Saturday, July 11, 2015

Game Over

Well folks,  It's all over except for the crying;  and the backlash by some state government officials to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples; and the cries of apocalyptic doom from some religious leaders that God is going to smite the crap out of us for this terrible decision by the Supreme Court.

It's been 14 days since the Supreme Court declared that same sex couples are protected by the 14th Amendment and gay and lesbian couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry and that states must recognize those marriages.  Since the decision, several states have complied and their counties and cities are issuing marriage licenses and people are moving on with their lives.  There are a few however, who are holding fast or at least attempting to make it very difficult for people to obtain their license to marry.   Texas, which is the state I was born and is the state where I currently live, is one of those (others include Louisiana and Mississippi, although as of today, they seem to have given up the fight) who are attempting to circumvent the ruling.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that County Clerks may refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. Mr. Paxton said that if it violates the free exercise of the Clerk's religion to issue the license, then they can refuse to do so. Of course, this is in direct violation of the Supreme Court's mandate, and states must comply with decisions from the court.  This is a stalling tactic, and Mr. Paxton knows, eventually he will have to give up the effort.  It's good theater now and certainly it in Texas, where no one misses an opportunity to bash the Federal Government.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, one of the several hundred candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency in 2016 has been incredibly strident in his objections to the decisions signed an executive order called the Marriage and Conscience order, which not only allowed for business discrimination against same sex couples (he says it doesn't), but also provides protections for parish clerks if they refuse to issue marriage licenses.  The order has resulted in a lawsuit from marriage equality supporters who made the discrimination claim.  The response from the Governor was not surprising:  “This Executive Order protects religious liberty. The ACLU used to defend civil liberties, now it appears they attack them. The Left likes to pick and choose which liberties they support at any given time, and it seems to me that religious liberty has fallen out of favor with them," he said. "Well, I’m not going to be swayed by the latest opinion poll or left wing lawsuit. Religious liberty is fundamental to our freedom as Americans and I will not back down from defending it.”  

Religious discrimination claims are coming out like a plague of frogs falling from the sky now.  In several states such as Kentucky, people, whose job it is to provide marriage licenses are refusing to do so because it violates their "religious freedom".   Religious Freedom?  The claim is weak tea.  It does not violate a persons religious freedom.  The individual is free to believe what he wants. What it does is tell that person that they may not act on their belief if it violates the law.  A devout Jew or Christian, who literally believes the Bible is the ordained word of God and all commandments and directives are law from the Almighty herself, cannot stone an adulteress to death in this country. Can't do it.  Why? because we have laws that tell us we can't do that.  So, if one exercised their "freedom of religion" to stone said adulteress to death, then they would be escorted to the nearest facility that houses those who break the law.

The religious community who are so ardently against this decision have come out in full force warning us that God will unleash a might truckload of wrath on us and that we are doomed as a society.  Here's a few examples of the dire warnings those closed to God have brought forward:

Franklin Graham, evangelical pastor and head of Graham ministries is "deeply saddened" because the Supreme Court has "endorsed sin".  He says we better be prepared for Christian persecution and wrath from God as punishment for our violation of God's standards.  Here's the link to the video where the good reverend suggests we need to repent: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/franklin-graham-christians-must-prepare-persecution-and-gods-judgment-america.

John Haqee, pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio says we can kiss the country goodbye because of our progress toward gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeMZ9QkU-AY

Dr. Robert Jeffress, head of Pathway to Victory had this to say about the decision:  "The Supreme Court said in essence, “We know better than God how to define marriage.” For thousands of years both Christians and Jews have believed in both the Old and New Testament definition of marriage that was written by Moses and affirmed by Jesus Himself when He said that God “made them male and female … For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5)".  Here's a video for those who want to hear it from the "horse's ass", oops, sorry, meant to say "horse's mouth": http://ptv.org/supreme-court-gay-marriage/

Many of the faith that are followers of the good reverends above are ironically heartened that God will rain down his wrath on this nation because of that despicable decision.  Unless we change our ways, the God that loves us so much will cause terrible things to befall us because we are so naughty.

It's not just our religious community who have decided we've lost our way.  To date, none of the 13 or 14 or 17 (I can't keep count) of the candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency have done anything except complain and whine about the decision.  Some have accused the court once again of being an "activist court", full of people hell bent on legislating from the bench.   Here's a sample of the politician's perspectives on the decision:

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin - The ruling was “a grave mistake,” the Republican governor said, touting his support for amending his state’s constitution “to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said in the statement.

Former Governor Jeb Bush - “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” he wrote in a statement. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz on the Court's ruling:  "It was the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”

And finally, the most over the top response to the ruling from the pack of GOP Presidential Candidates:  Former Governor Mike Huckabee:  ‘God had to bless America or we would not exist … But will God continue to bless America without our repentance,’ he asked.
‘1975, the wife of evangelist Billy Graham said that “if God does not bring his judgment upon this land, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah,’ he continued.
‘She said that 40 years ago. What would she say today if she was still alive? When the Supreme Court just two weeks ago, or as I call them, the Extreme Court, made the most radical decision when it comes to the definition of marriage, it truly was a remarkable day in which they did not vote for equality of something, they voted for the redefinition of something.’'
With all of the woeful portents of ecclesiastical smiting, plea for repentance and aggressive anti-gay backlash in either acts of over refusal from state and local governments to comply with the ruling you'd think the country at large is dead set against the idea of same sex marriage.  You'd be wrong.  Since the Stonewall Riots of 1969, slowly, but surely, the idea that gay people were not diseased or perverted or just flat "icky" has been slowly falling away.  We all know gay people.  We've known gay people that were in the closet living lives of quiet desperation and those who were flamboyant and out and proud of who they are.  Sure, it has been a process of acceptance, but guess what?  We've generally made our peace with this. Few people (other than the zealots out there) have a problem with people being gay.  Here's an interesting chart that shows the progress relative to acceptance of the idea of same sex marriage since just 1996:  
In just 19 short years, the country has decided instead of gay marriage being a bad idea to more than half of the population saying it should be legalized.   This should put the matter to bed.  But, know it won't. Not for a while at least. The reason?  We love to hold on to some warped idea of how well things were in the past.  Yes, the "Good Old Days". Don't you miss them?  Don't you miss Jim Crow?  Don't you miss polio? Don't you miss those days when Men were Men, Women were Women, Black people were something else altogether and obviously gay people like Liberace were "confirmed bachelor's" that just hadn't found the right woman yet?   Come on folks, the good old days stunk to high heaven.  No, this backlash and idiotic cries of persecution on the part of "religious leaders" will be around for a while, but it is dying and hopefully within my lifetime we'll look back on this period and say "What the hell was wrong with us"?  Why did it take until 2015 to finally get the protections for people to be treated equally?
This last swell of anguish and anger about allowing them to get married are the dying throes of a arcane point of view that is better consigned to the ash heap of history of bad ideas and beliefs.  The anger comes from religion. Religion is such a large part of political life that the politicians that must cater to that crowd are cowering in their Saville Row suits and telling the faithful what they want to hear.  Charlatans who claim to be representatives of God but are more interested in their bank accounts and political power are trumpeting the pending ass whipping that God will bring to us because of our wicked ways. 
Those who believe that "God" will unleash a fury of Biblical revenge on us for this aren't paying attention.  Same sex marriage has been legal in this country in at least two states since 2004.  Those states were Massachusetts and Vermont.  God's wrath, if its coming is certainly slow.  Not So!, some say.  They say what about Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? Surely that's God's punishment for our evil ways.  (editorial note: Why is God always punishing us with Hurricanes?).  Well, if Katrina and Sandy are God's punishment for Vermont and Massachusetts allowing Gay marriage, then you have to wonder 1. Why did it take her until 2005 to unleash Katrina and 2., How come Vermont and Massachusetts weren't demolished as a result?  No, Mississippi, Louisiana, parts of Texas and Alabama bore the brunt of God's wrath with Katrina, and they are four of the most ardently anti-gay states in the union.  What about Hurricane Sandy?  Well, certainly hitting New Jersey and New York are closer to the target, but you have to wonder if the Almighty was taking lessons from George W.Bush on deciding to unleash revenge:  Two states launch the same sex marriage actions and God decides to take out states that had nothing to do with the decision.  Sound familiar?
Look, for you of the faith attempting to figure out what God has in store for us as a nation because of this "darkest 24 hours in our history" according to Ted Cruz, you need to think about this:  Why didn't God smite us when we exterminated 90% of the indigenous population in this country during the first 130 years of our existence?  Why didn't She bring down the plagues and torments with our atrocious history of slavery and Jim Crow?  Here's the reason.  God, if she does indeed exists is likely about as interested in gay marriage as to who will win the World Series or Superbowl.  That's to say, not at all.  It's time for the those who think God really gives a damn about this issue to give it a rest. It's time for the politicians who are catering, manipulating and using the faithful for their own purposes to shut the hell up.  The die is cast, the song is over, the deal is done.  Get over it and move on to something more relevant today, like denying climate change.

Tell me what you think.
Regards,
Dennis





Saturday, June 27, 2015

A Decision To Be Proud Of









“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.  In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.  It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.  Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.  Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.  They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.  The Constitution grants them that right.” – Justice Anthony Kennedy writing on behalf of the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges. Decision rendered June 26, 2015.

 Indeed.   The decision by the Supreme Court to affirm same sex couples the rights to be equal in terms of marriage is a watershed moment in the growth of our nation toward that "more perfect union" described in the preamble to our Constitution.  This is what I love about our country.   We move forward.  It's hard generally to see us get better, and certainly we see evidence of regression that informs us we have much work to do.  But, in this case, we can all hold our heads up a little bit more and be satisfied that while it has taken some time, we have finally recognized that same sex couples in this country shouldn't be relegated to second class status with regards to the right to marry the person that they love.

I've found it difficult  to understand the arguments against marriage equality from a rationale perspective.  I get the emotional objection that is typically driven from some theological perspective but have never understood or bought into the claim that by allowing same-sex couples the right to marry it would somehow "destroy the sanctity of marriage".  To my point of view this is simply nonsense.  It's like when we were boys telling girls they couldn't play football or baseball with us on the sandlot because they were girls.  

The ruling by the court which affirmed the right to marry was a 5-4 decision with Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote on the decision.  It's a a point of interest to me that Justice Kennedy has been on the right side of this issue since his appoint to the Court.  The first opinion he wrote as a new justice was on this issue, and with every single movement forward towards granting same sex people equal protection under the law, he has been the deciding vote on the matter.   So, kudos to Justice Kennedy, and of course to the other justices who saw the logic in throwing the arcane idea that somehow marriage is defined as between one man and one woman into the dustbin of history.  It goes there along with the notion of arranged marriage between the parents of children for economic purposes.  It goes there along with the Old Testament (and recent religious organization's) support of polygamy.  It goes there with the admonition of New Testament perspective that a wife is not equal to a husband and must submit to him.  It goes there with the repugnant notion that women shouldn't own property, vote, or be able to divorce.  

Marriage is an important commitment that people should take seriously.  Most people do.  We also know that marriage provides benefits that until yesterday's decision, same sex couples could not enjoy in certain states and from the Federal Government at large.  Now, same sex couples don't have to worry about survivor's benefits, or be barred from making decisions for their spouse should they be incapacitated by a health issue.   The ability to take care of the people we love in times of great pain or illness is vitally important and this decision has paved the way for that prohibition to be negated.  

The movement toward enlightenment and achievement of those lofty goals outlined in the Constitution has progressed significantly.  We have a long way to go as a country, but we continue to see examples such as this and it fuels the idea that we can indeed make the place better than we found it.  I'm glad also, that it was a conservative justice who wrote this decision for the majority.  Mr. Kennedy's no wild eyed liberal (like me), and perhaps it will make those who opposed this decision stop and think for a moment.  We've become much too partisan in our views on issues such as this.  The detractors and opponents of marriage equality are already screaming from the roof-tops about "Judicial Activism",  and an Imperial Presidency that is colluding with the court for legacy purposes.  Declared Presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and others have come out with positions that suggest Constitutional Amendments to overturn the decision.  Governors, judges, attorneys general from several states have already made statements of willful disobedience to the decision.   Religious "leaders" like Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and others have suggested that God will smite us with punishment for this terrible decision.    Of course, we live in a country where one can disagree with the government and can by virtue of Constitutional protections that were affirmed by earlier "Judicial Activists" say what they want without fear of governmental reprisal.  That's the beauty and genius of this 230 year old experiment in democracy.  We can voice our support or opposition without fear of being thrown in prison or killed outright by our government.  

We made a great stride as a country and a community on Friday.  Winston Churchill once said when discussing the Americans finally joining the fight during World War II: "The Americans will always do the right thing...after they have exhausted all the alternatives".   We did the right thing yesterday.  Let's keep it up.

I'm proud of this country and it's growth.  

Tell me what you think.

Regards,
Dennis

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Father's Day Thoughts

Like many of my fellow fathers out there, I get a chance to get my ego stroked today.  My kids, all three of them will give me a hug, a card, maybe a nice cigar or so and for a short period of time they'll overlook all the mistakes I made in raising them.  So, today, when I'm the "World's Best Dad",  I will get to revel in the well meaning accolades that will also be repeated in home after home across our country. 

It's interesting that typically the day is one-sided.  Sure, we all like to have our good points called out.  We like the stories of being the super-hero when the kids were young and saved them from the monster under the bed.  We like the stories of teaching our kids how to swim or throw a curve ball or fix a broken something. We like being told how good we are.  It's logical. Most people would rather hear about the good stuff than the bad.  But, while all the attention is on us for a day, then perhaps we should touch on the not-so-good stuff.  I'm not talking about the mistakes we make with our kids in terms of missing a ball-game or a play.  Or, being too busy to have a tea-party with your young daughter and 5 or 6 of her favorite dolls and stuffed animals.  Those are normal, common and all of us have committed those errors from time to time.  I'm talking about a more fundamental mistake that is made between a Dad and his kids.  That mistake is not taking your role as a teacher seriously enough, or perhaps even more egregious, taking it serious enough to teach the wrong things.

Being a father is a serious responsibility.  To paraphrase a popular HBO Show "The way is dark and full of terror".  It's a scary business.  I think anyone who has walked in our shoes can attest to the abject terror when your kid is hurt, sick,  or missing (even for a few minutes).  The disappointment we feel when our kid does something stupid or wrong or mean.  The helplessness we feel when our kids are unhappy and we can't fix it.  Those feelings are the counter-balance to the joy, pride and hope we feel most of the time.  There seems to be a yin and yang to this experience of being the patriarch of our little family units.  Most of us go through our time as a parent with an equal mixture of worry, hope, sadness and joy.  I experience all of these feelings every day, and I'm a veteran Dad of some 28 years.   It doesn't go away, and, as time progresses, some of us (at least I do on a regular basis) reflect about how we could have been a better Dad.  I am compelled toward this thinking because there is not a day that goes by that I don't think about my own Dad and the lessons he taught me, and the nuanced approach he had on making sure I would be up to the task of fatherhood when my time came.  I wonder often, if he would think I am doing OK or if I've made a hash of things.   I believe I've done fairly well, my kids seem to be generally in good shape and overall happy.  But, I don't know how much of that is really me or their mother, or simply circumstance at large.   Why I do know, is that I've made it a point over the last couple of decades with my kids to try and teach them not to hate.  This fundamental lesson was passed down to me by my Dad.   He told me over and over that "If you allow yourself to hate, then you're only harming yourself and the people around you"; "Don't give into it, it will make you sick";  "Hatred leads to violence and feeds on itself" and "You can't hate things into love".   

Hatred is not genetic. We're certainly encoded to develop feelings and thoughts and points of view, but no one is born hating something or some one.   This is learned behavior.  Where is it learned?  Oh, many places I suppose, but the primary place of learning for all of us is not in the schools, not in the churches, not in the streets, not in the libraries. It's at home.  We learn more from our parents in terms of how we develop our character and how we look at the world than probably anywhere else.  Yes, we can get our minds corrupted later, we can by virtue of experience change our perspective on many things, but our fundamental education on how we treat other people is taught at home, and here's the kicker guys.  It's usually taught by Dads.  We are (especially with respect to sons) the "Organic Wikipedia".  They come to us for answers, look to us for example, mirror our behavior, and generally, until they are about 11 or 12 want to be like us.  By the time they are 13 or 14, they've usually decided they're adopted because there is no way they could have biological parents as stupid as us.  By the way, that period of disclaiming heritage passes about the time they have their first mortgage payment and Voila! we become smart again.    But, I digress.  Back to the education.  How many of you have been a little shocked or ashamed when something you may have said gets repeated back to you by your 3 or 4 year old?  Maybe you were swearing at the guy that cut you off, or frustrated because the lawn-mower wouldn't start and you launched into a stream of profanity that would make a sailor blush. Then, you're at the grocery store and for the eleventh time you've said no to the request for the candy bar only to hear your beautiful son or daughter repeat those same profanities while you're standing in the check-out line. Of course all of that is over heard by imperious looking people who would never raise kids like that.  It makes you want to put a bag on your head and slink out the door never to shop their again. We've all done this.  We've seen it over and over again with our friends and neighbors and for the most part, it's a little funny even though we know, it's a living reminder of when we stepped into it.

Sometimes though, and perhaps even subconsciously, we teach things that are more dark. We teach bigotry, prejudice, hatred.  Some do it on purpose, with overt derision toward people who don't look like them, act like them, worship like them, love like them, or think like them.  These are the lessons that leave permanent scars on humanity, because they are easily learned, often never re-directed, and by the time our pupils become adults are so thoroughly entrenched that it's almost impossible for the lessons to be unlearned.

The shooting in Charleston that was committed by an admitted racist, who is quite obviously insane, strikes me as a graduate of the school of hatred.  Where did he learn this?  Was it his Father and Mother? Grandparents? Was it his environment? Was it his friends? His school? The Internet?   Who knows, but he learned this somewhere.  And at 21 years old, he acted on his hatred and now nine people are dead.  Where was the Dad in this?  What lessons did he teach?  How active was he during  the formative years of this young murderer?  Did he teach the son right from wrong? Did he teach him love or hate?  Where exactly was he?  Now, I do not want to paint this Dad with a brush that suggest the child's actions are his fault.  There is no evidence to suggest that.  This could all have been an act of a horrible mental illness gaining control over his son.  But, I would think that a Dad, if he is in tune with what is going on in his kids life (even if the kid doesn't live with him), would pick up on these signals, and attempt to do something about it.   Perhaps the Dad had no clue.   But, unless this act of violence came from a recent conversion of this killer towards a race based murder, the hatred was there for awhile and had to be learned.

We fathers are part of a wonderful fraternity.  We get massive benefits from saying "That's my kid, look how great he/she is at (fill in the blank).  It fills us with pride, and gives us a sense that our life had a purpose.   It's important that we recognize our role in this fraternity as one that requires active participation, not passive observation.  The Dad who overtly encourages their kids to hate, to be bigoted, to find every difference to them that someone has as a fault is dooming their kids, and perhaps their kid's kids to a series of experiences that only ends in pain.  We have to take our role as fathers seriously. We have to know that the lessons we teach, whether by example or by word, are the most lasting.  We have a chance to make the place better for our kids and grand kids and it starts with what we teach.  So, let's think about this and talk about it and become better teachers.

Now, back to the ego-pumping praising of how great we are today!  We're #1! We're #1, etc. etc...

Happy Father's Day


Dennis

Monday, May 25, 2015

Take a Moment

This article has no axe to grind or political statement to be made.  Just a request:

Take a moment and reflect.


And finally,



Those casualties that are still living and with us deserve our support.  Help if you can.  Here's a link to a network of veteran's service organizations:   http://veteransnetwork.net/directory.php


Thanks.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

War on Christianity in the US? - I think not

Full disclosure:  The article you are about to read (or not), is written by an atheist.   So, if that's enough to turn you off from the rest of the column, then so be it. I can respect that.  I only disclose my atheism to establish a baseline up front from where my perspective on the topic of the article comes from.  If that tells you I'm bias, o.k., but I'd just ask that you give the article some consideration and think about it a bit.  This article will not slam people of faith. I don't do that. I have no axe to grind with people who believe in a God or Gods as long as they don't attempt to impose those beliefs on me through coercion, legislation, or force. I will in turn not ask you to substantiate your beliefs, because while I know that is as impossible as proving that there's not a ceramic teapot orbiting the earth at this very moment it is irrelevant to me.  Believe what you want to believe. I respect many people of faith and appreciate the way they live their faith through their actions.   I also do not respect many people of faith because of their actions and words.  That is what this article is about as well as the "Twilight Zone" reality that many of the people quoted seem to reside in.  So, here goes, and I'd like to get your comments and opinion. 
Ah yes, the political silly season has started again (actually, does it ever end? I'd like a break in the foolishness sometimes.  Maybe just a day or two.)in full force and along with that, we now see cries from folks such as Mike Huckabee that there is a literal "war" on Christians in this country.   Mr. Huckabee said this past week that "The United States is moving toward "criminalization of Christianity" as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage."   He went on to say "I think it's fair to say that Christian convictions are under attack as never before, Not just in our lifetime, but ever before in the history of this great nation."  The article, published in Politico (click the link for the full text) suggest that because of a movement towards same-sex marriage equality, we are at war with Mr. Huckabee and those who believe what he believes.  Well, I would suggest that the term "war" is a bit over the top.  No one is launching cruise missiles at Mr. Huckabee or for that matter any Christian church in the nation as far as I know.  But, that aside, Mr. Huckabee has decided that Christians are under attack because people are beginning to come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage isn't the evil it has been purported to be, and that in the interest of fairness, gay people should have the same rights relative to marriage as non-gay people.  Mr. Huckabee is an ordained minister, and oh yes, a former Governor of Arkansas, and oh yes, a former presidential candidate who won a primary in Iowa in 2008, and finally, oh yes, a likely candidate for president again in 2016.   So, is Mr. Huckabee's assertion one from deeply believed convictions or is it a straw-man argument to gain support from the more fundamentally religious voters?  I'll let you be the judge of that.  However,   This "movement towards criminalization of Christianity" that Mr. Huckabee is on about seems to me to be more about being against same-sex marriage than it is persecuting people's religious beliefs. 

Let's get a little context before we go on.  There is indeed religious persecution in this world. There are countries who sanction it.  One of them is Saudi Arabia, who will lock you up for proselytizing faiths other than the state sanctioned religion.  In many countries in Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, China, and many other countries, you can be considered criminal for practicing a faith that is not sanctioned by the state.  There is no doubt that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and many other religions are seeing their followers attacked, killed or imprisoned and this is simply flat wrong.   However, there is no such activity going on in this country nor will there ever be.  Why?  Because we are a nation of multiples.  The core make up of this country is one of infused thoughts and ideas from many places across the world.  Different religious beliefs abound in the United States.  There are thousands of different sects of Christians practicing their religion in the United States.  There are Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, Scientologists, Native Americans who have multiple faiths, and on, and on and on.  We have a as a country gone to great lengths to respect the religious religious beliefs of our fellow Americans.  I see no overt attempt to deny any one's right to worship or believe in what they choose to believe, until it begins to invade another person's rights.   The maxim that "your right to swing your fist ends before it hits my nose" is appropriate here.  You're faith can inform you, it can comfort you, it can provide strength or peace.  What it should never do is put the people that do not share your beliefs or whose lifestyle you find repugnant into a situation where they are denied the same legal protection of rights and privileges you hold dear.

The sticking point here is about a person's "faith" informing them that pizzeria owners can decide not to serve you a pizza if you're gay.  They believe that a business, which while maybe a private business, but must still abide by the laws of this land and utilizes the "commons" (roads, bridges, and other services paid for by the tax payers without which they could not do business) can discriminate based on their beliefs.  

Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's chief executive and he himself perhaps a presidential contender in 2016, recently penned an op-ed in the New York Times titled 'I'm Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage" has suggested that because "Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn't an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?" businesses should be allowed to discriminate against same sex couples in the normal course of their business operations.  OK, Governor Jindal's state, like many others have adopted over the last few years laws such as Louisiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", which essentially codifies discrimination.   The governor will tell you that it doesn't, it simply protects businesses from legal action because of their religious beliefs.  So, essentially while you're not supposed to discriminate, the legislation provides a "fire-wall" of defense in case you get sued in a civil action that will protect you.   As long as your religious beliefs could have been violated if you were forced to sell a gay couple that pizza, when you refused to do so, and the couple sued you, you would be protected.  

This type of subversive legislation is being passed by many states (see Indiana's recent imbroglio as an example) as a measure of "protecting religious liberty".  Suppose, then if  I'm a follower of Jack Lalane, the exercise guru in the 1960s and 1970's, and my fellow followers petitioned the federal government and got affirmation that yes we were indeed a religion (see Scientology). My religion is called Lalanisty. Now, I run a donut shop  in Baton Rouge.  I should be able to deny a fat person a donut because my religious beliefs inform me that I should only be required to sell donuts to healthy, skinny people. This is basically the basis of Governor Jindal's and those who support these types of legislation arguments.  Because they find what you do repugnant, they shouldn't have to serve you.   

The idea of this of course is not new.  It's been around a long time.  When reason begins to take hold, and fear and ignorance fall by the way side, issues like same-sex marriage start to gain acceptance.  The more ardent believers that the issue is wrong begins to justify continuing it's bigotry with religious justifications or "natural law" justifications.  Here's an example of the thinking about another issue that when you read them are easily transported into the 21st century in discussions around same-sex marriage:
  1.  "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites" - State v. Jackson, Missouri (1883)
  2.  "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate (...)They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good." - Scott v. Georgia (1869)
  3.  "The law's stated purpose was to prevent abominable mixture and spurious issue."  It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring." - Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924
  4. . "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal.  Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts as it as wrong." - Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), (1863)
  5.  "Intermarriages between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."  - Scott v. Sandford (1857)
  6.  "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says the races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicate that interracial marriage is not best for man." - Bob Jones University (1998), yes, you read that right.  1998.
All of these citations of course are about the thinking around interracial marriage.  It wasn't until the Supreme Court put this issue to rest in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, that the matter was given legal protection by the United States, and it became illegal for those people who objected on religious grounds to perform a civil marriage, or even a sectarian marriage between interracial couples.
Guess what?  The Republic stands.  The "immorality and unnaturalness" of interracial marriages was based on fear and ignorance, and when finally the prohibitions were done away with, we recognize as a society that the views, however faithfully subscribed to, on this topic were wrong.  During this time frame, there were similar cries of religious persecution against those who believed in their heart of hearts that racial integration through marriage was wrong.  It's time for us as a country to do the same with the issue of same-sex marriage equality.  There are 36 states who have legalized marriage between same-sex couples.  Guess what?  The Republic stands.
I would suggest to you that the notion of a war on Christianity is simply false.  The idea is being pushed by politicians and certain religious leaders as a way of dividing people and ginning up votes or money.  By the way, why is it that several religious leaders in the Christian family of denominations have no problem with homosexuality or marrying same sex couples?  They preach from the same Bible that those who find it "un-Christian", as Mr. Huckabee evidently does.  They worship the same Jesus. They keep the same commandments.   It's curious to me.

I'd like to hear from those who disagree, and actually believe that somehow Christians are being persecuted.  I'm not interested in ad hominem attacks, but a serious discussion on how you see the issue.   

Tell me what you think.
Regards,
Dennis



Thursday, April 23, 2015

The 2016 Presidential Election - Off and Running

So, it has begun.   On 3/23/2015, Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas formally declared his candidacy to become the 45th President of these United States of America.  597 days to election day, the junior senator from Texas launched the official campaign season to replace President Obama as the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. 

Since that time, Hillary Clinton, the presumptive candidate for the Democratic party's nomination, Marco Rubio, Republican senator from Florida, and Rand Paul, Republican senator from Kentucky have also formally declared that they are in the race to gain your vote to become President.  And soon, we'll likely hear from former Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Scott Walker, former Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Chris Christie, former Governor Rick Perry and a host of others who are vying for the nomination of the GOP to compete against Ms. Clinton, who at this time has no serious declared opposition.

So what are we to make of this field of GOP candidates?  Certainly, they are getting off to an early start.  It seems like the 2012 election just happened, and the new candidates are off and running again.  In my life time, I do not recall the tournament beginning as early as this one has.  The field of potential candidates is too large to make a prediction on who will eventually win the GOP nomination.  There are according to www.politicks.org, a seemingly non-partisan and fairly objective site that is tracking candidates, 29 potential candidates for the GOP nomination, 12 of whom have formally declared.  Now, all but 3 of the declared candidates are unlikely to be heard of by the general public, but nonetheless the field is crowded at this point.

Indeed, the slate of candidates and potential candidates includes business leaders, politicians, an ordained minister and even a neurosurgeon.   The field of politicians includes 10 governors (either sitting or former), that include the likes of Bush, Walker, Christie, but also Huckabee, Jindahl, Kasich, Pataki, Erlich, Snyder and a few others.  The business leaders include Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO, and the omnipresent Donald J. Trump, real estate mogul and TV personality.  The array of candidates will provide an interesting mix of experience, point of view, and hopefully some comic relief as they careen toward the primary season.   I expect several of the candidates known and unknown will fall aside due to lack of funding, interest, or other factors.  Certainly, the poll from CNN which was conducted between April 16-19 and is shown on the graphic indicates that "Other Candidates or None of the Above" are currently leading 8 of the candidates shown.  That can't be too uplifting for Chris Christie or Rick Perry, but it's early days. Who knows?  One or more of them may vault to the top before this thing is done.  What is certain, is that we will soon be seeing a never ending stream of political ads, You-Tube videos, and never ending bloviating from the punditry on who will be the nominee. 

As this race is just beginning, and it's a fools errand to pick a nominee at this point, I'm going to publish series of articles on this blog that will highlight the differences in the candidates and their specific views and experiences on those factors that would make a president.   The methodology I will use is described below, and will be ironically objective, because as anyone who has read this blog or knows me can attest, I will not be voting for any of them.  As an avowed Liberal, not one of these individuals will get my support or money.  So, I can be objective about their attributes both positive and negative from the standpoint of who will have the best chance of winning the nomination.   There will be no comparison to Hillary Clinton or any other Independent candidate, and I'll focus on the following factors to make my evaluation of the candidates:

1. Experience - What experience does the candidate possess that makes them more qualified than another for leading a country?
2. Leadership - What leadership traits does the potential candidate possess that makes them suited for the office?
3. Vision - What views, thoughts, ideas, perspectives does the potential candidate possess that can capture the nation's attention and support?
4. Empathy - Does the candidate have a track record of understanding the American people from the wealthiest to the poorest? Is the candidate in touch with the country at large?

Those four factors while general in nature are critical to understanding a person's ability to be President.  Rating the candidates will be done on a 5 point scale, with 1 being a value that indicates the highest qualifications in the category and 5 being the lowest.   In my next article, I'll have the weighting descriptions described for the entire scale.   

The evaluation of the candidates will be my own, and not an indicator of who I necessarily think will win the nomination, but who I think should win the nomination.   As to who will win, we will leverage the same CNN Poll that shows the initial standings of the candidates and comment on week to week changes  where the competitors stack up against each other.  I will make a prediction on the nominee in January of 2016, which even then may be too early as the primary season will not yet be in full bloom.  Until then, I will provide as much information on the candidates as I can in order to give the reader a worthwhile use of their time. 

I'm interested to hear if there are other factors you consider when picking a candidate for President.  Please let me know, as we can certainly consider adding those to the mix. 

Tell me what you think.

Regards,
Dennis

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Religious Freedom?

Governor Mike Pence of Indiana is having a rough weekend.  The reason?  His signature of Senate Bill 101, otherwise known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA.).  Upon signing the bill, Governor Pence said:  “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

Within hours of signing the legislation the backlash on the bill started.  Several significant business leaders have decried the decision including the CEO of Salesforce.com, Apple's CEO Tim Cook, and the CEO of Gen Con LLC, who was planning on holding a major convention in Indianapolis and who now is considering canceling or relocating the convention.  The convention would infuse the state with an estimated $50M of revenue.   The reason people have come out so strongly against the decision to sign the bill is that they believe it gives corporations and individuals the right to discriminate against same sex couples.   Effectively, the law legalizes discrimination against gays.

The supporters of the bill argue that this supports religious freedom in that someone cannot be compelled to offer services or goods in violation of their religious beliefs.   This is not a new phenomenon.  Similar laws are on the books in 19 states, so perhaps Governor Pence felt like this wouldn't cause the firestorm of controversy the passage of the bill ignited.

The passage of the bill and the statement by Governor Pence (full text here) have set out another battleground in the current civil rights struggle regarding equality for LGBT people.  The bill's detractors are mobilizing en masse, and boycotts, social networking campaigns, celebrity and political voices raised against the passage are indicators that this issue will not be ignored.

What Governor Pence and the supporters of the bill claim is that they are protecting religious freedom.  Their point of view is that if you are religious, your religious beliefs trump the reality of day to day life.  You, as a religious person with a business can claim that your life is somehow adversely impacted by doing what you do every day, which is to sell your goods and services to consumers.  Somehow, simply because someone is gay and you are forced to serve them you have been injured.  The Governor and the authors of the legislation have a myopic view on this, because attempting to protect one's beliefs is causing injury to others.  There is an old maxim that is relevant in this discussion:  "The right for you to swing your fist stops at my nose..."  I think however, this has less to do with religious freedom than it does with religious disapproval of a person because of their sexual orientation.

The legislation, like many other similar laws passed by other states are in my opinion the dying throes of an antiquated and bigoted philosophy.  I sincerely believe that in 50 years our grand kids and their children will look back on this time and say "What were they thinking?"  It's already happening, but old prejudices die hard (see Ferguson) and hate has a long memory.   What I cannot abide though is the notion that a religious person (and face it folks, we're talking "Christians" here) would believe that the central figure in their faith would behave this way with gays anymore than he would with left-handed people, short people, fat people, tall people, and well you get the point.   Jesus Christ never had anything to say about gays.  Nothing, nada, zip.  The man was silent on a subject that seems to consume a large population of his followers to the point they will picket funerals, bully people, and pass laws that make discrimination against them legal.  I simply don't understand the idea that someone who said "Love thy neighbor as thyself" would sanction this behavior towards fellow humans.

Prejudice is all around us and in us. We all have our biases.  I for example, absolutely despise banjo music and think all banjos should be gathered up and thrown in a land-fill never to have their twangy, plucky, irritating sound heard again for eternity.  But, hey, I'm not trying to get anti-banjo legislation passed because my religious beliefs prohibit that horrible noise.   I get the prejudice. Guess what?  If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.  If you don't like gay sex, then don't have it. There is an easy way to deal with this, and it's called "put on your big-boy pants and get over it".

I don't understand someone claiming treating people equally somehow violates your religious freedom.   If your religion compels you to behave this way perhaps you have the wrong religion.  Or, more likely, you're cherry picking the teachings of your faith to fit your particular prejudice.  It's not like it hasn't been done before.  For hundreds of years, "good Christian people" used religion to subjugate, terrorize, and murder people who didn't look like them or think like them or worship like them.  It's happening today with certain sects and factions in the Islamic community.  It will likely continue until people finally realize the commandments and directives they believe in are not derived by their gods but are actually manipulations written by some humans with an agenda.

It's no surprise to anyone who has read my articles that I am an Atheist.  The reason I am an Atheist is that I do not believe in a "God" who behaves worse in general than his/her/it's creation.   Am I certain there is no God?  No.  Just like those who believe in God are not certain there is.  Certainty requires evidence, and not simply faith.  Evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and beneficent deity is sorely lacking.  I digress though, as this isn't a rant against religion (that will come later).  The point of this post is twofold. One, we are humans and are different in as many ways as we are similar.  We are also a progressive species, and over time this ridiculous idea that gays are flawed humans or are "wrong" will fade into the dustbin of history.  Just as we don't burn witches at the stake anymore, we will one day not have absurd arguments about gays and their choice or lack thereof of life-style.

Finally,  and somewhat back to religion for a moment:  
I have an incredibly hard time believing that this guy (an ordained Presbyterian Minister) would be so hateful and prejudiced against other people because he spent his life telling people that "He liked them just they way they are".  Even though I'm an Atheist, I believe there has been no one in my lifetime that exemplified the teachings of Jesus Christ with respect to loving one's neighbor better than Fred Rogers.  If you think for a moment that this man didn't live his life in a manner that respects Jesus and truly represents Christianity, then your definition of Christian needs some additional thought.  Also, if you think for a moment that this gentle, wise and authentically kind person would support a law like the one passed in Indiana, then you need to go back and watch a few of the episodes of the "Neighborhood".  I think you'll come away with a different point of view. 


To couch this legislation as religious freedom protection should upset people of faith.  It is using their faith as a tool of manipulation to provide cover for bigotry and hatred.  I think the Governor and in particular the authors of this legislation should be ashamed of themselves and I would only ask them this:  If your child was gay, would you be proud that a store in Indiana can refuse to sell them a meal, or a suit, or a car because of who they are?  Seriously?

Tell me what you think,

regards,
Dennis

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Why I'm not supporting Hillary for 2016

The recent revelations of Ms. Clinton's failure to comply with government regulations regarding the use of email notwithstanding, I will not be supporting her almost inevitable bid for the presidency in 2016.  The reasons are many, and I will detail a few o them here.  However, before anyone believes I'm jumping ships over to the clown car that contains the group of the latest Republican wannabes, let me dispel that now.  I will not support a bunch of people that don't espouse belief in science, in diplomacy, in a women's right to control her own body, in marriage equality, or in dealing with income inequality and poverty.  The host of utter disappointments in the Republican field are as bad as they have ever been, and there is no way in hell that I'd lift a finger to support these charlatans.

Now that being said, let me return to the topic at hand.  Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator from New York, Secretary of State of the United States, is without a doubt a capable and intelligent woman.  She is also emblematic of what is wrong with politics in the United States today.  For too long, (at least since the 1980's) we have seen political parties do their best to convince the country that they are the "saviors" of America and just buying into their spiel will put things right.  To be sure, that's the way the system works.  One side derides the other, while both are claiming to want what is best for the population at large.  Listen to them both carefully, boil down their messages and essentially they say the same thing over and over again.  We want an America where every one can progress and achieve the American Dream!  We want a secure and strong America!  We want to make absolutely sure that you know we're the right party for you and those other guys are (insert whatever invective, pejorative, denigration or derision you want here).

Ms. Clinton has been in the public eye since the 1970's, when she partnered with William Jefferson Clinton, probably the greatest political campaigner and thinker about politics that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  She and Bill forged a partnership in the early 1970's and she transformed herself from a Goldwater Republican to a McGovern backing liberal.  Mr. Clinton has gone through many transformations himself.  Again, from being a McCarthy, McGovern liberal to transforming into a center-right Democrat as he needed to regain the governorship in Arkansas and eventually become the 42nd President of the United States.

Something happened along the way from Little Rock to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Both of them moved into the seductive and almost irresistible arena of big money politics.  Now, this may have been a political necessity, because if you don't get elected, you can't govern.  You can't get elected unless you compete, and in the latter part of the 20th century and certainly in the last two decades of the 21st century, you can't compete or get elected unless you have money.

The Clintons learned this lesson quickly as they are both incredibly intelligent people.  I believe they made a conscious decision that steers toward the meme that the "ends justify the means".  In other words, they would sell-out to Wall Street and other big-money people so they could get to the White House and then govern as best they could.  I believe that both are idealistic in some areas.  The work they have taken on is substantial and hard, and there are many other ways to get wealthy, so this isn't about personal, material gain. It is about power.   Power.  The ability to influence people and events to your manner of thinking.  The ability to force people and events into behaving the way you want them to.  It is I believe the singular drive for Ms. Clinton as it was for her husband.  They are in my mind the real-life model for Frank and Claire Underwood from the Netflix series House of Cards.  Now, I do not believe they would resort to the deviltry and chicanery that the Underwoods have done on their way to Pennsylvania Avenue.  That of course is fiction (by the way, I think series 3 is vastly disappointing).    I do believe however they are thinking first about how to arrange the chessboard in their favor. I think they will use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals.  Therein lies the problem to me.  When anyone moves beyond doing what is right for the people they serve to the doing what is right for them, then they have lost sight of what the job is.

Ms. Clinton is smart. She is accomplished.  In terms of capability, she puts her erstwhile competition over in the GOP clown car to shame.  She would probably get elected in a cake-walk.  But I hope not.  I hope she thinks about this and decides to forgo the campaign.  She won't, because like her husband, the White House is the goal, and for whatever rationalized reasons she comes up with, she believes she is the best person to be President.   I don't.  I'm looking for a game-changer.  I want someone that can look up on the job as a job and something that requires commitment to the values and vision the candidates campaign on.  What I foresee in a Clinton administration is more triangulation, more gamesmanship, more working around the edges of a problem than actually fixing it.  I see an administration that will be too cozy with the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Diamonds and not one that will focus on the hard work to resolve the hard problems in the country.  I see a massively divisive government if she is elected, even more so that the current situation, because before their was Barack Obama, there was Bill and Hillary.  I remember well the invective thrown at the Clintons by the Republicans then and they look like amateurs compared with the nest of vipers in the GOP today.  So, there will be even more noise about perceived wrongs and executive overreach with a Clinton Administration.  I think the country is exhausted with this noise out of Washington. I certainly am.

I don't see anyone who has shown an interest in the job that fits that mold though and it is disappointing.  It's certainly early and there's always a chance someone might enter into the fray that is focused on really solving problems versus accumulating power.  

So, this liberal will not be supporting the presumed nominee for the Democratic Party.  I am looking for something else.  I wonder what Bill Gates is up to these days?

Tell me what you think.

regards,
Dennis

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ferguson - Now What?

Like many, I watched the announcement of the Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson on charges for the death of Michael Brown.   The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, rambled on regarding the process and facts presented to the Grand Jury for a good 8 minutes before finally announcing the no-bill.   Now, there were several things wrong with this whole event.  First and foremost, they made the announcement at around 9pm in the evening, after announcing the day before that the Grand Jury's decision  would be forthcoming.  So, what did this do?  It allowed the people waiting on the decision to build up an enormous amount of emotion on the issue.   Rather than announcing it in the morning, they wrongly waited until the evening.  I suppose they were attempting to plan for the aftermath of the announcement and get police prepared.  Then of course, what everyone expected to happen did indeed happen.  Despite pleas from Michael Brown's parents to protest without resorting to violence, violence occurred.  It was inevitable for many reasons.  First, there were people who regardless of the decision would act out.  Second, there are people genuinely upset with the police, the district attorney, the governor, the country at -large and acted out of despair and hopelessness.  Thankfully, the damage and injury was contained somewhat. It could have been much worse.  The sad thing is the whole situation never had to result in the outcome that occurred on Monday evening.


Mr. McCulloch, the prosecutor with responsibilities to present the facts of the case to the Grand Jury bungled this whole thing from the start.  First of all, they waited far too long to impanel the Grand Jury. Then, the process by which the Grand Jury reviewed the information seemed to be intentionally focused towards confusion.  In most cases, prosecuting attorneys present a recommended charge for the Grand Jury to consider in weighing the information presented.  The point is this: Does the information presented support a specific charge to the point that an indictment is warranted?   Mr. McCulloch did a "data dump" of thousands of pages of information regarding the case, had several different witnesses, including Officer Wilson testify in front of the Grand Jury, and presented a list of "possible charges" the Grand Jury could consider.  Now, this is unusual for many reasons. First, the lack of a recommended charge. Secondly, testimony from the Officer.  This rarely happens in a closed Grand Jury hearing.   The testimony given by Officer Wilson is an amazing account of the incident, and in my view it had an influence on the decision to indict or not.  The point here is, that a Grand Jury hearing is not a trial.  It is a hearing to determine whether there should be a trial.  Given the outcome and the history of Mr. McCulloch's tenure as prosecuting attorney, the result of this doesn't pass the sniff test of credibility in my view.   This decision to no-bill could have been the proper one. But, so much time had passed, and so much dysfunction from the prosecutor's office polluted the sense that this was a fair process that the decision is dubious whether proper or not.

We have an officer with a very suspicious story about the events of August 9th who will not be taken to trial.  Officer Wilson's account of the day in his testimony do not square up with witness accounts, or even his own initial reports of what happened.
That's not necessarily a surprise, as often witness accounts vary and sometimes change based on time.  But the fact of the matter are this:  Officer Darren Wilson fired 12 shots from his gun, seven of which entered Michael Brown's body.   Officer Wilson indicated that Mr. Brown attacked him while he was still sitting in his police cruiser, attempted to grab his gun, and then ran away, then ran back towards the officer.   Mr. Brown at one time was about 150 feet away from the officer, who continued to discharge his weapon.  Officer Wilson, up to this incident had never discharged his fire-arm in the line of duty.  This time, however, he fired twelve rounds at an 18 year old man.   He killed a man that was under suspicion for robbing a convenience store.   His account of the incident suggests a confrontation with a "demon" like figure who Officer Wilson was afraid would beat him to death.

Perhaps all of that was true.  Perhaps Mr. Brown was a superhuman
that could run through a series of bullets and get to Officer Wilson and hurt or kill him.  Perhaps the accounts of the incident came down exactly the way Officer Wilson describes it.  The first question I have and a lot of other people have is why did it have to happen?  Officer Wilson, in his own words describes Mr. Brown as being aggressive from the point of initial contact.  If this is true, and as Officer Wilson describes it, he called for back-up, why didn't he wait?  Why didn't he withdraw from the situation until more support could arrive?  Why, did he continue to involve himself into a situation that escalated to the point that an 18 year old was killed?  What was the hurry?  This was a confrontation that didn't have to be a life or death situation.  The circumstances could have been De-escalated and with additional support Mr. Brown could have been confronted, arrested and then dealt with in a proper manner.  Instead, we have a dead kid (yes, an 18 year old is a kid), an officer whose life is forever altered and a set of parents who had to put their kid into a casket and into the ground way too early.

Police violence has become an all too frequent affair.  Since August 9, 2014, there have been 14 teenagers shot and killed by police officers.  We are seeing more and more aggression from police that includes an severe increase in shootings and violent confrontations.  I believe there are many reasons for this and have some thoughts on how to attempt to resolve what seems to be an ever escalating level of violence.

First, some observations on the current state of affairs:

1. The "war on drugs" is responsible for much of the confrontation occurring between police and young people.  The aggressive policing, "no-knock" searches, stop and frisk policies, etc. establish an immediate and palpable level of suspicion for the police.
2. Disproportionate responses to incidents with militarized police procedures.   SWAT teams, riot gear, tear-gas, and a higher level of aggressive response is causing more and more violence.  SWAT teams used to be specialized tactical forces that were only called out in the most dire of circumstances. Now, in some jurisdictions, SWAT teams are delivering an executing search warrants.
3. Police that does not represent the community.  In Ferguson specifically, this is a major problem.  Ferguson is a suburb of St. Louis, and has a population of about 20 thousand people.  Two-thirds of the residents in Ferguson are black.  The police force in Ferguson has 53 officers, 3 of which are black.  The police actions are skewed disproportionately toward incidents with black citizens of the community.  In 2013, there were 5318 "police stops" (traffic tickets are a major source of city revenue in Ferguson. It is a notorious speed-trap).  Of the 5318 stops, 4632 were tops of black citizens and 686 were of white citizens.  That's a 87% to 13% or about a 6 to 1 ratio.  Now, I don't think the black people in Ferguson are that heavy footed, and even with the population being 66% black, it's still a highly inflated figure.   The data on arrests is no better. In 2013,  there were 521 arrests made by the Ferguson police department.  of the 521 arrests made, 483 were of black citizens and 36 were of white citizens. That's a 93%  to 7% or about 13 to 1 ratio.  Now considering that only 5% of the police officers in Ferguson are black, and 93% of the arrests in 2013 were of black people I wonder what the perspective of blacks toward the police might be? 

Now,  how to address:

1. Politicians have to get off their asses and do the hard work of diffusing the aggression and acrimony between police and the citizenry, particularly the lower income communities.   They can do this by focusing on engagement rather than estrangement.  Instead of running on a "tough on crime" stance with bellicose statements and policies that enforce things like mandatory minimum drug offenses they have other choices.  They can get into the community and work with the business leaders, clergy, educators, and others to increase community policing, alternative discipline strategies for first offenders and the like.  This approach is having success in some cities. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake in Baltimore and Mitch Landrieu in New Orleans are seeing some successful response from the communities with this approach.  Coupled with a change in approach, we must stop the insanity that is the manner by which we deal with drug offenders.  The amount of arrests and incarceration for drug offenses is idiotic and has proven to be an abject failure. Getting cops out of putting cuffs on a kid for holding a joint and back to  protecting that kid from a dealer will go along way to get some credibility back in the community.

2. Get the beat-cop back on the beat.  Rather than having fewer cops, we need more.  We need more that are engaged and known in the community and are not walking down the street looking like they are about to engage Al-Qaeda in Mosul or Fallujah.   During the Clinton administration, funding was delivered from the federal government that help put several thousand police back on the street, and in particular on the "beat", where they became known and familiar. Guess what, in those areas, crime rates dropped.

3. Get a police force, and for that matter a government that is representative of the community.  The Ferguson example is ridiculous.  There is little chance for a community that is overwhelmingly unrepresented in city government and in the police force to heal and trust each other particularly when the statistics about police behavior are so upside down.

4. Better technology and training for police.  It's clear the situation with Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown could have been avoided with better actions on the part of the Officer.  Training officers on alternative approaches to confrontation would be useful.   Body-Cams recording incidents between citizenry and the police would be immensely useful in situations like the one between Wilson and Brown.  Having a visual record of the events would allow for an objective view of the incident and could have quelled the violence and rioting that occurred last Monday regardless of what happened.  We should have mandatory body-cams on patrolling officers.  It will help them. It will help the citizenry.  It will help the good cops and will deter bad behavior.   Why this isn't standard police gear just like their weapon or handcuffs or radios are beyond me.

5. Do a much faster job of investigating police shootings or violence.  There is no reason why it has taken from August until now to come to resolution on the Wilson / Brown issue.  The amount of time taken, along with the leaks from various sources only inflame a situation like this.  Fast and aggressive investigation with transparency in the process can help.  Every facet of local and state government in this case failed.  The Governor should have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate this instead of Mr. McCulloch because of his close association with the Ferguson police department.  Now, whether or not that impacted his approach on this is immaterial. The perception it conveys to the public is what matters.  An independent investigator not associated with the police would have given the perception of objectivity and could have given the community a level of confidence that this wasn't rigged in Officer Wilson's favor from the beginning.

We have an opportunity to learn from this monumental fuck-up and do better.  We have to do better. It makes me sick to my stomach to see this happen over and over again.  We can be a better nation than this.  If we expect people to respect the rule of law, then the rule of law has to work effectively.  It certainly is not doing so now.

Tell me what you think.

Dennis