Thursday, February 25, 2016
Emancipation: the fact or process of being set free from legal, social,
or political restrictions; liberation:
You, and every
citizen in the “freest nation on earth” are two steps away from a jail cell.
No, I’m not engaging in hyperbole, you have two degrees of
emancipation from the penal justice system. It’s true. It is an indisputable
fact, and I can prove it.
You see, somehow we have gotten to the point that every….single….facet
of American’s lives is regulated by one level of government, or more. Not only
that, but transgressing any of their regulations can land you in cuffs.
You cannot even use a
toilet in this country, without the toilet, the pipes, the water, the plumber,
the floor it’s set on, the walls beside it, the roof over it, being regulated.
And God forbid you
decide to go outside of an approved receptacle and get caught, you could end up
on the sex offenders list, for life!
So, how does that equate to two degrees of emancipation?
After all, they can’t throw you in jail for having an illegal toilet, or can
they? This is where it gets interesting.
It has always been true, for most of my life that all facets
of life were connected, however loosely, to the government’s approval of what I
do.
So, what do I mean about being two steps away from a jail
cell? Let me share a story. I was in a little town in Oklahoma about 10 pm a
few years back. When I came into town, I hit their speed trap and got dinged for
under 10 over.
So, I wrote a check and I put it in the mail, via their instructions on
the back of the citation. And, I thought, reasonably, that it was over and
forgot about it.
Fast forward eight
months, Edmond Oklahoma at a stoplight. There was a bit of gravel on the street
and as I stopped, my tires scratched, just the teeniest bit, causing my tire to
roll just a bit into the crosswalk. Since I saw a cop catty corner from me, I
checked my mirror and rolled back just a bit, thinking nothing.
A few seconds later,
the same cop has circled back and pulled me over because he saw me roll over
the stop line, and he’s only going to give me a warning. Takes my license. Five
minutes later, he’s unsnapping his holster and asking me to put my hands on the
car.
One speeding ticket on
a clean record, Plus, One missed court date that I received no notice from the
little town about, Plus, No criminal record, equals a trip to the city jail and
additional fines totaling $850, including an impound of my car, although I was
gone from it for less than an hour total.
So, what made it
happen? A little bit of magic called “Contempt of court”.
An almost knee jerk reaction to my not knowing I was
supposed to be there, and a “suspended license”, also automatic, also without
notification. Had I not been able to pay my fines, and my warrant fee, they
could have kept me. By the time I was extradited to the small town to see their
judge it could have been days.
And this can happen for ANYTHING, literally. Parking tickets, dog tickets, an unpaid
home inspection violation fine, a delayed payment for a fine for leaving your
trashcan at the curb, the list goes on.
So, you say, these are nuisances, don’t engage in antisocial
behavior and it won’t be a problem. Right?
Unless you live in
Oklahoma and decide to:
·
DO YOUR OWN HAIR WITHOUT A LICENSE
·
ALLOW THREE OR MORE DOGS TO CONGREGATE ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE MAYOR
·
HAVE ORAL SEX, EVEN IF MARRIED
·
TAKE A BITE OUT OF ANOTHER PERSON’S HAMBURGER
·
SPIT ON A SIDEWALK
·
WEAR BOOTS TO BED
·
HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIED
·
CARRY A FISH IN A FISHBOWL ON A PUBLIC BUS
·
DON’T PAY PROPERTY TAXES ANNUALLY ON YOUR
HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS
·
MAKE UGLY FACES AT PEOPLE
·
OR FORGET TO TIE UP YOUR CAR WHILE VISITING A
PUBLIC BUILDING.
All of these are
actual laws in the state of Oklahoma, which you can be directly jailed for, or
fined, then jailed if you miss court.
The United States of America has the largest percentage of
citizens behind bars of any nation on earth. Although we have less than 5% of
the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prisoners.
Not only that but it
has become an industry!
Prisons can be
privately owned, and in some states, they can have contracts with the
department of corrections that mandate a specific number of filled beds, or
huge fines to be paid by the state for not finding enough prisoners to keep the
beds filled.
Prisoners are often
hired out for labor and paid a small fraction of the wages they should receive,
far below minimum wage, meanwhile, their prison overlords reap the profits. Oh,
boo hoo, you say? Too bad, don’t break the law?
Well, in case the list above is not enough to make you
question if they all belong there, this might. Of all the convicted felons in prison
in the US, over 95% of them never went
to trial.
That’s right! over 9 out of 10 convicted felons were
convicted on a plea bargain and never stood in front of a jury. Many times it
was all determined by one man or woman, not even a judge.
Why does this matter?
It matters because our legal system is based on the age old
principle of the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies with the
state. It’s hard to prove in a court of law, that a person has committed a
crime, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, prosecutors, knowing this, quote the stats of how many
convictions they have earned, versus exonerations. They scare prisoners by
telling them, they are virtually assured to be convicted and sent to prison for
the maximum sentence.
But, only those cases
that are assured “slam dunks” are ever allowed to go to trial. They will
offer immunity, if they believe the prisoner is innocent, or not a danger, they
will offer a reduced sentence if they think they can get it.
So prisoners are
agreeing to plead guilty based on a small number of easy to win cases!
When placed in front of a jury, the accused has the chance
to tell their own story. The jury has a chance to determine if the police, the
prosecutor and the system have done their job. There is a great deal of
accountability in it.
By shortcutting this process in the vast majority of our
criminal cases, we allow the “justice system” to essentially run unchecked.
Juries are not just for determining guilt or innocence, they force the system
to operate by the rules.
So, that’s why it
matters that you are two steps away from a jail cell at nearly every moment of
every day.
And, actually, it is worse than that. In most states, the
arresting officer has, as their sole discretion, the determination of what
constitutes “resisting arrest”. You can literally be charged with this crime
for ANY reason they determine worthwhile.
So, what can we do about it? There’s a lot, actually. We can
volunteer for jury duty. We can educate our fellow citizens to the problem. We
can help change laws. We can wake people up.
Want to learn
something cool? Research a concept called jury nullification!
Juries can vote not to convict when they believe a law is
unjust, which in turn sets legal precedence and can work to fight unjust laws.
So, there is a lot of good that comes out of the jury system that we are
currently missing in our society.
Monday, February 22, 2016
There’s been something bugging me for a bit. It seems these
days that our world is more malleable than it used to be. This, in and of
itself, is not necessarily bad. For instance,
the gender roles that have been etched in stone since time began are not
as useful as they once were. Notice, I say gender, not sex. I speak of the idea
that a family where mom wins bread and dad keeps house is somehow upside down.
But, beyond that, there is an idea that all concepts are
fluid and able to be redefined to meet the current situation. This makes me
crazy. Yes, you can believe what you want to believe in each given situation.
That’s your prerogative. I don’t like labels, so I tend to side with a variety
of groups depending on the cause, I get that.
But, when it comes to describing these actions, it seems that too many
are ready to throw out the dictionary! Here’s what I mean.
I have had several conversations lately where a person
wanted to peg me as belonging to one group or another, but when a perfectly
accurate term is used to describe their own stated position, they balk. Turns
out the term that describes them has baggage they don’t want to carry, so
instead of either finding a new term, or changing their position to one that is
more palatable to their sensitivity, they inform me that I can no longer apply
the traditional definition of the word.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
I have been battling the urge to return to this blog
regularly for a long time. I think it’s time. Not because I think anything I
have to say is terribly unique, there are others out here that feel as I do and
can probably even say it better, but the voice of liberty bears repeating. It
needs to be repeated as many times, and as often and as loudly as possible,
especially when it is resisted in the way it is right now!
So, I am going to be throwing my thoughts out here with a
few simple goals in mind, so if you want to judge my work, use whatever
standard suits you, but here is what I am trying to achieve.
1.
Clarify my own thoughts and sometimes the best
way for me to do that is to type them out and read them. May sound weird to
you, but that’s how it works for me. I often don’t really know how I feel or
think on an issue until I talk about it.
2.
Fight the decline of freedom. We are in a period
that history teaches us could be the prelude to a very dark period. We are
swinging into a totalitarian mentality. For the past 240 years, America has
still maintained some semblance of peace for most of its citizens, but that may
not be true very soon.
3.
To learn more, and please correct me when I’m
wrong. Not, in that superior way that people with shallow knowledge do, but as
one wisdom seeker to another, when you think you see a clearer path, share it
with me.
4.
To hopefully wake up more people. I have been in
a sleep walking state myself most of my adult life, engaged in artistic
endeavors and attempting to ignore the political and social realm, except to
comment on them from the safety of a theatrical director’s chair.
5.
To forward an agenda. What is my agenda? I am
fighting for an open government. No, that is not the final solution, but
transparency is what will bring about change. People have to be confronted with
what is actually going on in ways
they cannot deny before they start to get it.
To that end, I’m going to be sharing a ton of stuff in the
near future. Yeah, you won’t agree with all of it. I don’t care, except in that
you engage in the debate. You tell me what you think. Think I’m wrong as I can
be? Great! Let’s talk about it, and when you prove to me that I was wrong, then
I’ll write about that! The TRUTH is what matters to me, not anyone system, or
team, or feelings. I want to live in a world with optimum government, whatever
that ends up looking like, and I can see
a few things that it doesn’t and I am going to attack those.
What you won’t see here is me pulling punches. Too much
false “civility” being paraded in politics today. If I think someone is a coward,
or a thief, or a liar, I’ll say it. I’ll
say it, or to their face. I am not an idolater, so what you think of me when I
speak the truth may hurt, but I’m not interested in protecting anyone’s public
persona of they are dirty. Period.
As I continue with my political writing projects with other
activists and grassroots groups, I am learning more and more every day and it’s
just simply time for me to voice my own opinions. In short order you will
either laugh every time my name is mentioned, or you’ll be angry. I’m not
looking for middle ground. We have compromised and accepted less than the best
for 240 years! Time for a Change!
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Guns. Weapons, arms, whatever term I choose, most of you had
a reaction to that first word. Some of you thought, “hell yeah!”, while some of
you thought, “We need to do something about them.” So, what is the answer here?
Most of us think we know. We are probably convinced that either, nothing needs
to be done, in fact more people need to own them, while others believe there
should be fewer owned under tighter restrictions.
Meanwhile, the debate over this issue caused gun company
stocks to peak, even as Obama’s speech was broadcast to the nation. There is a
divide between us. There are few that have a third opinion, but I would like to
discuss this in a reasonable tone and share some thoughts I have had, so
please, don’t take this post and turn it into a flame war. Be civil. Express
ideas in clear, less than obscene English and let people decide. Whatever your
view point, I hope you agree that all humans deserve the sanctity of their own
thoughts and should not be judged based on thoughts, but deeds.
Amendment
II
A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This piece of legislation, known as the second amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America, has been hotly contested in
recent years, and to a lesser extent, throughout our history, especially since
the last half of the twentieth century. To many, it represents a clear edict
preventing congress from interfering with their rights to own weaponry
privately. Others view the context of militia service as essential and would
rather not have private gun ownership.
Then, there’s the debate over what arms should be included.
Most sane individuals would prefer their neighbors not be allowed to hold
nuclear arms, for example, but might argue in favor of nearly everything up to
a heavy tank. Others feel strongly that capacity, range, velocity, rate of fire
and other factors should be clearly legislated and restricted.
Here is my own take
on this
I’ll keep it brief. From my own reading of history, I find
it incredible that we not understand that a part of what was intended by this
amendment was the right to protect one’s self from enemies foreign and
domestic, including, if need be, one’s own government. After all, these men had
just witnessed a bloody war to set their fellow countrymen free from a tyrannical
government, and restrictions on arms had played a part in it on several
occasions.
I also happen to believe in the sanctity of all human life.
This does not mean I believe that self-defense is never an adequate defense for
the taking of life, I do. There are times when it is necessary, or at the
least, expedient. In my own life, I will strive to find other means, whenever
possible, to deal with situations, rather than resorting to physical force, or
violence of any kind, whether involving guns or not. This is my choice and I
believe reasonable people agree with me that the taking of human life should
never be a first resort. I stand by the principle of non-aggression, to the
best of my understanding of it.
I believe we were
intended to have the right to own personal armaments
I think the right to self-defense is an inherent human
right, that ought not be abridged. I believe that the American Constitution
speaks to this and prohibits congress from passing laws to prevent the keeping
of arms and that the states have a responsibility to ensure this right is protected
as well.
That being said,
there are things that I do not agree with
1.
Many, primarily on the political right, seem to
take this as a right that should be paraded and taken for granted. I do not
think that it should be taken lightly, or made a joke. I think the ability to
take human life represented by gun ownership should be taken seriously. I think
it is a heavy responsibility that requires thought and careful consideration
for each person.
2.
Many, primarily on the political left, seem to
think that a gun, in and of itself, represents the worst kind of evil to be
found in human society. They act as if the mere presence of the weapon puts
them at great personal risk. They have an unhealthy fear that mirrors the lack
of respect often shown from the right, in opposite terms.
3.
There is a context expressed in the
constitution, and even during the revolution, weapons for militia use were
often restricted and kept in an armory. It was common for towns to have rules
regarding the use and carrying of guns. Several western towns, Dodge City
Kansas, most notably, were famous for “check your guns at the door” laws that
prevented the open carrying of firearms to reduce public friction. To pretend
that everyone was willy nilly in favor of personal arsenals being toted through
the grocery store in times gone by is incorrect.
4.
I personally do not trust the federal government
to make decisions about who should and should not be armed. I think they very
likely have ulterior motives for restricting the purchase, ownership and use of
arms. They have proven, on regular occasions to not have the best interest of
their citizens at heart, and to not be good judges of character, or even men
and women of high moral character themselves.
5.
Violence begets violence and approaching this as
something to be shoved in anyone’s face on either side is a less than
thoughtful approach which is likely to end poorly for all of us. Gun owners
should be the first to admit that a firearm is a weighty responsibility and
that there is a lot of inherent risk in the handling of them. That being said,
gun control supporters should probably take the time to become more familiar
with the thing they claim to fight against. They can be handled responsibly and
when used correctly are a tremendous deterrent to violence, or the escalation
of violence.
6.
Any time one side of argument (the fed and our
local and state police forces) wants to increase its own armament, while
reducing the armament of those that they might be called to use their armament
against, it should give us pause. In recent years, we have started a very
public debate about police violence, which appears to be escalating. While I
would hate to see it escalated further, at the time when a potential enemy is
arming themselves, is not the time to reduce your own defenses.
7.
We cannot continue to ignore the fact that the
constitution’s power has been eroded. Now, I am not one who thinks that this
document provides a magic barrier to protect all liberties. It does not. It is
simply an agreement, signed by men who are long dead and gone. It has served us
well in many ways and failed us in others. It is not perfect. But, it is the
foundation of our legal and political systems. It has stood as the final
arbiter of disputes between government and people for over 200 years and as
such, it needs to be respected and used properly. If we want our society to
look different than it does, or has, that can be done, and done legitimately,
but it needs to be done calmly, by cool heads. Simply piling unconstitutional
laws and precedents on top of things, until the truth is obfuscated is not the
answer, for either side.
I do not know the
answer
I, like all of you, want myself, my family and my friends to
live safely in a world where violence is rare. I would love to never open my
browser to find that the world has been tipped on its axis by someone with guns
again, especially when children are involved.
If I believed that ridding the world of guns could achieve
this, I would be the first to support it. I am no fan of violence and I abhor
much of what my government does in my name, for my supposed safety. If I thought
we could rid the world of all weapons tomorrow that would be glorious. I don’t.
Even if it were possible to remove all of the guns from the
world, I don’t think legislation could ever make it happen.
We have a serious
lack of understanding regarding the nature of laws
Laws are not barriers to behavior, at all. They can serve to
deter those inclined to heed them. They are better than allowing despots total
control with no standard. They provide some basis of understanding between
people of reason that want to live in peace. In our country, they are also
supposed to provide some barriers between government regulation and the liberty
of the people. As my Grandfather once told me, “Locks just keep honest people
honest.” In other words, those inclined to harm, or defraud others will do so,
regardless of the law.
No law provides a shield from harm. It can provide for
security measures, one of which is self-defense through use of arms. It can
provide a system for determining guilt or innocence and a framework for
punishing those that choose to transgress them. But a law can never prevent an
act, or make the repercussions of that act disappear, and they only have the
force we give them by our adherence to them.
As we move into a more and more regulated society, we move
away from the liberty provided to original Americans. As each piece of our
personal freedom is eroded, it is added to the growing power of a state that
becomes more and more distant from its people. In this setting, when so many
laws are present, all of our laws lose efficacy by the simple fact that they
cannot all be enforced equally all of the time.
We should be careful
of reducing each other’s freedoms
With every restriction we place on another human life, we
restrict ourselves in that same measure and give just a bit more of autonomy to
the state. Even when we seek to do something good, such as slowing or ending
violence (something I think everyone agrees is a good thing) we can have
unintended consequences.
Even something as simple as jailing even one single person
places a restriction on at least one other, who must now spend their time
enforcing that incarceration and is not available to contribute in our
community in the same way they might have if the law were never transgressed.
As we make choices about what restrictions we are willing to accept and which
are too onerous, we should be careful in our responses to each other.
With every instance of anger over taking our better selves
and producing rage, we reinforce habits that all of us can recognize as
harmful, until our nature changes to one of hate and distrust for those we
disagree with. This can happen even when our motives are pure. By escalating
every conversation to the point of conflict, we create a culture of distrust
and hatred, of intolerance and cruelty that leads us to not just disagree, but
to genuinely not care about anyone else’s point of view.
We are at a tipping
point in our history
It is up to us what happens next. None of what we have done
is irreconcilable, but that may not always be the case. If you read accounts of
what led up to the revolution, or the civil war, it is easy to draw parallels
to the years prior to military violence erupting and today. Tensions are high.
History shows that one conflict can lead to the unleashing of emotions that
cannot be “put back in the bottle” so to speak.
As for me, I can be just an inflammatory as the next guy. I
try to aim it at people who primarily agree with me, to show them when they are
not taking another’s point of view seriously. But, I am just as guilty of
adding fuel to the fire as anyone. In recent days, I have begun to rethink
that. I am trying to find ways to challenge lack of understanding while
promoting peaceful exchange.
In most cases, we are not that far apart from each other in
our understanding of what we ultimately want. We want a world where success is
possible, where personal freedom is protected, where life is valued and selfish,
abusive excess is rare. This can never happen as long as we see ourselves as
two sides of a coin, as diametrically opposed to each other.
We need to look at
desired outcomes
Rather than fighting and debating tactics, perhaps if we
really started telling the story of the world we want to see, we might be
surprised by how much we agree on. Right now, we operate in a very narrow
window of possibilities, where oppositional thinking pits us against each
other. (if you don’t agree with me, you must agree with them) But, in reality,
the ways forward are limitless.
Imagine the world the way you want it to be and try letting
go of the way to get there. It’s tough. We all think we know what should
happen. But, if we can strive to create the circumstances we want to live in,
while allowing others to create theirs, maybe we can find a new way of settling
our disagreements. By sharing our dream of the world we want, and finding those
common threads, maybe we can all find some ways to work together.
Let’s agree to do
this
Let’s try to be kind. Everyone has a hard life. Let’s strive
not to escalate conflict, whenever possible. Let’s fight for what we believe in
with well-reasoned arguments and proposals of real solutions, instead of
political diatribes and platitudes. Let’s think for ourselves and speak from
the heart about how we can make the world a better place and let’s agree to
listen and really hear someone out, then decide whether we agree or not, rather
than bring all of our preconceptions into every single argument. You can always
get angry later, but once you have lost your cool, it is often too late to go
back.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)
About Me
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
I wrote a Book, here it is!
