Issue 629 Approach History With an Open Mind July 8, 2015

History is something we share.  It does not belong to any single one person as much as we like to think so.  But we try to twist history at times because of ego, or our desire to control it.  What do I mean?  Read on to find out.

Dividing history:  History is a human connection that we all share.  However, we sometimes try to improve it, or change it.  As such we have things like Black American History, Jewish American History and so on and so forth.  But the truth remains, in each of those histories, American is in them.  That is the connection with respect to our American history.  This is not to say you should not study from different perspectives, but do not change history to suit one's needs, such as the types of slavery, who enslaved who, do not hide the hard, but sad truths involved. If we do change history to suit an agenda, then the history that we share will fail to unite us.  For example, I am white, but two of my biggest American heroes are Fredrick Douglas, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.   They are black, but they are American before being a skin color.  As such, if we keep in mind that we share our history and our identity as Americans, or even as people of Earth, then we can begin making those connections that we are all cut from the same cloth.  That we are all fundamentally one people who must and will learn from each other.

Conclusion:  History can either unite or divide us.  But if we can keep an open mind and see that we all share it as we learn from it, then and only then can we progress forward as a people and surpass our former selves generation by generation.  It is our human connection, and we must always be willing to learn from our past.

Issue 628 Living Wills and Health Proxy's July 7, 2015

A Living Will is a form of Will for a person who is still alive but unable to speak on behalf of themselves.  In this case, a proxy is appointed for the individual to carry out said Will.  But what are the implications of this?  Let us discuss.

Living Will and its implication:  Typically a Living Will is associated with healthcare, such as a do not resuscitate clause if the person dies on the table.  As such, if a person writes a Living Will they could in effect be signing over their right to life to someone else.  Living Wills may apply in any area where the person is alive but incapable of thinking for themselves (let alone responding) to carry out their own decisions.  So if a person is in a vegetative state which they may or may not come out of, if your living will decides that you request assisted suicide while in such a condition, then they will carry it out despite you possibly being trapped in your own body.  As such, even if you may be able to live normally again, or function in general, you are morally choosing to die.  Likewise we have the opposite.  If your body is so broken, that you will never live a normal life again, but your Living Will says save me, then they will and thus you must now live with a destroyed body and all the challenges that come with it.  Morally speaking you are either deciding to commit suicide or to warp the lives of your loved ones by living and making them share in a burden they may not be prepared for.  

Those who carry out the Will:  Now we add in the added issues of the people who carry out the Wills.  The Proxy has to make a moral decision to let a person they care about die.  Also, this means the doctors or other medical professionals who are trained to try and save people must now stand by and watch the person die.  In the case of an assisted suicide, they must in effect become a murderer to kill a person.  This is made even more burdensome by the very notion that if the person is in a vegetative State, or similar, in which the person could wake up and live normally, then they are killing a person by their own will who may get "better" with time.  Let us also not forget that the family can look upon the proxy as a villain at this point for letting their family member die.  All this takes a mental toll on individuals, both family and otherwise which a person must be willing to grapple with when placing this burden on them.  

Conclusion:  Living Wills have their purpose, but they come with moral and even ethical implications attached for all involved.  This is something to remember when giving the authority of your own life over to someone else.

Issue 627 Police order of Battle July 6, 2015

Here we talk about how police may look like if it followed a more traditional, more conservative line up.  Let us discuss.

Local PD:  Local Police would consist of two groups.  The first group is a community watch group that looks out for signs of trouble and reports in any suspicious activities to the authorities.  The second group is the professionals who investigate and do the arrests.  Simple right.  Also, all involved must take an exam that demonstrates they know the Constitution with an emphasis on the laws regarding property and free speech rights and knowledge of civil law like theft, and similar crimes indicative to their area they will serve. The second group would obviously have formal training to investigate and perform arrests as well.   Also, in both cases the members of these two groups must have at least 50% membership from the town or community they live in, and another 25% may be allowed from up to two towns away. 

 Members will be responsible to the community itself, thus once training is complete, the community will decide if the person is good enough to become a police officer with their pay done in a similar manner to schools or fire departments.  So the community will put in a specified amount of money per year and maybe donate goods and vehicles toward the police so that they can maintain themselves and their lives.  A board of citizens (elected by the community) that are not members of the police/watch and have no family relations to them will govern the donations and aid in procuring equipment.  This same board will also deal with all criminal law with respect to introducing laws to the community that are proposed by the police and watch groups, with the community holding referendums to enact those laws or amend already existing laws. Thus, murder, assault, sexual assault, theft, traffic, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and property law, will be dealt with at the community level exclusively and in a community court house (all other laws and oversight will be governed at higher levels of government).  In order to maintain harmony with neighboring towns, the community boards will gather together to look to harmonize laws as much as possible.

 For both these groups it will also be encouraged that they interact with the people of the community as much as possible.  So if there is a football game, the cops may be allowed to participate if they so choose while on patrol.  As such it will require the use of more foot patrols. A reconnection with the community is key to maintain relations and ensure that people recognize that the police are members of the community too.

SWAT:  This category is the specialists.  They are recruited from the professionals in the second group to do specialist jobs and serve entire geographic areas, with their equipment and training specialized to match.  These jobs including police divers, dog handlers, professional instructors, and the like.  A special group within this one will handle hostage rescue, and dealing with criminals whose weapons and lethality exceed that of the regular police. So aside from these special roles, they will have no further function. (Note: in case of riots, police and watch members, under the direction of SWAT leadership will gather from multiple communities to handle the situation if the situation calls for it).

Conclusion:  This is a hypothetical organization if we were to redo our police departments.  In fact, in the past, the same community watch members would also serve as fire fighters or other unique roles in the community.  So this is, to say the least, not out of the realm of possibility.  So before we talk about nationalizing police, or other reforms, let us talk about bringing the police and community back together and remove the government's involvement as much as possible so that police no longer have politicians breathing down their backs and forcing them to do things that they are constitutionally not allowed to do (like militarizing).  

Issue 626 The police I know July 3, 2015

I just want to write this to let everyone know that it is not the cops that are the problem.  It is the system that is the problem.  As such I have a few things to say.

The two key problems hurting police:  The first problem is that when the police are not taught the actual Constitution in the United States, but are instead taught case law.  This means that even if a law or action is unconstitutional, the police will not know it for they have never read the actual Constitution as part of their training.  If they did, then they could refuse that order or not enforce a law as it could be considered unlawful. 

As to the other key problem.  Police used to be able to interact with the community more.  They could stop in the middle of their patrols on foot and then play a game of football with the kids in the community.  In short they were more a part of the community as opposed to now where many are not allowed to interact in this manner anymore or it is discouraged in favor of patrol cars.  Thankfully in my community, off duty police try and do participate in community activities which does help, but my community seems to be the exception and not the rule if we are to believe the media.

Who are the police:  The police are people like everyone else who have taken a special job within the community to protect us from elements that would seek to do people harm.  Police make every attempt to be a part of the community and are generally good people.  Sure we get a few arrogant people in this fraternity, but they deserve our respect regardless.  So please remember, they really don't want to bother anyone, or have to arrest anyone, as they would prefer everyone respecting each other and getting along.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Two key areas I believe are hurting police and who I see the police as.  Believe me or not, that is up to you.  However, I will always say God Bless the police.

Issue 625 The Bubba Effect July 2, 2015

So there seems to be a reaction by people to the military equipment used by police.  Allow me to explain.

What is apparently occurring:  According to Glenn Beck and some conservative commentators, there is something called the bubba effect.  This "effect is the idea in people’s heads that if they will not or cannot protect me, then I will protect myself."  So this is being spurred by the fact that the police are militarizing with heavy weapons and equipment, and on the opposing side is the protestors with everyday people stuck in the middle.  As such, people in the middle which include the fearful and open carry people amongst others want to now protect themselves from both.  However, what is possibly more worrisome is the fact that as police guns get bigger, some people who want to protect themselves also try to get their hands on bigger and better guns.  And then to compound the issue, it is possible that criminals will now do the same to possibly take on the police as well, which compounds the idea that the middle people are not safe spurring to arm themselves even more.   If the bubba effect continues it could result in a fatal shooting at some point (Beck's biggest fear) which in turn would lead to larger riots, and violence.

Conclusion:  This is very frightful as if it is true, we are looking at a potential powder cage in the making.  People feeling unsafe with two powerful opposing groups’ leads to irrational thought.  So, with this as my warning as I am leaning on believing in this, look out, take the right steps to protect yourself if you feel it is necessary, but do not become the person that causes the chaos.

Issue 624 Do we need SWAT? July 1, 2015

So, do we really need SWAT (special weapon and tactics) teams?  Let us discuss.

SWAT:  SWAT teams are the teams who are the ones conducting the thousands of raids per year.  They go in by breaking down doors and accomplish their mission.  But, does the EPA, or the department of education need SWAT teams?  You are like, they don't have teams!  But alas, they do.  In fact in addition to the 88,000 raids in 2014 and the number rising this year in 2015, SWAT teams are being deployed everywhere including nowhere towns with populations of 300 or less.  As such, they are being used to issue arrest warrants, and other jobs that are frankly in this commentator's opinion very silly and the force used is excessive.

Teams like SWAT are supposed to be used in hostage rescue situations and where criminals are armed in such a way that normal police are out matched.  However, people want a false sense of security, and thus the SWAT teams expansion into areas that regular police normally do.  Issuing of warrants, daylight searches against non-violent offenders, visiting a witnesses or a suspect's homes when retaliation is not expected in the slightest, which are all general officer duties, have been turned over to SWAT.  Frankly, these duties should be returned to regular officers, and SWAT should be reserved for hostage rescue, riots, special teams for bomb disposal, and where their military equipment is needed to take on heavily armed criminals like a gang, the mob or even terrorists.  So we need SWAT, but not in the way they are being used now.

Conclusion:  SWAT teams if used correctly are an asset that protects other police and civilians from being harmed.  But, our desire for security has caused them to be used to do things beyond the scope of their job description and thus place them, other officers and regular people in danger.  The department of education, the EPA and similar do not need SWAT teams, and small towns do not need them unless it is one team serving an entire geographical area.  As such, we need SWAT, but they just need to be used in the right capacity again.

Issue 623 Impact of A national Police Force June 30, 2015

There were approximately 88,000 police raids in 2014.  This is an outstanding number that mostly revolves around raids against non-violent offenders who own small quantities of pot.  These raids are conducted in full riot gear, and place many people in danger including the officers.  Now, with the possibility of police becoming militarized, can you imagine them in full gear all the time?  Are you able to see them as a member of your community if they carry an M-16 assault rifle on their back as part of a routine patrol?  These are a symptom of a militarized and partially nationalized police force.  But what would it look like if they were fully nationalized?  Let's discuss.

What it would look like:

1) Military style:  For one, there will be no traditional uniforms we are used to.  A nationalized/militarized police force would be outfitted with nothing but military equipment.  They would drive light tanks and armored vehicles around and pack heavy weapons reminiscent of what they looked like during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers with machine guns locked and ready.

2) They follow Federal, not local laws:  Whatever local laws are enforced by your police, kiss them goodbye.  The federal government would decide what to enforce, and how to enforce it rather than localities and States making their own laws anymore.  As such, bureaucrats in the federal government decide law and thus determines your innocence by default.  You essentially lose all control over what laws are followed.

3) Subject to political pressures:  The advantage of local control is that you have a multitude of police departments enforcing the law and thus our ability to compare the effectiveness of each department which protects them from political pressures of local politicians.  Once nationalized, we lose that and this results in politicians putting pressure on those who govern the police at the federal level to perform actions that may in fact violate the law or even ignore it, thus creating a hodgepodge of enforcement of laws and people either escaping justice or being unfairly arrested (think Watergate on steroids).

4) Becoming thuggish:  If nationalized, the police lose all checks and balances as cops can then do whatever they deem necessary to accomplish the job of policing.  So this means more illegal search and seizure, more illegal arrests with police writing warrants and not judges as per the Constitution.  They would be able to use any amount of force they deem necessary to do the job even if it is excessive.

Conclusion:  I do not want a national police force.  My Dad, and many of my family have served as police, and I do not want their service dishonored by turning our police into a bunch of government thugs (this is how I unfortunately see it turning out after a generation or two).  While it is for you to decide if there is merit in a central authority overseeing thousands of officers each and every day, I would still prefer the local patrol whom are my neighbors and friends any day of the week.