadly force to stop them.
I think those rules are fair.
We need to make an another assumption which is unpleasant, but true. Race and other ethnic stuff matters. This is America. It’s not supposed to matter. But it does. Different people interpret ethnic stuff differently, but few people say that it won’t be considered. Yesterday, a guy was shot in killed by a police officer in Miami. A news report included “[The guy who was shot] was black. [The officer’s] race was not immediately known.” So at least to the reporter who wrote that, race matters.
So if we want to decrease inappropriate violence, isn’t it a good idea that we decide in advance what the Rules of Engagement for police are?
There have been several incidents where police have shot a kid carrying a toy gun by mistake. (What a moronic idea toy guns are. Along with all the kill-them-all video games. What are parents thinking?)
So let’s set the stage. It’s a hypothetical, but it will happen. It’s 10 PM. Most kids are off the street, but not all of them. An officer sees someone the size of a 14 year old boy carrying a realistic looking (but unbeknowst to the officer, a toy) gun. The kid is 30 feet from the officer. The light is bad. What do we as a society want the officer to do?
This is the part where I’m supposed to give you my answer. But my answer is just that - Mine. I’m not in charge of society. It will be the collective answer which the officer will be judged by. So, tell me what the officer should do. Warn the kid, such as “Drop the gun!” Ok, if the officer does that, how long does s/he wait? How often does s/he repeat the warning? Wait until s/he sees a muzzle flash and knows that the gun is real? Duck? Withdraw? What if the gun is pointed at the officer? Come on, people, if we are going to judge the officer - and we will - let's have the decency to tell the police what the rules are.
And that’s just one scenario. In the summer, should an officer approach someone with a long coat to see if s/he is hiding a gun? How should an officer deal with people who are legally carrying a weapon openly? (Yeah, yeah, it doesn't happen in Chicago, but it happens in lots of places.) How about if they are doing so in a strange place? Should an officer question someone who just “doesn’t belong”? Or when someone is acting furtive or are apparently nervous? Should the officer ever consider their race or distinctive clothing? Maybe, maybe not. But our public servants need to know what we expect.
We owe it to everyone to have this conversation.
Mizpah.
12 September 2015
The Rights of Mankind; A Stream-of-Consciousness Discussion
Is America at the forefront and on the cutting edge of liberty, freedom and the Rights of Mankind? Is this powerful political Republic, for all of its little faults, truly the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free?
And are the flag-burning, KuKluxers, Reds, Greens, neo-Nazis, God-let's-me-be-a-terrorist's, flat-earther’s, Elvis-lives folks just wrong? Oh, of course, we should tolerate all those people, because we do have such freedom.
I wonder.
This started out as a moderate post about whether we really can preserve the Second Amendment. My original thought was that if we do have the natural right of self defense, but that if Americans don’t have the discipline to use firearms right, maybe we no longer deserve the right. I don’t believe it, but only an idiot will refuse to THINK about the basis of your rights. This has been bugging me all week.
I found that there is a more basic question lurking here: Where does the concept of “rights” come from?
The Magna Carta is cited as the basis of English rights, which in turn expanded to include much of the Earth. Magna Carta came in 1215. Actually, it does not stand alone. There were at least two versions of Magna Carta, one “radical” (for the time) and one a trifle watered down. Other “charters” of various sorts – the Charter of the Forests comes to mind – followed at irregular intervals. I’m the only lawyer I know who has argued the Charter of the Forests in a Supreme Court argument. It was a wide-ranging discussion between Justice McGraw and me in State ex rel. Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139. At the time, I certainly bought into the notion that our natural rights had always been there, even though we often misinterpreted them. This is shade of St. Thomas Aquinas, that the will of God is the same, but sometime we mere humans get the wrong interpretation. Perhaps, someday, we’ll get the absolutely right idea.
If there are natural, God-given rights, God has been singularly ignored as He tried to press them on humankind. The established “Biblical time” roughly corresponds to the sociological establishment of human societies. So as such, let’s say that the question of the “rights of mankind” has been significant for around 6,000 years. The first explication of “rights” was in 1215. What happened to the other 5200 years?
The scriptures of most religions talk about a few rights, but seem to focus mainly on duty, responsible actions, kindness, etc. Which is fine - we’ve never been successful at putting the “Rules to Live By” in one place.
What is the human experience with the supposed Rights of Mankind? A dismal one, I think.
How many people have ever been free?
Egypt? Nah. Hey, we need volunteers to help us build the pyramids. OK, you, you and you have just volunteered.
Athens? It got closer, after all it had Demosthanes & Co. Oh, but don’t get so serious about “rights” that we need to give you a brimming cup of hemlock.
Sparta? No, not even close.
Rome? Huh-uh.
China? Oh, no, too many emperors and warlords.
Japan? Nope, the emperors and also the whole Bushido-thing.
Britain? Too many head Druids.
Later Britain. Think kings and Roundheads.
Actually, the American Indians got a bit closer with a sort-of meritocracy. That didn’t do Reed-That-Bends a whole lot of good. (See Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans.)
It really could have been Thomas Paine who was the “Father” of the Rights of Mankind. Nobody really liked him, and he was a dour sort, but smart. Ultimately, what Thomas Paine talked about were stuck into the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is an odd thing, like something that was the product of a committee and a lot of compromises - which it was. The glorious notions of free speech and free exercise of religion are mixed in with keeping troops from being quartered in homes in peacetime. The freedom to escape intrusive search is mixed with property rights. Yet, it is such an integral part of American society that you can simply say that you “take the Fifth” or “stand on your Second Amendment rights,” and people understand what you are talking about.
Where do rights come from? What society has ever practiced respecting rights? Who has ever had free religion? Well, only for 250 years in a few nations, and at that it’s only been imperfectly practiced. If for most of human history, you didn’t worship Odin, the ineffable name of God, Zeus, Jupiter, God, Allah and maybe The Force, how do you suppose that worked out for you?
If you dissed the king, the pope, the doge, the emperor, the Prophet (PBUM), the Sanhedrin, Montezuma, the Earth, the merchant class, the nobility, the priests, the brahmins, did you really think that your future was secure?
The “Rights of Mankind” are not an American thing. The rise of the USA as a nation was the best known and least-complicated event of the Age of Enlightenment. We had fewer nay-sayers, and they were quieter. This “Rights” notion is assigned to America because there were a whole lot more people in the now-USA who stood to gain from it. Great Britain did us an enormous favor by separating royalists on a different continent.
Are there “Rights of Mankind”?
Beats me.
If there is such a thing, I doubt if they are automatic, immutable, and inalienable. Jefferson was laying claim to these “inalienable” rights, not saying that he just discovering that they already existed. In that respect, the Declaration of Independence is a radical and beautiful departure from the past. It’s not just an explanatory scholarly document. The Rights of Mankind are not automatic. If the powers of society say that they are gone, poof, they are gone. If you don't believe that, try to carry a shotgun in England.
Self-defense? The state/king/brigands/church sure as hell have been able to push people around without some spooky “bad thing” happening to those in power.
Free speech? Pull the other one. In most places, free speech will get you an ass-whipping.
If we do have rights, they are vanishing. We’re losing them. They don’t have long to last. They are vanishing back into what has existed in the 6,000 year human history - what we now call totalitarian socialism, but which has always been called “I-got-mine-and-you-don’t-so-screw-you.”
If we keep on bleating that we are entitled to the rights of mankind, but expect someone else to assure them, we lose.
If we are unwilling to actually do something to keep them, we deserve to lose.
And are the flag-burning, KuKluxers, Reds, Greens, neo-Nazis, God-let's-me-be-a-terrorist's, flat-earther’s, Elvis-lives folks just wrong? Oh, of course, we should tolerate all those people, because we do have such freedom.
I wonder.
This started out as a moderate post about whether we really can preserve the Second Amendment. My original thought was that if we do have the natural right of self defense, but that if Americans don’t have the discipline to use firearms right, maybe we no longer deserve the right. I don’t believe it, but only an idiot will refuse to THINK about the basis of your rights. This has been bugging me all week.
I found that there is a more basic question lurking here: Where does the concept of “rights” come from?
The Magna Carta is cited as the basis of English rights, which in turn expanded to include much of the Earth. Magna Carta came in 1215. Actually, it does not stand alone. There were at least two versions of Magna Carta, one “radical” (for the time) and one a trifle watered down. Other “charters” of various sorts – the Charter of the Forests comes to mind – followed at irregular intervals. I’m the only lawyer I know who has argued the Charter of the Forests in a Supreme Court argument. It was a wide-ranging discussion between Justice McGraw and me in State ex rel. Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139. At the time, I certainly bought into the notion that our natural rights had always been there, even though we often misinterpreted them. This is shade of St. Thomas Aquinas, that the will of God is the same, but sometime we mere humans get the wrong interpretation. Perhaps, someday, we’ll get the absolutely right idea.
If there are natural, God-given rights, God has been singularly ignored as He tried to press them on humankind. The established “Biblical time” roughly corresponds to the sociological establishment of human societies. So as such, let’s say that the question of the “rights of mankind” has been significant for around 6,000 years. The first explication of “rights” was in 1215. What happened to the other 5200 years?
The scriptures of most religions talk about a few rights, but seem to focus mainly on duty, responsible actions, kindness, etc. Which is fine - we’ve never been successful at putting the “Rules to Live By” in one place.
What is the human experience with the supposed Rights of Mankind? A dismal one, I think.
How many people have ever been free?
Egypt? Nah. Hey, we need volunteers to help us build the pyramids. OK, you, you and you have just volunteered.
Athens? It got closer, after all it had Demosthanes & Co. Oh, but don’t get so serious about “rights” that we need to give you a brimming cup of hemlock.
Sparta? No, not even close.
Rome? Huh-uh.
China? Oh, no, too many emperors and warlords.
Japan? Nope, the emperors and also the whole Bushido-thing.
Britain? Too many head Druids.
Later Britain. Think kings and Roundheads.
Actually, the American Indians got a bit closer with a sort-of meritocracy. That didn’t do Reed-That-Bends a whole lot of good. (See Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans.)
It really could have been Thomas Paine who was the “Father” of the Rights of Mankind. Nobody really liked him, and he was a dour sort, but smart. Ultimately, what Thomas Paine talked about were stuck into the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is an odd thing, like something that was the product of a committee and a lot of compromises - which it was. The glorious notions of free speech and free exercise of religion are mixed in with keeping troops from being quartered in homes in peacetime. The freedom to escape intrusive search is mixed with property rights. Yet, it is such an integral part of American society that you can simply say that you “take the Fifth” or “stand on your Second Amendment rights,” and people understand what you are talking about.
Where do rights come from? What society has ever practiced respecting rights? Who has ever had free religion? Well, only for 250 years in a few nations, and at that it’s only been imperfectly practiced. If for most of human history, you didn’t worship Odin, the ineffable name of God, Zeus, Jupiter, God, Allah and maybe The Force, how do you suppose that worked out for you?
If you dissed the king, the pope, the doge, the emperor, the Prophet (PBUM), the Sanhedrin, Montezuma, the Earth, the merchant class, the nobility, the priests, the brahmins, did you really think that your future was secure?
The “Rights of Mankind” are not an American thing. The rise of the USA as a nation was the best known and least-complicated event of the Age of Enlightenment. We had fewer nay-sayers, and they were quieter. This “Rights” notion is assigned to America because there were a whole lot more people in the now-USA who stood to gain from it. Great Britain did us an enormous favor by separating royalists on a different continent.
Are there “Rights of Mankind”?
Beats me.
If there is such a thing, I doubt if they are automatic, immutable, and inalienable. Jefferson was laying claim to these “inalienable” rights, not saying that he just discovering that they already existed. In that respect, the Declaration of Independence is a radical and beautiful departure from the past. It’s not just an explanatory scholarly document. The Rights of Mankind are not automatic. If the powers of society say that they are gone, poof, they are gone. If you don't believe that, try to carry a shotgun in England.
Self-defense? The state/king/brigands/church sure as hell have been able to push people around without some spooky “bad thing” happening to those in power.
Free speech? Pull the other one. In most places, free speech will get you an ass-whipping.
If we do have rights, they are vanishing. We’re losing them. They don’t have long to last. They are vanishing back into what has existed in the 6,000 year human history - what we now call totalitarian socialism, but which has always been called “I-got-mine-and-you-don’t-so-screw-you.”
If we keep on bleating that we are entitled to the rights of mankind, but expect someone else to assure them, we lose.
If we are unwilling to actually do something to keep them, we deserve to lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
