Responsible Community

Immigration

2012-01-31T05:00:00.000-08:00

It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.

Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.

But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.

If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.

Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)

These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.

That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.

Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.

-----

Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights

2012-01-23T03:53:00.000-08:00

In a perfect world, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight. But, the practical matter is, in a community that has its entire existence invested in the freedom of the individual, there are times when someone’s right must be overridden by someone else.

As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.

All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.

As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.

Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.

Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.

-----

No "Right to Life" Michigan license plates

2012-01-17T11:20:00.000-08:00

If legislation that is before the Michigan Senate Transportation Committee passes, motorist will be able to purchase a license plate for their car that supports Right to Life of Michigan. Not only will the plate make a statement in support of the right’s “Pro Life” campaign, some of the money generated from the sale of the plate will go to Right of Life of Michigan. The organization has stated in press releases that they will use the money to support pregnancy centers around the state.

The Right to Life organization and other conservatives frame this as a free speech issue. The drivers of the cars that have one of the plates attached have a right to express their opinion. The right also believes that the state has the right to take positions on issues, comparing the position to things such as don’t drive drunk or stay in school.

The ACLU and other organizations on the left see it differently. They see this as a fairness issue. If the state is to sell plates that speak to a political point of view, they should offer the same to groups that are opposed to the idea. Also, funds that will be raised for Right to Life of Michigan will not be balanced with funds for the opposing point of view.

In a Responsible Community, the government is not chartered to support any political point of view – maybe even to go as far as not supporting any behavior other than to obey the law. Government in a community is created to facilitate the development of a safe and peaceful environment. To take a partisan side on any issue is to work against some of the stake holders in the community, a protection that is part of a constitutionally limited republic. In this case, the state is facilitating the right’s ability to express a political point of view, but is not providing the same ability for others. Even if the state was to offer a plate for pro-choice groups, it still falls outside of the state’s function.

On a practical matter, as soon as government steps in to a political issue, it will be impossible to delineate between the many points of view that exist in the community and support them all. Its attempt would create a confusing and wasteful use of resources, especially since it is outside of the function of government.

Let’s keep the government doing what it is chartered to do, create a safe and peaceful environment that supports all individuals in the community.

-----

2012-01-10T03:13:00.000-08:00

At the debate of the Republican presidential candidates, each contender stood firm in their opposition to same sex marriage. Their opposition was based on religion, tradition or both. The debate was held at St Anselm’s College, a Roman Catholic grammar school for boys (in Wirral), in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.

Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.

Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.

Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.

As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.

The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.

But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.

Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.

Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.

-----

Follow us on Facebook.

Not a third world junta government

2012-01-07T01:36:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received plenty of support from the men and women in uniform. He has raised more money from those in uniform than any other Republican and as well as any Democrat. That includes President Barak Obama, the Commander in Chief.

The men and women in the military have the same rights as the rest of us on their personal time. They can donate money to political campaigns, work on elections and even go door to door in support of a political candidate. All of this according to the military code of conduct but also as granted in the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.

Cpl. Jesse Thorsen is just like any other individual that lives in the United States. That is except he is a reservist. As a reservist and in his fatigues, he was interviewed on CNN. During that interview, he endorsed Ron Paul for president. Thorsen later spoke at a rally for the presidential candidate. While he is allowed to support any candidate he wants, he just can’t do it in uniform. This rule is also part of the military code of conduct. (…and yes according to the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.)

In many countries around the world, the military commanders stand with selected candidates for office. This is their way of showing support for a political view point, a view point that is often directed by the military junta that controls the day to day activities of the government. Their appearance with candidates doesn’t support a free and open election process. Instead, it creates fear in the hearts of the voters who are being told how to vote – or else, some great harm will come their way to them and their families.

The authors of the Constitution knew in very personal terms the results of having the military stand over their shoulders when voting. Not only from what the English did to the colonist, but what was happening in Europe. That is why there are a lot of road blocks to military control. As a couple of examples, military budgets can’t be approved for more than two years and military personnel could not be quartered in private homes without permission.

Ron Paul, perhaps more than any other candidate, runs a campaign based on respect for the Constitution. In numerated and enumerated ways, the document makes it clear that the military is to stay out of elections and the civilian government. While Paul may not have been able to control the interview of Thorsen on CNN, Paul should not have allowed the corporal to speak at the rally.

Is this an oversight on Paul’s part or his campaign managers? Perhaps it is the mangers, but Paul isn’t the point. Let’s keep the military out of the elections. Unless, of course, we want to move the country in the direction of establishing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex he warned about.

-----

Arizona's inferior education system

2012-01-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

Expanding the base of knowledge that all students have about history and the path we took to get to the present is part of what education is all about. If students are allowed to examine our successes and failures, they can hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past and be better prepared for the future.

This makes sense most everywhere but in Arizona. There, the state superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, determined that the Mexican American Heritage class taught at the Tucson Unified School District violated the law under House Bill 2281. That bill makes it illegal to include courses that are designed for particular ethnic groups and promote resentment toward a race or class of people. Huppenthal as a state senator worked to get the law passed in the Arizona legislature. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of last year just a month after signing the toughest anti-immigration law in the country. (The immigration law is now being contested by the United States attorney general and parts of it have been placed on hold by the courts.)

Besides Mexican American studies, the Tucson Unified School District offers programs on African American and Native-American studies. The programs focus on history, literature and include information about the influence the ethnic group has had on United States history and culture. As an example, the American History class includes the role of the ethnic group in major United States historical events and has courses that emphasize the group’s literature.

Every community has the responsibility of educating its young and offering continuing education to those that are in need of it. By definition, education means providing all the relevant information about the subjecting being taught. Sometimes that means teaching about the failures of the past. But, with a solid understanding of the events that lead to those failures, we can hopefully do better in the future.

Those on the right of the political spectrum often bring up the term political correctness. This term has a very board and varied definition. But, under one definition of the term, this law fits. The conservatives that currently are in charge in Arizona want to focus just on the positive aspects of the current majority culture without any discussion of its failures. By offering no challenge to the prevailing culture, we can never be sure that we are the best we can be. This is very definition of a politically correct education.

Think of it as a science course teaching about rocketry. If the course didn’t include the many times experimental rockets failed and the reasons why, each new generation would have to experience failure after failure to find the right path. But, with knowledge of the failures of the past, students can build on what works.

Arizona’s students, if the state continues on this path, will have an inferior education. When they graduate and step into the real world, they will make decisions with only part of the information needed. A set up to failure – or at least, repeating the mistakes of the past.

A Responsible Community doesn’t limit inquiry. It also doesn’t prevent the knowledge that is learned from that inquiry from being assimilated nor does it limit the challenge to the current beliefs.

Anything else has a more than likely chance of repeating the failures of the past.

Note: Thank you to Nathan Collins for bringing attention to this important story.

Also, find us on facebook with the facebook link.

-----

Happy New Year

2012-01-02T06:23:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.

May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.

May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary. That you free to own weapons.

In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.

As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.

May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.

In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.

-----

How far will we go?

2011-12-26T11:38:00.000-08:00

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey was sued by 12 nurses who claimed they were forced to assist on abortion procedures. They said that it was against their religion to help doctors and other hospital staff. The university did settle with the nurses before it went to court. But, the precedent is set.

When the nurses originally complained, they were re-assigned so they would not be present at the actual procedure. But, the nurses were required to help out in the pre and post procedure. Other nurses had to be hired to cover for the complaining nurses’ re-assignment.

How far will our community allow people to object to an activity because it is against their religion or personal beliefs? Most of the time, this issue comes up with abortion. There are pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control pills or the morning after drug. There are religious schools that object to having to cover abortions in their health insurance plans.

But, there are other issues as well. There are religious landlords that don’t want to rent to unmarried or same sex couples. A few days ago a post was made to this blog about a women in a department store that would not allow a transgender to use the women’s dressing room in the store because of her personal religious beliefs, this despite store policy that allowed it.

If these types of complaints and actions are given approval by our communities and court systems, there will be many more that will arise. There will be the Muslim food handler that will not serve up the blue plate special at the local dinner because it is a pulled pork sandwich. There may be Christian therapist that will refuse to counsel parents that are seeking a divorce because married couples shouldn’t get divorced.

Individuals do have the right and the responsibility to act in their own conscience. The nurses that were discussed at the opening were trained in the professional long after Roe v Wade. They knew that at some point in time they may be involved in an abortion procedure. The nurses perhaps need to find a situation where they will not be involved. When other people open up a business, like the landlord mentioned above, and seek the protection from the community, they can’t at the same time refuse services to others in the community. People get to their position in life partly out of the help of others in the community. To refuse service to those that had a hand in helping them is just wrong.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that people need to help those that are involved in an illegal act. It is the individual’s responsibility to report such activity or risk being part of the crime. But, all of the mentioned situations here are legal.

It would be easy if we lived in a completely homogeneous society and culture. Everyone would believe in the same thing and there wouldn’t be any disagreement. But, ultimately, that leads to a form of dictatorship known as Racist Nationalism. This is just what happen to Germany under the Nazis. It is also what our culture complains the most about in other countries that have a strong religious leadership and makes all the finally judgments in the community. This is just what the court system is like in Iran; the top religious leader can strike down any law passed by the parliament.

Communities were created not so that they could separate into little enclaves, but so that they may live together in mutual support. By opening the way for individuals and groups to refuse to help others because of some difference between each other, we lay the ground work to break up into sectarian and partisan communities that will become dysfunctional at best. At worst, people from one enclave will refuse to defend another creating a cycle of revenge actions that will not stop.

To live in a community means that you agree to support each other. You still have individual choice, but having choice doesn’t mean you have to refuse to help others with their choices.

-----

Gingrich's plan for the courts is dangerous

2011-12-21T02:00:00.000-08:00

Attorneys Generals for the Bush administration calls presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s position on the courts dangerous.

Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales in a recent television interview on Fox News criticized Gingrich’s idea of just making a law that prevents federal courts from ruling on things Gingrich doesn’t want them to. These are not liberals who might make automatic disparaging remarks about anything the republicans might say. These are two attorneys generals that have hard conservative credentials that were interview on a “news” network that takes hard conservative positions.

At the core of Gingrich’s position on the courts, is the idea that congress can make a law that doesn’t allow federal appellate courts or the Supreme Court to take cases on any issue that he, in agreement with congress, doesn’t want them to rule on. This would be limiting the jurisdiction of the courts that congress establishes.

One of the primary issues is abortion. Gingrich believes that this will stop the federal courts from striking down anti-abortion laws that states enact. It is Gingrich’s plan to return to the states the function of determining abortion rights without fear from the federal government. But, the rights we all enjoy, including abortion, are established in the Constitution by the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment establishes that those rights fall under the protection of the federal government.

Congress under Article III section 2 does have the power to establish and expand a federal court system. But, Congress has limited power over the jurisdiction of the courts it establishes. Since the Constitution in the first ten amendments states that “Congress shall make no law” that takes away the rights of individuals, congress can’t take away the right of any federal court to make a judgment about federal law that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights.

If congress is given this power, there would be no check to the balance of power that congress or the president may exercise. That isn’t what the framers intended.

-----

Social engineering?

2011-12-16T10:48:00.000-08:00

The Virginia Board of Social Services has voted to allow adoption and foster care agencies working on behalf of the state to discriminate against prospective parents and foster parents based on religious, political, sexual orientation and other personal beliefs and biological profiles.

What are we doing, raising the next generation of Conservative, Republican voters? Isn’t this what Germany did leading up to World War II?

81 private agencies in Virginia, like in many other states, provide social services to children and families. They are licensed and receive funds from the state to carry out their tasks. One of the tasks is to find adoptive parents and foster homes for children. 42 of the agencies are faith based.

In the past, the agencies could not discriminate based on a list of things including religion, sexual orientation, gender, family status and political beliefs. The attorneys general for Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, advised the board that the state lacked the authority to bar private agencies from discriminating based on the issues.

The board approves each agency to operate. An agency, by definition, acts for their client, in this case the state of Virginia. The board also provides public funding for the faith based agencies to carry out their commission. If the state approves the agencies and they operate on its behalf, the agencies must follow the same rules as any other government function.

The governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell, and the attorneys general are both Republican. Republican’s often argue that it is wrong to attempt any form of social engineering. That to allow discrimination in an attempt to change the cultural and social fabric of a community is wrong. Yet, this Republican administration is making an attempt to do just that. The faith based organizations will be allowed to select the family profile that fits their ideology. Assuring that the children they find homes for will be exposed to the “correct” religious, political and family make up that fits their needs.

Issues like religion, politics, sexual orientation or family status doesn’t make a good or bad parent. To allow organizations that are agents for the state to discriminate for issues that don’t make anyone a bad parent is, well, discrimination.

-----

To live peacefully together, we some times have to step back

2011-12-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

Despite what you believe is right or wrong on a personal level, in a civil society you sometimes need to step back. Two different stories from the news make the case, even if they aren’t alike. One is institutional, the Supreme Court Justice’s responsibility to the community. It is a case involving a defendant’s right to face his accuser. The other is about an individual’s community responsibility. It involves a woman working in a department store that gets fired for her actions.

On the institutional level, Sandy Williams was convicted of rape in Chicago (Williams v Illinois). He was arrested on a separate charge and police had taken a DNA sample from him. Evidence on the rape case was gathered from the victim and was sent to a lab in Maryland. The lab created a profile from the evidence that included DNA. The DNA from Williams and the rape case matched. Based on this evidence, Williams was then picked out of a line by the victim. At the trial, no one from the lab was called to testify about the examination of the evidence, because the prosecutors thought it too expensive to bring someone from the lab. Williams was convicted and given a life sentence.

Williams’ defense lawyers appealed and took the case to the Supreme Court. Their argument is, that since the prosecution didn’t have the person who did the test at the Maryland lab testify, Williams wasn’t given his right to face his accusers. The court sat for oral arguments and the case will be decided in the spring.

It appears that Williams is guilty. The evidence points to him and the woman identified him. The justices on the court are aware of the facts. Yet, they can’t just say, “he is guilty and don’t let this misstep of justice happen again.” They need to step back from the situation and determine if he did receive a fair trial. Not just for him, but as guidance in the future for all the similar cases. (A ruling for the defendant in this case may mean that not only does he go free, but many others like him will also.)

The other situation is about the clash between an individual’s personal beliefs and the society around them.

At a major department store, a transgender woman finds an outfit she would like to try on in the fitting room. When she asked the clerk, Natalie Johnson, to use the fitting rooms, the woman was told that she couldn’t use the women’s fitting room. Johnson said that even though the woman had make-up on and wore women’s clothes, she was not a woman because of her appearance, say she had a beard. Johnson was fired the next day after a long meeting with her superiors.

Johnson is a Christian and followers her faith very closely. She felt that by letting the woman use the women’s fitting rooms she would be violating her faith.

“I had to either comply with Macy’s or comply with God,” Johnson said. She is a 27 year old student at San Antonio College. Johnson is also a member of Tabernacle of Prayer, a nondenominational church.

When Johnson was asked to help the woman use the fitting rooms, she should have stepped back for a moment. It may indeed violate her faith and the evidence that she observed may have been correct. Johnson should have found someone else to help the woman or directed her to another department.

People in civil societies and cultures don’t peacefully co-exist based on narrowly defined social norms. They live peacefully by stepping back and allowing others to make their own choices – as long as those choices, of course, don’t purposely injure someone else. Individuals do this not only so others may live the lives they choose, but also that the individual can live their life. This is true for the institutions that we create to help facilitate the goals of the community but also for each of the individuals that live in the community.

It can sometimes be inconvenient at best and ugly at worst. But, this is at the core of a responsible community. It is the individual and the community sharing the responsibility to help insure that everyone can fulfill their personal and community lives.

-----

Right is right until it interferes with business in Alabama

2011-12-09T07:27:00.000-08:00

The legislature in Alabama, prodded by the attorneys general of the state, is looking at making some changes to the strict immigration law that was passed earlier in the year. In the court of world public opinion, all negative, it catapulted Alabama ahead of other states in the country with immigration laws that run counter to the role of state government.

Why is this happening?

Part of it was a backlash from big business – mind you, not everyday citizens, but big business – after two executives from Honda and Mercedes were stopped for not carry proof of their immigration status. The governor of the state responded very quickly with an apology to the individuals and the companies. This didn’t look good in a state that is seeking foreign investment. The executives were released without charges even though they broke the law. How about all the other everyday citizens that have been stopped, detained and charged with not carry proof of their immigration status?

But, at the core of the issue is a position a pro-business organization has taken. The Birmingham Business Alliance expressed that the law was damaging Alabama’s image around the world. Plus, (I love this one) “it is a burden for business and local government.”

Immigration and citizenship is a responsibility of the federal government. It says so right in the Constitution. If every state, county and city in the country were to enact their own immigration laws, it would be confusing to even to the local hardware store that hires kids in the neighborhood. We could never be really sure who has the right to be here.

But, Alabama seeking to change the law in response to big business complaints is especially disturbing. Their response makes it very clear that from the start this was just political. If it wasn’t, why was it right to place all these restrictions in the law in the first place then back out of parts of the law because big business complained? The legislature was told about the law being in violation of the Constitution. Many parts of the law have been placed on hold by the courts. Individuals lobbing to stop the law told them that citizens and immigrants in good standing would be negatively profiled. But, they didn’t listen because they wanted to make a political statement that they were hard on illegals.

Business, and the bigger the more responsible they are, is the biggest trouble maker with illegal immigrants. They hire those that come to this country seeking jobs with little or no identification checking. A blind eye is turned as long as they get docile workers that don’t complain and just do their job, no matter how little they are paid. By stopping illegals from getting jobs, those crossing the border without permission would slow dramatically.

As a country, we do need to work on immigration. But, that is the job of congress and the president not individual states. The Constitution makes it their responsibility. It also means that there will be one set of rules for everyone instead of 50, or more if counties and cities get in to the act like many already have.

Congress needs to act.

-----

No religion in public schools

2011-12-06T05:00:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal to overturn a ruling by an appeals court to allow religious services in New York City school buildings after hours. The appeal was made by the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical Christian church. The religious group wanted to use a local middle school for its Sunday morning services that included singing of hymns, prayer and preaching from the Bible.

The appeal was made on the grounds that the denial by the New York City Board of Education was “viewpoint discrimination” and the appeals court authorized “censorship of private religious speakers.” The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment. This usually means that a majority of the justices found no merit in the request.

In a community, places represent things. The police station, the fire station and schools are places in the community that have very clear meanings. When you go to any of those places, like the place station, you are expecting to see police conducting their official business. We expect the same experience when we visit the fire station and schools.

Private buildings have the same expectations but are also distinctly different then public buildings. The local hardware store, the auto repair facility and churches are different places than public. The owners and managers of private places have control over the image that they project and can refuse to allow entry to people as long as it isn’t based on certain issues.

Allowing religious activities in a public school building would confuse its purpose of learning. It sends a message that this is the religion you should learn about. If you attended a religious school building you would expect to hear about one particular religion. But, public schools need to be a place where learning can be conducted without the influence of any religion.

The New York City School Board made the right decision to keep religion out of their buildings. This maintains a clear division between public and private purpose. It was good to see that the appeals court and the Supreme Court agreed with their decision.

-----

We don’t need a victim in the highest office in our community

2011-12-05T05:56:00.001-08:00

It looks like Herman Cain is out of the race for the presidency. He put his campaign on hold because of all the allegations about sexual harassment and a possible affair that lasted much longer than a one nighter.

While none of these accusations have been proven in a court of law, one thing seems clear… no other candidate has so many women coming forward saying similar things. You have to wonder, if these tales were just women telling “lies” for their own enrichment, why haven’t other women come forward about other candidates?

There were other things as well. He didn’t know about China’s nuclear program. He wasn’t sure about Libya – or where it was. He couldn’t articulate his positions clearly on abortion. He was unaware of the affect his 9-9-9 tax plan would have. These are all things that should be feathered out early in the planning stages of any campaign. If you are running for the highest office in the world, you need to get a quick education on the world and developed a position statement on all you positions.

But, at the foundation of all of these problems, Cain played the blame game. None of this was his fault, it was the liberal press. The press didn’t like his position on the issues, so they decided to go after him. Can anyone tell me where the liberal press met to talk about this and make their plans? None of the women that I know of have any ties to the press of any kind.

Another reason was Cain’s fatigue. When Cain didn’t know the answer to how he would handle Libya, the campaign staff later said he was just tired. Hmm, how many phone calls come in the middle of the night as president and tired or not, you need to make quick decisions?

The blame game is not a good play in everyday life; it certainly isn’t when you are in a position of responsibility. To paraphrase a bit attributed to Lincoln, you can fool some of the people for a while, but after a while you need to step forward. Because Cain didn’t step forward and take some responsibility for his actions and mistakes, he is now stepping back.

Glad it was not instead of when he was in office.

-----

The NRA's grand conspiracy

2011-12-02T04:50:00.000-08:00

Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association told a CPAC gathering in Florida, “It’s all part of a massive conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intention to destroy the Second Amendment.”

LaPierre was talking about the Obama’s administration to take no steps to take guns away from the citizens of the United States. LaPierre thinks that Obama’s lack of action is part of a conspiracy. That his appearance of inaction is so he can say he is for gun rights, and convince voters that he is on their side.

During the last election it was feared that if elected, Obama would move to take guns from the “cold, dead hands” of true Americans, as the gun lobby followers like to say. When he took office, gun sales skyrocketed. People wanted to stock up so they would be weaponized when the black booted goons made guns illegal.

But, since the election, absolutely nothing has happen. Obama has not requested any legislation about outlawing guns. He has not given any policy speeches on how guns have made this society the most violent in history. After the slaughter in Tucson by Jared Lee Loughner, that killed 6 people and wounded another 14 including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a perfect time to call for more gun control, nothing happen.

And, yet, LaPierre seems to think this is Obama’s grand conspiracy to remove guns from the homes of good, upstanding citizens.

LaPierre and the likes of him need a boogieman to stay alive. He needs to stir up some hate for the liberal press, the far left commie in the White House or whoever else LaPierre can point a finger at. Even if the people LaPierre points fingers at are people in position of power that have done nothing to endanger his beloved right to own guns.

We do have a right, of some kind, to bear arms. I do believe that those that signed the Constitution wanted to make sure that we could keep guns in our homes for our safety, for hunting and so that we may respond to a call to arms by our states in times of need. But, it can’t be argued that by guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the Constitution, the signers ever intended to stop congress from enacting any reasonable law about gun safety.

LaPierre would have you believing otherwise. He believes that any law that curtails the ownership or use of guns is unconstitutional. But, who would argue that crazy people, like Loughner, should be able to walk around with a gun strapped to their waist. Obama, instead of moving to place more control on people like him, has done nothing.

LaPierre, where is the grand conspiracy?

-----

One way to solve the illegal immigration problem

2011-11-30T10:02:00.000-08:00

Grigg Box Company in Detroit was raided by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations a few days ago. After a long investigation by HSI, it was determined that the company had a possible 30 or more undocumented workers employed. The owner of the company will soon be charged in court with the crime.

Brian M. Moskowitz, HIS special agent in charge, said when questioned about the raid, "Employers who evade the law not only fuel the demand that is responsible for much of the country's illegal immigration, but their actions also hurt lawful workers who are seeking jobs in this challenging economy.” Moskowitz continues, "Criminal prosecutions are just one of many tools HSI is using to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect job opportunities for the nation's lawful workforce."

In the Responsible Community’s blog post, “End illegal immigration in five steps” the second point of five to end illegal immigration was:

2) Enforce the law about employing the undocumented worker. This must be done on the national level, not the local or state level. Unless every employer understands very clearly what they need to do to make sure their work force is legal, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore on the most flagrant level.

Employers, small and large, must also believe that I.C.E. (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) could arrive at any moment for an employee audit. Employers must be obligated to document that each employee is legally employable in this country. If they can’t, they must pay a fine that is far greater than the risk of being caught.

We can’t fence off the world. No fence can be built high enough to stop those that are driven to find a way over, around or under. What we need to do is stop the incentive illegal immigrants have for finding their way here. If they knew they would not find work, it would stop one of the biggest reasons they come. (Another is freedom, and who could blame them for that.)

While we talk about ending illegal immigration, we always point fingers at other countries and the individuals that find their way here. But, rarely have we looked at ourselves. If we continue to blame others for our problems, we will never solve the problem.

Continue with these raids at an accelerated rate.

-----

End banks that are too big to fail

2011-11-29T13:03:00.000-08:00

Jon Huntsman, one of the many Republican presidential candidates, wants to put an end to banks that are too big to fail. His plan would not allow banks to grow beyond a predetermined percent of the economy. The real solution would be to keep banks in the community and service their own mortgages, loans and investments.

Communities operate best when the stakeholders have reasonable control over the events and issues that affect their personal and community lives. The institutions in the community that assists its citizens need to be small and local so that they can be responsive to the needs of the community. When they become too large, the interest of the institution is not tied to the community.

National and international banks are the biggest offenders. Their interests are not aligned with the interest of individual communities and the needs of its citizens. Decisions by the owners of the large banks are not made on a community by community basis. They are made in support of the corporation. Rather than provide the services that individual communities need, they force communities to confirm to their standards.

One of the issues this affects is mortgages. The amount of mortgages a bank can provide is limited. In order to be covered by the FDIC, a bank must maintain a set amount of its demand deposits on hand. If a bank wants to provide more mortgages than is allowed under law, some of its mortgages must be sold off, usually to Wall Street. This allows the banks to go well beyond their limits on lending money. They can make more profit, which is good for the bank, but not always what is best for the community.

When mortgages are serviced by the bank in the community, it is much easier for someone to approach the bank to discuss issues. Those that own and manage the bank are in their offices every day and are approachable. They care because the failure of a single mortgage means a loss to the bank and its standing in the community will be affected. If the mortgage has been sold off to Wall Street, the local bank has no say in the management of the mortgage. Also, the profit the bank makes from the loan has already been realized.

As a secondary benefit, less risky mortgages will not be made. If the bank knows that they will be servicing the mortgage, it will not want to have the expense of collecting the money. If risky mortgages are quickly packaged and sold off, the bank will be more willing to make those risky loans, knowing they won’t have to service it.

Both issues mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs caused a lot of problems over the last few years. One of the problems that mortgage owners have experienced is that the bank that services the loan would not work with them on finding solutions to avoid default. Personnel at the banks could not be contacted, would not return inquiries and generally were unresponsive to the needs of the homeowners. Also, without question, some of the mortgages should not have been made. Those risky loans were one of the reasons for the near collapse of the mortgage business.

Banks need to be community oriented and service the mortgages they provide. This insures that they will be more responsive to the community. When there is continuing personal contact between all the parties in any business relationship, the outcome is much more likely to be positive.

Note: Thank you to my daughter Lauren Hagerman for her insightful and supportive assistance for this blog post.

-----

No religious test for illegal immigrants

2011-11-23T12:20:00.000-08:00

In Tuesday night’s debate of the Republican Presidential candidates, Newt Gingrich said he would give amnesty to immigrants that are currently living in the United States with some conditions. In part, he said:

"If you've been here 25 years and you've got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said.

The part of the answer that says, “…you belong to a local church…” is the most troubling. The United States has offered amnesty to illegal immigrants since the early 1800s. The latest offer from Gingrich to provide amnesty to those living here in good standing is nothing new. I also, don’t believe, like Gingrich, that we should tear apart families and the lives of others by booting them out of the country.

But, by adding the local church part, Gingrich is appling a religious test that clearly shouldn't be a part of the conditions. In the Constitution it states in very clear words that there should be no religious test given to anyone that will hold office or a position of public trust. Why, then, should a religious test to be applied to illegal immigrants that would be allowed to stay in the country for all other reasons? Church of course, means a Christian religion. Why shouldn’t it apply to Jews that join a synagogue, Muslims that join a mosque or, how about atheists that join a humanist temple? The religious affiliation, or lack of, should not be part of the selection criteria for people that would be allowed to stay.

Gingrich is wrong to think that a religious test of any kind should be given. That applies illegal immigrants that will be granted amnesty or anyone else that will arrive at our shores.

-----

Failure of debt committee could start a real conversation about government

2011-11-22T11:26:00.000-08:00

It could be that Newt Gingrich and I are in agreement with the failure of the deficit committee, if not for the same reasons.

This could be good for America.

The debt cutting committee that was put in place by congress a few months ago, with an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats, wasn’t able to come up with a plan to cut the deficient. It appears that the right used its powerful force to keep the Republicans from approving any increase in taxes despite the Democrats agreeing to make deep cuts in social spending.

Now for the part that is good for America. Congress will have to deal directly with this issue without hiding from it behind the committee. If a deal had been made, every member of congress and the president himself, could have hidden behind the outcome and not take any responsibility. Now, members of congress will have to go on the record with why they are cutting social spending and why they are raising taxes.

This will help start a sincere and honest dialogue in this country. Not about the debt as much as what we expect out of government. That government was formed not to stand on the side lines and watch people suffer, but to help all people in the community live the best lives they can.

If we could come to terms – read compromise – on the issue of government we would understand why some programs need to be temporally cut and taxes need to be raised temporality. It would keep the debt from getting too high and still help people in this country that need help.

So, let congress begin its debate. Let’s wait for them to get their party positions out of the away. Then, let’s ask them to get down to the real business of government. To come to a compromise that provides a safe and secure environment for everyone in the community.

-----

Protect IP act is no protection

2011-11-18T03:18:00.000-08:00

If the Protect IP Act becomes law, it will empower the Attorney General of the United States to blacklist websites without court review. This is like the chief of police of a local community deciding that a group of protesters should not be allowed to assemble in a local park because the local gas station asked the chief.

Many countries around the world allow their citizens to steal copyrighted material and sell it for a profit. China is the biggest abuser. Big corporations through their associations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians and others have petitioned congress for stricter laws preventing piracy. The act that is working it was through congress is called the Protect IP Act.

One of the provisions of the act would allow the United States Attorney General to blacklist sites that are suspected of piracy. With the big names mentioned above behind the law, the pressure on the Attorney General to block sites would be tremendous. But, he could do it without any judicial review. It would be his or her digression to block a site.

There is the possibility that sites could be blocked that may have an issue with one of the big corporations. Instead of spending their billions challenging the site in court, they could just pick up the phone and ask the Attorney General to take action. There is also a chance that sites could be blocked that are not politically aligned with the administration at the time. With no judicial review, the citizens of the community would have no way of making an informed judgment about the case.

This is clearly a freedom of speech issue. If the site is on the wrong side of the law, then a simple court review would illustrate it. Our judicial system is a way of checking the power of the congress and the president. This is a bad law for our community. The prevision about block sites should have judicial review.

-----

Supreme Court Justices should keep an open mind

2011-11-17T03:32:00.000-08:00

I guess it gets down to just not caring about appearances. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justices, dined with some very powerful people just the other night. That, in itself is not worth a blog post. It just happens that these people will be the lead lawyers in the challenge to the Affordable Health Care Act before the Supreme Court in March. That matters.

Judges at all levels should at the very least look like they have not formed an opinion before a case is argued in their court. Judges at the federal level are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate to keep them out of politics and party positions. If they did belong to a party, it might affect their judgment on cases that come before their court. When nominated, the prospective judge comes before the Senate Judiciary committee to seek approval. At that hearing, it is expected to hear them say that they can’t comment on issues that might come before the court. That might indicate that they are not approaching each case with an open mind. There are many other situations that they should avoid that might prejudice their opinion about issues.

So why is it okay for Scalia and Thomas to have dinner with the lead challengers to the Affordable Health Care Act? This wasn’t just a dinner with some friends. It was a banquet for the Federalist Society. It is an organization that advocates for conservative ideas in government. The dinner was sponsor by two law firms, Bancroft PLLC and Jones Day. Both will be representing conservative interests in their challenge before the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas are the featured quests.

Scalia and Thomas have long histories of supporting conservative ideas. This is, of course, their right as citizens of the United States. But, when they are the featured quests at a dinner that wants to get rid of the Affordable Health Care Act, it is no longer just a personal opinion. It is an appearance of already forming an opinion.

This is not in the best interest of our community.

-----

Keep an age limit on hunters in Michigan

2011-11-16T07:09:00.001-08:00

Car sales in Michigan and across the country are down. I have a great way to pick up the sales. Let’s remove the age requirement for a driver’s license. That way, even 9 year olds like the one that drove her drunken father around about a month ago will need a car.

Think about it, there must be at least a couple hundred thousand kids between the ages of two and 15 years of age just in Michigan alone. All of them will need a car. Most will get used cars because they will be cheaper. That means the used car market will dry up and make new cars more appealing. Within just a year or two, the auto factories will be booming again.

Problem solved.

What about drivers training and the additional risk on the roads? Oh, but we will sell more cars so it doesn’t matter. Besides, will let parents decide if their child is capable of making good decisions and are able to see over the steering wheel. All parents are good parents. They won’t let their child drive if they are not able to – would they.

Well, if you think this is a good idea, then you will like the idea of handing a 9 year old a high powered rifle and send them out in the woods to hunt deer. The Department of Natural Resources of the state of Michigan has removed any age limit to hunting deer in Michigan starting next year. The reason they did this? The number of hunters is down. So, if they increased the pool of those that are able to hunt – but not necessarily capable of hunting safely – there will be more hunters.

What is even more interesting is that the hunter safety course that is required by the state for new hunters is waived for two years, as a test drive the department says to see if the young hunters will like hunting. That would be like giving license to drive to kids that are as young as 9 for two years to see if they like driving before taking a driver’s education course.

Our drive for money and gun freedoms is over the edge. We are losing sight of the reason there are communities, to build a safe and secure environment for all of us to live. By giving guns to younger and younger children, we are not becoming more secure.

This is a bad idea for Michigan.

-----

Herman Cain is out of touch and doesn't deserve to be President

2011-10-09T11:40:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain’s suggestion that the occupy Wall Street protests that have now spread across the country are just playing the “victim card” is dead wrong. It is no truer than the Tea Party playing the victim card because they didn’t get their way about health care.

Mr. Cain, in every crime there are victims and unpleasant consequences. The rip off by the Wall Street bankers and brokers and the resulting down turn in the economy is a crime and those that have lost their jobs and are losing their homes are victims. To suggest in one sweeping statement that all of them are playing off on what has happen to them is to be insensitive to the real issues. If you can’t understand the real issues, you can’t present solutions that are based in reality. Mr. Cain, you are not fit to be president.

Just as in a robbery, a traffic accident or the result of Wall Street Bankers playing with real people’s lives like it was monopoly money; there are those that must suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, because Bush helped those that were taking the risks and because Obama just passed through the same policy, the bankers got off. They made millions, if not billions, off of their risk taking. This despite the bailouts they received from the taxes the people who are occupying Wall Street right now. Do you think the Wall Street bankers and others didn’t play the “victims card” in their board room meetings with the Federal Reserve Chair and the Secretary of the Treasury? The only difference is they still had one more hand to play… the economy would have collapsed if the Federal Government hadn’t helped out.

So now, the Wall Street protesters are asking the system to help them out. They don’t want a bailout like the bankers received, they want jobs. They don’t want their fate left up to boardroom meetings of large multi-national corporations whose only purpose is to make a profit, and whose loyalties are not to any community. They want decisions that affect their lives and jobs made in public so they can have a say in those decisions. They are asking that the community to help them just like the community helped the big Wall Street guys.

We the people didn’t create a community so that when times are tough the community can ignore our pleas and say we are just playing the victim card. If the community doesn’t support us, why do we need one? Why did we create them? We created communities and continue to support them because a shared responsibility between ourselves and the community will get us a lot farther.

It is time the community supports Main Street now.

Editor's note: Recent health worries and problems prevented me from making posts over the last 6 weeks. It appears that these problems are now in the past. I hope to increase my pace back to where it was before the issue arose. Thank you for your patience.

-----

A candidate for all the people

2011-09-23T09:45:00.000-07:00

If the Republican presidential candidates continue to hold such a hard line on many of the issues facing the United States, it is a reasonable question to ask if they are a candidate for all the people.

Bachmann, being the staunchest, said that she has a titanium spine when it comes to the issues that the Republican Tea Party feel the strongest about. Bachmann says that she, more than Romney or Perry, would hold the line in support of the Tea Party issues.

Bachmann is saying, without reservation at this point in the election cycle, that she is the candidate for Tea Party people and not all Americans. But, not all people align themselves with the Tea Party, nor the Republicans or even the Democrats. But taking a stand that is so harsh, Bachmann is saying she would not consider the needs and concerns for people outside of the demographic profile that is her base.

As a presidential candidate, it is important to make very clear what your opinions are on the issues. In most situations we all know that the candidate, if elected, would work with the congress to come to a compromise on the issues, find a workable solution and get something done. This is the way that all citizens of the country can feel like their interests are being taken into consideration. But, for a candidate to take the stance from the beginning that there will be no compromise is to say that the rest of the country doesn’t count.

The country needs a President that everyone can feel right about. Not someone that discounts the concerns of a large part of the population from the beginning.

-----

Regulations protect people and environments

2011-09-01T03:20:00.001-07:00

The regulations that business operates under is going to be an issue in the upcoming presidential election. Those candidates that are running on the right are saying that we have too many regulations on business and that the result is a loss of jobs.

If jobs are lost who could be against dumping the regulations?

Yes, perhaps, there are too many regulations. But, most regulations are in place for a reason. They protect people and the environment. Without these regulations, we would have to rely on corporations, whose sole legal goal is to create profit, to do the right thing. Many corporations say that their best practices meet or exceed the regulations.

As an example of corporations following their own best practices, there is Shell Oil that has operations in the Niger Delta, Africa. The corporation has established best practices between itself and NNPC, the national oil company of Nigeria. Those practices are to protect the environment, workers and the people living in the delta.

But, there is a serious problem in Africa, where Shell said they followed their best practices and said that the area was “clean”. As reported in The Economist, August 13th-19th, 2011, a United Nations report states that there is a “thick, black carpet of crude” in the Ogoniland. This spill has been estimated to be larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and covers about 10 square miles. This is the result of an oil spill that Shell first claimed was caused by theft and sabotage, but now has admitted was caused by equipment failure. It appears that their best practices didn’t anticipate the equipment failure and that Shell could blame it on other causes.

Residents of the area are drinking water with 900 times as much benzene, a carcinogen, then is deemed safe by the World Health Organization. The report goes on to say that it could take 30 years and a billion dollars for Shell to clean up an area. This report is published 20 years after Shell left Ogoniland.

Every time a corporation or an industry is threatened with regulations they claim that their best practices will be better and that there will be loss of jobs. But, in thousands of case in our own country and around the world, it isn’t the case.

So, should we skip the regulations so that Shell can hire a few more people? It is the lack of regulations and reliance on corporation’s best practices that have polluted the Ogoniland, a faraway place that is rarely seen by the eyes of American voters.

Let’s keep the regulations that protect people and environments.

-----

Medical marijuana law in Michigan is confusing at best

2011-08-29T05:18:00.000-07:00

There is few things clear in politics. But, in the case of the use of marijuana for medical purposes in Michigan, the intent of the voters was very clear. In a decisive vote, the people of Michigan said they wanted people to have access to marijuana if a doctor prescribed it as medication.

So why has it been such trouble to get them the medicine?

Politicians, police agencies and other authoritarian types don’t want them to. They believe that the drug is a great evil. They would ignore the intent of the voters and keep it from those that need it for fear that the state will become the, “drug capital of the world,” as one politician put it.

Two years ago, a citizens initiative passed in Michigan. The initiative said that marijuana should be made available to those that could benefit from the drug. As called for in the initiative, the state legislature acted. But, they created a confusing and vague law. The result has been nothing but confusion about a very clear decision by the voters.

Now a court has ruled, that marijuana dispensaries are illegal according to their interpretation of the confusing law passed by the state. This has forced perhaps hundreds of clinics around the state out of business, leaving those that are in need of the drug searching for another source for their medicine.

Where are these people to go? Shall we send them out on the street to drug dealers?

Most drugs do need to be controlled. The ill effects that the drugs bring on user, their families and communities would be destructive. But, that doesn’t mean that drugs that clearly are needed to ease the pain of an illness, and in some cases, improve the health of people should just be banned and only provided by the local illegal street vendor.

The legislature of the state should act quickly to write a clear law about something the voters clearly want.

-----

No tax increase doesn't make sense

2011-08-19T10:14:00.000-07:00

There is a hidden agenda in the no tax pledge that the anti-tax crowd is talking about. It isn’t to keep from raising taxes because it hurts the economy. It is the killing of all government in the end.

Many conservative politicians that are running in the next election have signed a no tax increase pledge from groups like Americans for Tax Reform. The pledges states that they will not vote for a tax increase of any kind, even if it is just a move to increase revenue. Americans for Tax Reform don’t care if it is legislations that increases taxes or removes a deduction that will increase revenue. Americans for Tax reform will provide significant support for those politicians that keep their pledge. If someone slips up and votes for an increase in revenue, the organization will find another politician to support in the next election.

Sometimes revenues need to be increased. Even the most conservatively run business find that they need to increase prices occasionally. Costs just have a way of always going up. Those that operate a business can search for new suppliers, can cut cost and do many other things that will enable them to keep costs in line. But, at some point, the price of their goods or services are going to increase. If they don’t, they will lose money and go out of business.

Government, just like business, should run as lean as possible. All the things that businesses do to keep costs in line, government should also do. But, sometimes costs are going to increase. In order to keep a balance budget, taxes will need to increase at some point in order to cover the deficient or the government will be running in the red.

Of all the things that we ask government to do, police, fire and other essential services like that should be maintained and control by the community. When inflation pushes up the costs of maintaining the essential services, if the elected officials have signed a no tax increase pledge they plan on keeping, it means that officers or fire personal will need to be laid off. Reducing the amount of people that protect the community, one of the primary things a government should be doing.

There are ways that we can cut the cost of government. We should be working on them all the time. But, pledging to not raise taxes, no matter what the reason, will place the basic services that we all need in jeopardy.

-----

BART shuts down cell phone use in subway stations

2011-08-13T12:10:00.000-07:00

Cell phone use in San Francisco subway stations was halted Thursday. BART, the authority that operates the subways, “learned” that protests were planned in some of the stations. People wanted to express their anger over the shooting death of a man by BART police. So, electricity was cut off to cell phone towers in the stations from 4 to 7 pm on Thursday in response.

Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.

According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.

When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)

I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.

This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.

If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.

-----

Rick Perry and his call to prayer

2011-08-08T03:15:00.001-07:00

Rick Perry may be the most politically dangerous man in America right now.

The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.

Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.

One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.

Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.

Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.

Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.

Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.

This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.

-----

FAA employees are laid off while Congress is on vacation - tell me this is right!

2011-08-03T10:14:00.000-07:00

Congress is on vacation. Senators and representatives went home to be with their families, enjoy the summer and raise some money for their campaigns. They continue to collect their pay checks, their travel expenses are paid, their health insurance is covered and their office expense fund continues to pay for who knows what more.

The members of congress went on vacation while 4,000 FAA workers and thousands more that work on construction projections around the country are laid off or are forced on furlough. The FAA also could lose more than a billion dollars in taxes – just so you can have a good idea of the amount of a billion dollars, here is the number: $1,000,000,000. The amount of loss in tax revenue doesn’t include the unemployment payments that the FAA and construction workers will be collecting.

I hope the 535 members of congress are enjoying their time off. I doubt that the 4,000 FAA workers are enjoying their vacation because they don’t have a pay check. No health insurance if anything happens to them or their kids. There might be a few mortgage payments missed. This time of year, kids that are going to college need to purchase books. Sorry kids, congress went on vacation and didn’t pay their bills.

The fight that went on with the debt limit is similar to the fight that is happening with the FAA financing. Some members of congress would like to stop federal payments to rural airports. The payments help keep the cost of commuter flights to major hubs down to something that is affordable. Those members think that it would save about a billion dollars – remember that number from above? That is the amount that the United States has lost in tax revenue because 535 people thought it was more important to go on vacation then to keep 4,000 people employed. It is fair to debate the continuation of subsidizing rural airports for the commuter flights. So, can’t that portion of the funding bill for the FAA be separated from the overall bill?

There is a group in congress that will not compromise on anything to get their way. Kids play like that when they are raised as spoiled little brats. The members of this group are mostly backed by the Tea Party. Instead of a compromise to keep people working and keep collecting taxes, the no-compromise group would not even consider short term legislation to keep people on the job for another month while they sorted it all out.

I hope that the members of congress who allowed this to happen are enjoying their iced tea on the porch during the hot summer. If it is too warm for them outside, they can step inside of their homes and country clubs with the air conditioning on high. That should relieve them of any memory of 4,000 people that are out of work.

If you want to make change, work for it. But, to force change while honest, hard working people are suffering is wrong.

-----

Israeli Chamber Orchestra played Wagner Tuesday evening

2011-07-27T09:46:00.000-07:00

Richard Wagner’s music was played in Germany on Tuesday evening Israeli Chamber Orchestra. Wagner was an 18^th century composer that had a dramatic influence on opera and music overall. But, during his lifetime he wrote anti-Semitic essays that said Jews had no place in German society. Hitler hijacked Wagner’s music to advance Hitler’s vile cause.

Many refuse to support any public playing of Wagner’s music, especially after World War II. They would like to banish his music to the trash bin of history in hope that Wagner’s music, along with his views, would be forgotten. But, his influence on music is so dramatic that Wagner’s concepts are used by many composers since he published and preformed.

Wagner’s music can’t be disassociated from one of history’s most inhumane periods. His music was played in nearly every corner of Germany society all while millions of people were killed in the most horrific way. Most of those that died were Jews, but so did millions of other people. The desire to banish his music because of the ugly memories is understandable. Who would want to be reminded of that period in our history?

If we refuse to play Wagner because of his vile cultural views and its association with the Nazis, we then elevate Wagner and his music to cult status in the underground world of racial hated. The only people that will play his music will be those that use it to gain support for their cause. The truth is, if we look deep into the views of every artist, we are sure to find something that we disagree with. Should we stop playing them also?

Openly presenting Wagner’s beautiful music can be a source of enjoyment for many people. But, it should be done with a clear understanding of the composer’s personal views. With open discussion about Wagner’s music, his life and his philosophy, we can use art to instruct not to destroy. It will balance those that would like to glorify Wagner’s and Hitler’s depraved views.

Many people have worked hard to help all of us remember the terror that existed during World War II. Their purpose is to hang in the open the events leading up to Hitler’s reign and its result on the world. By understanding the past in this way we can be on guard to prevent the past from becoming the future.

Playing Wagner’s music coupled with open discussion of his view points is just one way of keeping the evils of history fresh in the public memory.

-----

Herman Cain supports banning mosques

2011-07-20T04:00:00.000-07:00

Herman Cain, Republican candidate for president, says that communities don’t have to accept mosques if its citizens don’t want them. The Washington Post called it “buffoonery.” The definition of buffoonery is behavior that is ridiculous but amusing. Cain’s statement is certainly ridiculous but it is not amusing. It feeds the irrational fear of public opinion about Islam.

During an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Herman Cain said that Islam is not a religion like other religions and Americans have the right to keep it out of their communities if they wish. Cain said, “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws – Sharia laws. That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.” So, according to Cain, because the Muslim religion has an established set of laws, communities can ban mosque if they so choose.

Cain continues with, “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion.”

Cain’s words are clearly political double speak. First, he says that it is a religion. But, because there is a code of conduct for its believers it should not be treated like a religion. But, Mr. Cain, isn’t that what religion is… a belief that we need to follow some rules?

So, using Cain’s logic, any religion that has a code of conduct for its faithful should be banned. Communities should be able to ban Jewish temples. Rabbinical law would be considered a set of “laws,” therefore communities could ban temples. Then, there are the Catholics with their cannon law. In fact, they have a country that enforces cannon law, the Vatican. It is presumed that if given the opportunity, the Catholics would love to have the United States run by cannon law, therefore, since the Catholics have a set of laws, communities should be able to ban Catholic churches.

Cain is baiting all those that believe that Islam attacked us on 9-11 and continues to threaten our national security. Just because the individuals that attacked us on that fateful day claimed to be good Muslims, doesn’t mean that everyone that follows Islam is the same. No matter the religion, it is individuals that should be held accountable for their actions.

It is presumed that Cain is a conservative because he is running as a Republican. Conservatives strongly believe, as they should, that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, not groups. Yet, he states on national television that a group of people should be separated from everyone else because of their religious beliefs.

All of this, of course, is not addressing the fundamental issue in Cain’s statement. No community has the right to ban a religion nor its place of worship. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. To suggest that Islam can be narrowly redefined to separate it from other religions is to use a blunt object to disconnect it from protection under the amendment. If communities can successfully do that, then they can find ways to redefine any religion that the majority disagrees with and ban them as well.

Will your religion be next?

-----

Don't follow the leader

2011-07-13T10:10:00.000-07:00

Lori Klein, an Arizona State Senate Republican, pointed her “cute” pink pistol at a reporter that was interviewing her and demonstrated how the laser aiming device works by pointing it at the reporter’s chest. Klein did this while the .380 Ruger, that has no safety, was loaded.

Let’s follow the leader. All of us should pull out our guns and start pointing them at people just to show how fun it is. After all, the leading proponent of the Second Amendment in Arizona did so it must be the right thing to do.

Before anyone thinks that I am a liberal that wants to take away all guns, leaving only criminals with guns, think again. My father was a police officer and hunter. He had guns in the house for his profession and his hobby. I was taught gun safety just like being taught to say please and thank you. When I was 14 years old I went through the NRA’s gun safety program. For many years I was a hunter. I am personally in support of gun ownership, if that is something people want to do.

There is also a little thing called the Constitution. Regardless of the debate about a militia, it does, in some form, guarantee the right to own guns. Citizens of any Responsible Community should not be required to give up the right to own guns.

None of the above means that the right to “bear arms” is absolute. When the authors of the Constitution wrote in a few of our rights, it was never intended to mean that communities could not place reasonable restrictions on those rights. The reason we live in a community is to come to terms on the laws that provide for a safe environment. To allow just any crazy person to have a gun because it is a right is wrong.

Speaking of crazy people, Senate Klein from Arizona is not only out of line by pointing her gun at the reporter, she should be arrested. While it is not illegal apparently to point a gun at someone in Arizona (I can’t find where it is anywhere in the country) it could be considered an assault. The reporter was not acting threatening and was not carry a weapon. Yet, a loaded gun was pointed at him for no cause other than to allow the Senator to have a little fun with her “cute” pink pistol. By the way, “cute” is her term.

People follow leaders. That is just the way humans work. While some leaders shouldn’t be followed, like Senator Klein, it is certain that someone will do the same thing because the senator did it. Next time, there may be an unintended firing of the weapon and someone will be dead. That is why the senator needs to face the consequences of her action.

-----

Charter Schools are not the answer

2011-07-11T03:17:00.000-07:00

It is suppose to be the quick fix for everything that is wrong with Detroit Public Schools and public schools in general. Open many more charter schools in the Detroit district, let parents select where their children attend school and they will do so much better that everyone will want to shut down the city’s school district.

Or, at least that is the promise.

After all, charter schools have everything going for them. Let’s go down the list. First, since parents have to be motivated to enroll their children in the schools, the children would come from families that have higher expectations than those that don’t make any changes. The charter schools can demand that parents attend meetings at the school, volunteer time and be involved in the education process. Charter schools have greater control over the staff, especially the teachers, so they can discharge those people that are not performing well. Charter schools are usually operated by a market based philosophy, with accountability standards that are higher than public schools. Failing students or those that are disruptive can be released from charter schools and set back to public schools. This list is not all inclusive, but it is the primary reason given in support of charter schools.

Well, guess what? A new study conducted by a Detroit newspaper demonstrates that charter schools in the city of Detroit overall, are worse then the public school district. Only 17 percent of the students that attend charter schools in the district perform better than the average public school student. (Understand here, that half of the public school children do better than average, only 17% of the charter schools students do better.) But, there is more. Only about half of the students in the charter schools are on par with public school children. Finally, about 33% of the children that attend charter schools did worse.

The difference is what many involved in education know too well. Until the student, the family, the institution and the community work together, education will not do well. The student must be engaged and excited about getting a good education. The family must be fully functioning and prepare the student for school. The institution must be given the authority to make demands of the student, the family and the community. Finally, the community must step up and make a full commitment to the future. (The community in this case includes the private and public sector.)

An analogy here that people in Detroit can understand is what it takes to build a quality automobile (the student). We can have great people working on the line (teachers/institution) but if the parts they install come from vendors (families) that are shipping defective parts, it will not matter. If the company doesn’t pay its bills (community), vendors will stop shipping parts. Until everyone involved in the building of the car is held accountable the product in the end will be sub prime.

If has been a long held belief of mine that if one part of the quadrangle fails; the student, the family, the institution and the community; the other three have to work twice as hard to make up the difference. If two parts fail, it will be nearly impossible to make up the difference.

Detroit schools are not doing a good job at educating the youth of the community. They do need to be held accountable for their failings. But, until the other three parts are also held accountable, children will perform poorly.

-----

The right to trial in open court

2011-07-07T09:11:00.001-07:00

There are some issues in the news that I have avoided. The Casey Anthony trial was one of those issues. This post is actually not about Casey Anthony. It is about the right to be faced by your accusers and the media in court cases.

The trial of Casey Anthony has been in everyone’s face for a couple of months now. Talking heads are interviewed on cable news stations about the trial every day. Voiceovers on videos that show Anthony laughing during a night out on the town talk about the trial. Others talk about the trial while actual court room footage show Anthony crying when things weren’t going her way.

The media had us all believing she was guilty before the jury had a chance to deliberate on the evidence. We thought we saw all the evidence we needed. We heard the sound bites of the prosecutor asking questions and the answers his witnesses gave. She was going to the chair for sure.

The shock that we all felt and the shock we witnessed from our co-workers, friends, family as well as the strangers we watched on the television as the verdict was read was just re-enforcement that we were right – every body thought she was guilty. She should have gotten the chair.

Yet, the jury came back quickly with their opinion. Anthony was found not guilty on the most serious of the charges against her, including murder. What could explain such a verdict when watching from afar, through the media, we could all clearly see she was guilty?

We weren’t there and the jury was.

That is not to say that Anthony didn’t kill her daughter, Casey. She may have or at least had some involvement in the cover up. But, the jury returned a verdict not based on what we saw in the media, but what they saw – and didn’t see – in the court room.

We have a system that asks everyday people to come forward and listen to the evidence, presented in an adversarial way, in person. Each side in the case makes their arguments about the guilt or innocence of the accused. Evidence is presented directly to the jury in person. The jury in this case heard all of it, not just the sound bites that the media presented. They listened to the judge when he gave instructions about the law and the crime. In the end, the jury made a decision that could have only been made by being there.

Our system of government is based on real people making decisions about real crimes and the real people that stand accused. Today, we might be unsure about the system – it does get things wrong occasionally, both ways. But, if you are ever accused of a crime and the media has you in the chair before the trial starts, it may comfort you to know that you still have the chance to stand in front of real people, face to face and tell your side of the story.

To face your accuser and be to be judged by a jury that are people just like you, are rights we should all cherish. There is at least one person right now, guilty or not, that does appreciate those rights.

-----

The Declaration of Independence declared all people are equal

2011-07-04T00:00:00.000-07:00

Today is Independence Day in America. It is the day that we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. With that act, the colonist declared our separation from England and their intention to form a new government. The colonists were not being treated as equals by the English and felt that they should. Since they weren’t, they wanted to create a government that respected everyone’s rights.

But, let’s not fool ourselves. The phrase in the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal” refers to white men over the age of 21. Woman didn’t have the same rights as men. Any rights or obligations that children had were those that were granted by their fathers. Native American men at the time were considered only close to equal in the eyes of the law… occasionally. Then, of course, there were the slaves that at the time of the signing of the Declaration were the brute laborers of the colonies, especially in the South. They were less than equal.

But, would anyone today believe that the phrase “All men are created equal” means only white men? While its meaning at the time of the signing is clear from the understanding of history, its intent was to declare that all individuals are equal. So, should we follow the original meaning or the intent?

It is hoped that you would answer that it is the intent that we should follow. That people living in America are created equal and should expect equal treatment. It is a universal belief, because as Abraham Lincoln believed, the language of the Declaration of Independence is deliberately universal.

The Declaration of Independence was only the first step the founders took to create a successful government. There was the Articles of Confederation, but that didn’t work out and nearly destroyed the goal of living as one nation. The Constitution was then created. It has had a very successful run over these 230 plus years. But, it was the Declaration that set the tone at the time. The Constitution created a government that successfully carried out the goals of the Declaration of Independence.

The goal was that all people are created equal. No matter their gender, race, religion, orientation, politics and many other things that are often used to divide us. Instead, all of those factors should be used to define us as Americans.

Let’s get out and celebrate today. Let’s celebrate together for the good of out community.

-----

The "Internet Kill Switch" needs some safe guards

2011-07-01T16:59:00.000-07:00

Recently, under the radar of all the other arguments that our culture is currently debating, the senate passed out of committee a bill entitled, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” (at this writing it is not clear to the author what the current status of the bill is). The act would establish the “Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications.” It directs this new office to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. The bill is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I, Connecticut), Susan Collins (R Maine) and Tom Carper (D Delaware).

The biggest concern about the bill is that it would authorize the President of the United States to shut down all or parts of the internet during Internet-based attacks that threaten national security without review of the courts. Whenever the term “national security” is used, it is suppose to make all of us flinch and allow our freedoms to be limited. It provides the ground work to take action without authorization from the courts much like Bush’s actions after the 9-11 attacks.

Before anyone thinks that this is national issue that doesn’t affect main street and your neighborhood, please reconsider. The uprisings in many countries around the world over the last year, especially during the Arab Spring, have been supported by the internet. The right to free speech about the issues in those faraway places was enhanced by communication on the internet. It drove the passions of people that seek their freedom from the dictators of countries that oppressed their citizens for far too long.

If the freedoms of everyday people in those oppressed nations had not been stomped down, there would have been evolutionary change in the governments that control those countries and violent change would not have been necessary. But, since freedoms that are basic to all people were suppressed, the governments held a firm hold over the masses. It was the rise of the internet that allowed people to coordinate protests (the basic right of assembly) and demand change (a redress of their grievances).

With the free flow of information about issues, we can all make informed decisions about the threats that face our community. To hear from many voices about the ideas and actions of others is to foster an open dialogue about solutions and actions to take. In the countries that experienced the upheavals of the last few months, especially the more sophisticated and developed countries, the internet was controlled or in some places shut down as a first line of defense to the protests. In the United States, or any nation, to place the same power as is held by the dictators in the hands of very few people without review, is a dangerous act.

But, there is a more practical and simple reason to prevent such power without review to take place. Much of our communication not only between political groups but also between loved ones, friends and others is facilitated by the internet. To be able to connect with them in times of trouble is to ease the fear and panic that is created by crisis.

There does need to be a policy, well developed and measured, in the event of attack to the internet. We can’t be blind to the fact that there are those that would do us harm. The community needs to respond appropriately to prevent the loss of lives and assets. The creation of a cybersecurity team may be the correct path to take. But, the power placed in the executive branch must be balanced by a review from both the courts and the congress. This will prevent a stomping down of rights that is the hallmark of totalitarian governments.

This is the way an open community works best.

Note: Three things presented themselves while writing this blog post.

The First amendment of the Constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also of the press. The authors clearly meant to identify two issues, speech and the right to distribute that speech through a medium, in this case the internet.

Second, another issue linked to this one is net neutrality. There are those in congress that would like to limit the amount of the internet that users can connect to, leaving that decision to the market. But, as is identified above, the Constitution clearly makes the distribution of speech a right. To limit it would be hard to justify.

Finally, the word cybersecurity used in the act. It is such a new term that the word processing software used to write this post didn’t have the term in the spell check data base. Therefore, it marked the word as misspelled. This is how new this issue is in our culture.

-----

Helmet law repeal should be, well, repealed

2011-07-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

Without a doubt, those that ride motorcycles and would like to repeal the helmet law in Michigan would disagree, but wearing it is a very small price to pay for better safety and a decrease in insurance cost for every driver in the state.

The Michigan senate has passed legislation that would repeal the requirement for riders of motorcycles to wear a helmet. It was passed along party lines, Republicans in support and the Democrats against. One Republican, a doctor, joined the Democrats. The measure now goes to the house for consideration. Governor Rick Synder said it was not a priority of his administration, but would consider it with a larger insurance reform package later this year.

It is within the rights of the community to respond when people are harmed by another individual’s action. This applies to direct and indirect harm. The helmet requirement law in Michigan for those who drive or ride a motorcycle is a reasonable response to problems caused when an individual doesn’t wear a helmet and is involved in an accident.

When motorcycle riders are involved in accidents, the number of head injury cases are much higher for those are not wearing a helmet. This means insurance costs is greater for the care of the injured. This cost gets passed along to every other individual in the state that purchases insurance – all insurance.

The insurance industry in the state are asking that the legislation die. They know it will increase their cost of doing business in the state. Since there is a benefit to individuals, the Governor should veto the bill if it passes in the house and reaches his desk.

-----

Violent video games should be restricted

2011-06-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

The community received a punch from the Supreme Court this week. The court ruled that the citizens of the California community can’t ban the sale of violent video games to children under 18 years of age without an adult in tow. Therefore all other communities that have or are considering such restrictions must abandon their positions.

The people of California working through their legislature enacted a law that bans the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18 years of age. Research has demonstrated a relationship between children interacting with the violence in video games and aggressive, antisocial behavior. It was enacted to support the rights of parents that may not want their children to engage with the games.

The court ruled, with Justice Anthony Scalia writing the majority opinion, that video games are protected free speech, therefore they can’t be banned. The Supreme Court clearly identified three areas of speech that historically have been restricted, that which is obscene, inciting and fighting words. Scalia said the state of California did not prove that violent video games harm children therefore the court could not carve out another form of restricted speech.

The suit against the people of California was brought by the video game association whose only roll according to its function is to sell product not protect speech. The association for that reason should have no standing to bring the suit. In addition, the self imposed rules that the association encourages its retail members to follow are the same as the law codified. If the law is unconstitutional on free speech grounds, then the rules of the association is also wrong.

This ruling takes a long step away from any practical understanding of the First Amendment. It doesn’t separate commercial and political, educational or religious speech. The videos that California is attempting to restrict are videos that have entertainment value only. It states in the law that if any reasonable person can see no value other than entertainment, the sale of the game can be restricted. It avoids any attempt to restrict those that take a political stand on issues, institutions or politicians. It also states that games can’t be restricted that have educational or religious value. Certainly the founders’ intent was to protect political speech and was not an absolute right to say or express anything. As evidence of that, even Scalia in the majority opinion said that there are at least three restrictions.

On another point, the law doesn’t ban the videos entirely. Those that are 18 years of age or older may purchase the videos. The law recognizes that when an individual reaches the age of majority the individual can act with greater maturity. Full freedom therefore is granted at that age including the right to purchase video games that are violent in nature.

The purchase of violent videos is not a life or death situation. Neither is it a case where the child will be burden with a great weight for a long period of time if the purchase isn’t made. There is no reason the community shouldn’t restrict the purchase of the videos unless allowed by a parent.

At the end of the argument, parental control is what it is all about. The law did not ban the videos but stated that a parent or guardian must approve if purchased by someone under 18.

Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and often a political soul mate with Scalia, did not support the majority opinion. It was clear to him that rights are not absolute and that the founders’ never intended for children to have rights beyond what their parents grant. The California law supported those rights by reserving for parents and guardians the right to make the decision to purchase the games for their children.

The Supreme Court made a bad decision in this case. While the research about violent videos causing harm to children may not be as strong as it could, the court didn’t consider the practical aspects of the rights reserved for individuals in the Constitution. No right is absolute and as long as legislatures are not choosing sides in a debate about those rights but applying rules to all equally, there is no reason a community can’t act to protect their children, even if the threat is small.

-----

Religion is the first right

2011-06-27T10:30:00.000-07:00

The headlines of the Oakland Press a week ago said that Muslims had purchased a school building in Farmington. If it was Catholics, Baptists or Methodist no one would have paid much attention. But, because it was a group associated with Islam, a religion many in America have trouble with, it raised some concern by the community. Enough concern that the Oakland Press placed it on the front page.

Religion in America is the most scared of rights. It is the first right that is given protection in the first amendment of the Constitution.

The founders knew well the troubles that England and Europe had with religion and all the wars it caused. (or at least, like those that claim there are good Muslims, the wars that religion was given as the reason – but more on that in another post). Religion was one of the biggest reasons people came to the “New World”, second only to making money. They traveled across the ocean, a scary thing to do at the time, in search of a place they could practice their religion without interference. The immigrants set up communities that were for the most part, doing just what they were escaping from in England. They formed communities whose government and culture were dictated by the official religion of the community.

This was okay at first. Most everyone practiced the established religion, or at least played along. But, the new country grew from just a few settlements along the coast to, what was at the time, large cities. As trade begin to happen between the communities, people that didn’t follow the established religion of one community, moved in. The same trouble that communities in England experience could have happen here, if it wasn’t for a bold idea. Everyone agreed, although with some difficulty at first, that everyone could practice their own religion in their own space.

Looking back, many believe that this is a Christian nation, born from the belief of those Christians that traveled here from Europe. Jews were well established in New York and Islam had a community in Philadelphia. Even among the Christian religions, there were many different sects that, in some cases, aggressively disagreed with the beliefs of others.

Those that created the nation and its government didn’t call it a Christian nation either. In documents and treaties at the time, they removed religion from the government. There are treaties that state we are not a Christian nation, meaning that there is no state religion. In the First amendment, it states that government shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. It does not state on any document that set up the United States government that religion should play any role. In fact, in the main body of the Constitution, it clearly and emphatically states that there shall be no religious test - twice. A very clear statement considering that some phrasing of the Constitution is vague.

Even if there wasn’t a Constitution that barred religion from government and provides an atmosphere for religious freedom, it would be the right thing to do. There is little chance that followers of a religion that is barred from freely exercising their beliefs and prevented from participating in community life, would support the community. The reality is, that when anyone feels isolated from the main street community for any reason, they will be less supportive, if not anti-social in their conduct.

To draw from the supporters of another right, religion doesn’t harm people, people do. No matter what the religion may or may not teach, it is individual followers of a religion that may use it as an excuse to be violent. These individuals should be stopped when their action causes harm others, not the religion. To exclude an entire religion is to prevent other, none violent citizen in good standing from following their right to practice their faith.

With some exceptions, no right is absolute, all should be allowed to practice their religion in their own space. To do otherwise is to limit the freedom of the community.

-----

Between truth and lies is free speech

2011-06-14T03:14:00.000-07:00

In politics, one person’s truth is another person’s lie. The real truth is usually found in the middle but people are free to make their claims.

Senator Mike Kowall, Republican from White Lake Township, is organizing legislative hearings on the bridge project. The project is a proposal that the State of Michigan build a second bridge across the Detroit River to Canada. It is needed, the supporters say, because an increase in capacity to move goods and services across the international boundary will provide an economic boost to the region and the state. Those that are opposed to the idea say that if it is needed, then business should pay for the bridge and accept all the risks.

There is a lot of politicking from both sides of the aisle on the issue. One of the most high profile are the ads that are running on television in the Detroit market giving all the reasons why the state should not build the bridge. They are paid for by Matty Moroun, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. Others don’t have the money to buy media, so they are working under the spotlight.

Kowall, publicly states he is a skeptic on the project. But, he said the hearings that his committee will host will be fair and impartial. Even though it is very unusual for legislative hearings to request subpoena power, Kowall says he will request it if “he thinks someone is blowing smoke.”

If the committee thinks there is a crime being committed, let’s inform the authorities and get it sorted out. But, this is not a criminal investigation, it is open debate on a legislative issue. To use the threat of a subpoena to discuss open debate is a threat to the freedom of speech. If every time a committee chair thought that someone should be summoned to a hearing because they expressed an opinion that didn’t fit with their view of the world, we would have a constraint of free speech. People would hold their opinions about the issues for fear of repercussions. You can hear it in the voices of people interviewed by western press officials on the streets of places like China. They give a nice answer but you know they are stressed about it.

In a political debate about an issue, it is wise to consider the advertising world. Many claims are made about how wonderful a product is. If the claims are false, then they are investigated by the agency that regulates their action. If not, they are left alone. If calling for hearings on every claim that was made became common place, image what would happen if a U. S. Senate was upset because his deodorant didn’t work.

Let’s get on with the process without all the threats.

-----

Palin's fear is a poor trait to support

2011-06-13T03:41:00.000-07:00

The request by news organizations that was made for Sarah Palin’s emails were a rational inquiry into a person that would like to lead the nation.

One of the many complaints that Palin and her supporters have is that news organizations have not asked for the emails and other documents from other politicians. A quick search on line finds that news organizations have said that they have or are requesting the emails of other officials that are running for offices. If it is true that Palin is being focused on more than others it is because she makes good copy. It will sell papers and get people to log on to news sites to find out the juicy gossip, even if there isn’t much there.

Looking beyond the mere content, the emails provide a glimpse of a profile that is reminiscent of another political leader during the 60’s, President Nixon.

President Nixon was without question paranoid about his political foes and even some of his own people. He, like Palin, thought the “liberal” press was out to get him in ways that they weren’t after others. Nixon’s political base, again like Palin, was partially built on renouncing the liberal press and how they were after him. Also, like Palin, Nixon appealed to patriotic Americans, calling them the silent majority, for support.

Out of the eyes of the press Nixon did many things that demonstrated how far this fear went. As an example, Nixon taped conversations without telling anyone that they were being recorded. Nixon was certain that if you disagreed with him, you were being disloyal to America. He can be heard on the tapes blasting those people.

The most famous example of Nixon’s irrational response driven by fear was Watergate. Nixon may have not planned the break in but he fostered an atmosphere that gave people the idea it would be acceptable. Nixon’s involvement in the cover up provides a clue to someone that is more afraid of the press and the public’s reaction than getting out in front of the truth. It can be argued that if he had just come clean, Nixon may have finished his term.

Palin is not Nixon. But, like Nixon, it does appear she is a politician that fears an open examination of her credentials to lead the free world. If she makes a mistake about a subject, when the press makes an issue about it, instead of coming clean she claims the press is out to get her.

Like Nixon, Palin also divides the nation into two groups. There are patriots and those that are out to destroy America. Her hope is that with the patriots, and those that are fearful of not being called a patriot she will find enough votes win an election. This, rather than developing rational policy that respects all citizen of the community as a basis to govern.

Fear is not a way to live or lead. We need leaders with rational and cool heads. Fear will force the leader to cross the line between a measured response and an irrational assault.

Let’s select leaders based on sensible policy that addresses problems not fearful responses that save the leaders career.

-----

Let's not make an example of a 70 year woman in an attempt to stamp our the evil weed

2011-06-09T14:51:00.000-07:00

An Oakland County woman who is 70 years old faces the possibility of spending up to 4 years in prison because she used marijuana.

Barbra Argo as reported by the Oakland Press was convicted of one count of delivery of a control substance. She was working in a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale. Argo told police that raided the facility that she was growing plants in her Lake Orion home. Sure enough, when police searched the home they found the marijuana plants and other items. Argo is a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver, which arguably allows her to have the plants for personal use and provide it to others.

All of this confusion over the laws that govern the growing, use and distribution of the weed has come about since Michigan voted to allow it for medical use. The state legislature bungled the job of clearly defining the use of marijuana in medical cases. Jessica Cooper and others in Oakland County including County Executive L. Brooks Patterson and Sheriff Michael Bouchard have been on a crusade to stamp out the use of the drug. All of this, while Arizona (yes, Arizona of all states) is challenging the federal government’s right under the constitution to dictate to states the use of marijuana and other controlled substances.

Authorities on the county level are attempting to force the state to clarify restrictions on the use of marijuana, and could perhaps be correct. But, as a result, they are upsetting the lives of people who need the drug to ease their pain and suffering.

It was clear from the state wide vote a few years ago that the people should be able to have access to the substance. In 2008 the vote was 3.7 million to only 1.7 million in support of the initiative. Every county in the state supported the measure. The state should have made the laws as clear as the outcome of the election. But, those in the legislature that didn’t like the will of the people decided to make it difficult, if impossible, to use the drug with a prescription.

Some cities across the state have refused to enforce the law until the state comes clean with a process to govern the use of the substance. Instead of finding 70 year old grandmotherly types guilty of a crime that hurts no body, Oakland County officials should have done the same thing.

It is within the judge’s power to give Argo a light sentence. The judge should do just that. Let’s move on Ms. Cooper. With limited budgets because of the recession, let’s use the funds to go after real crime, that which injures people.

-----

A community should not support a faulted exercise of freedoms

2011-06-08T03:55:00.000-07:00

The Michigan branch of Americans for Prosperity received a lot of attention Monday by posting fake evection notices on hundreds of homes Detroit’s Delray district. The words “Eviction Notice” were in very large print on yellow sheets of paper. Americans for Prosperity are against the State of Michigan building a second bridge across the Detroit River. The fake notices claimed that their homes would be taken to make way for the new bridge. This was their attempt to get the attention of the residents in the Delray district.

Businessman Manuel (Matty) Moroun is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He is strongly opposed to the state building a new bridge. It would obviously draw traffic and business away from the Ambassador Bridge, where Moroun makes money by charging a toll to use the bridge. He has been running television ads making some very outrageous claims about the cost of the new bridge to the taxpayers of Michigan.

Americans for Prosperity, reported to be a conservative group, is based in Washington, D.C. with offices in many states around the country. The group that peppered Delray with the eviction notices is Michigan based. Scott Hagerstrom is the official spokesperson for the Michigan group. He said that he could not say if Moroun’s company, Detroit International Bridge Company, supported the action. The company did issue a statement that said they didn’t support the tactics of Americans for Prosperity.

Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of the freedom of speech and it should not be allowed. Buried deep in the story is an issue that needs to be explored to understand why it should not have been allowed. Hagerstrom said that the membership of Americans for Prosperity is secrete. Even though they are involved in the political process, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in error that membership in such organizations can remain hidden.

A representative democracy doesn’t work that way. That isn’t the way it worked over 200 years ago when we separated from England with the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock did not believe that. A wealthy shipping businessman, he could have had much to lose if the events of the day went wrong. It is clear that every British authority of the time knew who he was because of his business and wealth. But, there in the middle of the document is his signature. Many others also signed the document such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman. They wanted their names displayed on this document to show support for the movement at the time.

A country, a community, cannot be based on hidden agendas and secrete societies. It must be based on open government. If someone, anyone, takes a political stand on the issues they need to come forward to announce their views and sign their name. That provides everyone else with the opportunity to make informed judgments about the issues and the arguments for and against.

To Moroun’s credit, he is staking a sizable portion of his wealth by working against the building of the second bridge, not unlike John Hancock. While his assessments of the issue are suspect, at least he has signed his name to issue. Knowing who he is and what is at stake for him, his family and the Detroit International Bridge Company, we can make a better decision to either support or not support his position.

Every freedom comes with a responsibility. In this case, the concept of freedom of speech would have supported the fake eviction notices circulated by Americans for Prosperity. But, with that freedom comes a release of the supporters of the organization. Since the membership remains hidden, Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of freedom. They were wrong in circulating the fake notices.

-----

It is obvious Representative Anthony Weiner needs to leave

2011-06-07T03:33:00.000-07:00

Representative Anthony Weiner says he will not resign his house seat in New York.

Last night on national television Representative Weiner admitted that he twitted questionable pictures of himself. This after he said that he didn’t, or couldn’t be sure it was pictures of himself and said his Twitter account had been hacked. Weiner also did not do the one thing that most everyone in the world would do if it happen to them, call the authorities. Instead, he lawyered up, giving the very obvious impression that something was up.

Now, he says he won’t resign? If is almost a waste of the electrons on this blog to ask the question. Is there anyone out there that doesn’t believe he should?

The most basic of trusts, in our personal lives and public lives, is that we need to believe what someone is saying. The fall out in our personal lives can be a marriage that fails and the breaking of other personal relationships. But, in the public sphere, it could be the breakdown of a community and the mistrust of government. Our culture already has trouble believing what politicians say, something like this, where the politician lied and now won’t resign, makes it even worse.

Now is the time for the community to react. This is when the community should be calling on Weiner to leave, petition drives to recall him should be presented and law suits should be filed. While the House itself can take action, it is the citizens of the community that should be working the hardest.

Individuals and communities must be the first to take responsibility. As a way to insure that the right thing happens in situations like this, higher actions can and should be taken at the state and national level. Those actions are necessary to make sure that the entire system at the community level is not corrupt. But, the responsibility to make sure that a community’s representative is honest starts with the community.

Representative Anthony Weiner needs to resign. If he doesn’t, the citizens of the community need to mobilize to remove him.

-----

We must build

2011-06-02T03:50:00.000-07:00

The election cycle is coming around again. Next year, a presidential election will be held in November and the candidates are already lining up. They all have a lot to say about the role of government in our community. Unless we understand what we expect out of ourselves and our community, we will not be able to judge the candidates and their positions.

The Responsible Community has been exploring the four pillars of any successful community. They are to protect, educate, innovate and build. Over the last three blogs we examined protect, educate and innovate.

Successful communities build. They build cars, consumer products, houses, schools and many other things. The creation of capital, the skills developed and the income generated by building things has a long term positive effect on any community.

Capital to make the investment to build can come from all over the world. Once the money has been invested, is more than likely to stay.

The skills to plan, build a factory and then to ultimately make the product have beneficial effects on the citizens of a community. These skills are a community resource in themselves. They will attract more investment interested in utilizing the skills necessary to build more.

Additionally, products made in a community are usually sent all over the country if not the world. This increases the amount of income well beyond what the community could create on its own. These jobs also demand much higher wages than are generated in the service sector.

Successful communities build things. A community should do everything it can to develop its manufacturing center.

-----

Innovation is the key to rising above

2011-05-31T03:38:00.001-07:00

The election cycle is generating a lot of talk about the role of government. Some tell us that it should stay out of our lives and others are asking for help from Washington. But, if we don’t collectively come to terms with what our expectations are from government then with each election there will be a course change that will undo some of the good from before the last election.

In a series that is examining the goals of a successful community, the blog has outlined four concepts that can be found in any successful community. They are protect, educate, innovate and build. Protect and educate have been discussed in previous blog posts. Today we will examine the importance of innovation.

Sometimes while doing research for this blog, a change in the understanding of the topic can come about. This is one of those times. Innovation is not just an invention though many think of it that way. An invention is the manifestation of an idea. Innovation is a change in the way we think about things and the way they get done. At its root, the goal of innovation is to improve, to renew and make better. It adds value to products, services or systems.

Innovation is developing solutions to problems that haven’t been thought of before. Too often, communities look at problems and bring out the very same solution that has been tried many times before. If as a community, we are to succeed, we must attempt to solve persistent problems with new ideas. That means that even if the current solution is working then we need to make sure that a new approach won’t work better.

Innovation means developing new systems for government. Many systems that are currently being used don’t achieve the policy goals established. To continue without challenging the results is foolish. Keep in mind, just because the system developed to solve the problem hasn’t achieved its goal doesn’t mean we should abandon any attempt to solve the problem. We just need to find the right solution.

Our evolution as a species was based not on following our DNA programming, but by allowing our imagination to see beyond the problems to the solutions. By just following the DNA solutions that was programmed into us, we would still be on the ground competing with every other life form. But, because we were able to think creatively, we were able to rise above and build a world to our needs.

Innovation was a key to that.

-----

Education is more than just teaching the acadmics

2011-05-25T06:10:00.000-07:00

More people are jumping into the Presidential race in the United States. They all have their positions and say only they have the answers to the ills of the country, assuming of course, there are ills. The role of government in solving these ills will be debated, in some cases with great passion. How will we be able to make any judgment about what government can and should do if we don’t first think about what we expect from our community and its leaders.

In the first post of this series, a broad outline of the what a community should do to be successful was presented. In that post, the pillars of a success community were listed as protection, education, innovation and building. The last post explored the need for a community to provide protection from threats outside the country and from those that live in our community.

Education is the second pillar of a successful community. If the community can’t perpetuate itself, all will be lost. But, education involves more than just teaching the young about the academics, which certainly needs to be done. The community must also teach the next generation about how a good government should work and contrast and compare that to the one we currently live under.

Learning the basics is essential, but so is moving on to higher education levels. Without engineers, scientists, doctors and the many other professions that demand a longer education cycle, we will not be able to sustain our way of life or keep in front of the innovation curve that successful communities achieve.

We also need to have open and honest inquiry about how well government and the community operate. Without educating ourselves on the performance of the varies functions we expect from our community, we may never know if they are operating in the best interest of all.

Finally, as innovation happens, without re-investment in the education cycle for workers pass the traditional school age years, many will be left behind and present a drag on the community’s success. In today’s world, more so than any other time in human history, innovation takes over within just a few years. Technologies are developed, mass marketed and come to the end of their product cycle within a generation. The people that were needed to develop and build these technologies may need to change their skill set a couple times over a single life time. Without the opportunity to retrain and find other work, they will prevent a community from achieving full employment.

Education is more than “reading, writing and arithmetic”. It is also teaching about our way of life. It is also about researching our successes and failures so that this new knowledge can be applied to innovation.

And that is the subject of the next post.

-----

A common defense is the first purpose of government

2011-05-24T03:57:00.000-07:00

As the election cycle approaches, those that are running for office including the presidential suite, will be telling us all the things government should or shouldn’t be doing. If we don’t layout a frame work of the purpose of government in advance, we could be pulled in many directions. We will also shift our own positions a dozen times as we hear good words from each of the candidates at all levels.

In the last post we outlined four primary pillars. They are protecting, educating, innovating and building. Clearly, the first, protecting, was the first reason individuals decided to create a community. Living together in an agricultural setting made individuals and families venerable to outside raiders. If everyone in the community came to the defense of any individual, the outside attacks were less likely.

Life in a community has evolved since that time and the definition of a common defense has expanded. Now there is still the risk of outside invaders. A strong military is needed to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. Not only from other countries with their military but also from their business practices, non military invaders, migration and diaspora.

But threats to the individual and the community come from three other areas. First, there is the criminal threat. This threat comes in big and small packages. It, of course, comes with the common criminal that local law enforcement can tamp down, but also from large organized criminal operations. This needs a national law enforcement agency that can move around the country where ever the threat exists.

Second, there is the threat that develops when there is a lack of standards in business, medical, construction and other industries. By establishing and maintaining common practices and standards, those that are honest can depend on them and those are not can be stopped.

Finally, the last is our own civil rights. This not only includes the encroachment of government on the individual’s liberties, but also those that would like to marginalize individuals that don’t fit a very narrow mainstream definition of behavior. It is just as important to enforce laws that prevent criminal activity as it is to prevent marginalizing individuals whose behavior may not be common, but their actions do not cause any injury or loss to any other individual.

As you can see, defense comes in many forms and at many levels. The ability of a community to defend individuals from many threats is the first priority of government. By creating an environment that allows individuals to freely live their own lives is the healthiest environment for the other three pillars.

More to follow on education, innovation and building.

-----

Protect, educate, innovate and build

2011-05-10T03:11:00.000-07:00

Let’s back up the bus for a moment. Forget what the left or the right tells you about any issue the community faces and the purpose of government. While most politicians are good people, they do have their own agenda. They will attempt to move things in their own direction. Politicians are elected because in a free society like our own, we want them to just take care of things for us. Because of that, public opinion is swayed more by what the politicians say about the issues than what the facts are about an issue.

The time spend examining how problems should be solved will be a good exercise. The United States has a Presidential election cycle that is developing. (Are you ready?) All those that will be running for office will give you their advice on how to run the country. Unless we have set up our own standards, it will be impossible to examine each of the candidates and their proposals.

Most of the time, we can address on the problems a community faces. What is more difficult is finding agreement on how the problems are to be solved. It is believed that the left tells us that they should be solved by the community’s government. At the same time, critics of the right believe that the same problem should be solved by the individual. (Although, I am using a modern and popular definition of left and right in this case. The real definition of the two have nothing to do with government or individuals solving problems.) The practical answer to solutions is a balance between the two.

The individual can achieve great things for herself and her family. By working hard and making good decisions she is likely to succeed. But, she has little control over people outside of her sphere of influence.

A historical view of community makes it clear that the advancement of the human condition have come not just from the individual making good decisions independent of everyone around them. But, by working together in a community setting. Without community, the individual spends most of her time protecting her world. This provides little time for educating, innovating and building.

So what is the role of the individual and community in success?

The simple answer is to work together on four general issues. They are, protecting, educating, innovating and building. First, collectively, we can all protect each other better than we can individually. Second, we need to educate our children not only about the arts and sciences but also about our way of life and how to protect it. Next, is to innovate. With the freedom that a common defense provides and the knowledge that education provides we can develop improvements and advances in our environment. Finally, once we have developed the innovations we can then build them.

Everything we do as individuals and collectively as a community needs to be focused on the four pillars of any successful society; Protect, Educate, Innovate and Build. When one of them erodes, they all will begin to be washed away.

To follow, more on each pillar.

-----

You don't have to be a birther to believe in presenting proof

2011-04-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

Let’s hope that Obama’s release of the “long version” of his actual birth certificate puts an end to the drama about Obama’s right to hold the office of President.

The Responsible Community never thought for a moment that Obama wasn’t a naturally born citizen. The campaign released documents that supported it. But more than that, someone in the adversarial environment that is part of politics in this country would have found evidence that he wasn’t if it existed. The Republican Governor of Hawaii would have been a national hero in many people’s minds if he would have presented the evidence. But, he didn’t. The financial resources of many individuals, including the Koch brothers, would have purchased such evidence at almost any cost if there was any. But, there wasn’t. Fox News, the most powerful conservative media outlet in the country would have secured a strong position in the market if they could have found any. But, they didn’t.

So, now, let’s move on to the heart of the issue.

Any candidate that is running for the office of the President of the United States should have to deliver proof that he is legally able to hold the office. After all, the Constitution does clearly state that he should be a naturally born citizen of the country. It is not out of the realm of the Congress’ roll to require that candidates present the necessary documents. But, anyone that is running for any office in the United States should also have to prove their eligibility.

You don’t have to be a “birther” to believe that one should have to prove their eligibility to hold office. Let’s make it across the board and be done with the issue.

-----

Don't exclude a voice

2011-04-26T03:56:00.000-07:00

It is a curious thing when one side or the other say that they are adamantly opposed to something, then turn around and use the issue to support their action. It doesn’t matter if it is the left, the right or what seems to be the lonesome middle, everyone does it.

In the book, “The Nine”, Jeffery Toobin documents such an incident. The book is about one of the longest reins of a single group of Supreme Court Justices in history. It covers the years from the late 70’s to the 90’s. On July 1, 1991, George H. W. Bush announces from the summer White House in Kennebunkport, Maine that he is nominating Clearance Thomas to the Supreme Court. Thomas is to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to set on the court. Yet, in the announcement, Bush claims that the fact that Thomas, “is a black and a minority has nothing to do with this” nomination.

Many years later the country would debate if nominees had enough experience as a judge, it any at all, to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, Thomas had served as a judge for only a year. Again, many justice nominations later, the country would debate that if it was important for nominees to have experience as an appeals judge. Again, Thomas never served on any appeals court nor argued a single case in front of an appeals court. The country would debate the value of a justice that has not been published – as in writing a book, an article or a legal brief of any magnitude. Yet, Thomas did none of those things and was nominated for the court.

It also caused a bit of trouble in another way that made many Republicans uncomfortable at the time, and may still. Thomas and other stalwart members of the Grand Old Party didn’t believe in preferential treatment because of race. Yet, this nominee and soon to become justice, was selected for nomination because of the color of his skin.

The truth is, in politics we make these same choices every day. If the intention is to exclude a race because the group is unqualified in its entirety, then it is an act of evil. It is a decision that has no basis in fact nor has any virtue at all.

But, if someone was selected, in part, as a sincere attempt to broaden the voices of opinion then it is a sound and valuable process. Regardless if we want to admit it, all races bring a different perspective to any opinion. The various lives that all Americans live may lead us to a common opinion. But, the many paths that were followed may provide a road map for the great diversity of individuals. To not consider the background and the race of an individual given the same ideologies is to deny the wisdom that comes from this American Experience.

Politics and the resulting community that comes from it is not an exact science. It is not like math that always gives the same result for the same variants. Community is a social science. Most of the time we are not making black and white decisions. (Perhaps a curious choice of words given the discussion.) Community deals in shades of grey. A discipline more akin to soft logic then the cold realities of 2 plus 2 equals four.

While there are absolutes that are common to all, communities survive because we consider all of the voices, not because we deny any one of the voices.

-----

Home prices are at their lowest in years, so are property taxes

2011-03-30T03:17:00.000-07:00

Home prices in Michigan are the lowest they have been since 1994. Local property taxes that are collected based on the value of the property are, of course, at their lowest in many years. The rise and now the fall of property taxes have placed many local budgets in a crisis. That is why there should be no property taxes based on the value of the structure for individuals or for businesses.

As an example, in Wisconsin, they are running into trouble on the taxes placed on property based on the value. In 2008, a Wisconsin state law allowed local communities to place a limit on the type of challenges that individuals and businesses can make on their property taxes. Local communities were allowed to limit the challenges to the local Board of Review only. But, a large rental property owner sued to have a court review its assessment. The state’s supreme court recently rightfully ruled that individuals and businesses have a right to challenge the tax assessment beyond the local board of review, in support of due process. This means that communities in Wisconsin and around the country are going to have difficulty preparing budgets because there will be challenges to the revenue stream.

Property taxes are one of the most arbitrary taxes we pay. The amount of the tax is based solely on what a local Board of Review thinks the property is worth. The value of any property can’t truly be determined unless it is sold or is used to generate income. But even after a sale, the value of the property may change dramatically from year to year based on issues that are market driven and out of the control of the property holder.

Additionally, those that pay the highest property taxes; homes with high value, homes that have been improved or property that generates income; are those that help the community maintain the overall property values of the community the most. To tax them more, based on arbitrary values, is counter productive.

Communities need stable revenue sources to provided needed services. Even the most minimum of services, like police and fire, will have a consistent cost from year to year, rising with inflation and other factors. Over the last few decades, property values have increased enough to provide communities with a growing revenue source that kept ahead of inflation. But in the past couple of years, that has all changed. Property values are now falling, forcing down the amount of tax revenue received.

Local communities need to base the taxes collected for local services based on another idea. The way to approach this might be on “unit” collection. All property would be valued not on market value, but on size and type of property. All vacant property would have one tax based on the size of the property. Residential housing would have another value based on the size of the lot and the square footage of the structure. The larger the structure, the more tax. Commercial, retail and industrial would have the same concept perhaps just different numbers and taxes.

Details do need to be worked out. But, a stable revenue source for communities would mean that services won’t be cut just because revenues are down. Property owners in a community would also know from year to year what their obligation will be. If the value of their property rises, they will not suffer because of it. Finally, an improvement in the individual housing or business unit property wouldn’t mean that there will be an increase in taxes.

-----

An arguement for small communities

2011-03-24T09:29:00.000-07:00

People have, as it is said, voted with their feet when they left the City of Detroit for other places. The other places are both to the northern suburbs and other states.

Yesterday, the United States Census data was released for the City of Detroit and surrounding areas. It shows that the population for the city is as low as it was a hundred years ago, down to just over 714,000. The counties of Macomb and Oakland showed small increases. The increases were not enough to keep the state of Michigan from losing population also. It was the only state that lost in the last ten years.

Dave Bing, the mayor of Detroit, has said that he will fight the numbers. He claims that the city was under counted by about 40,000 people. If the mayor can raise the count to over 750,000 it will enable the city to keep more state and federal dollars rolling in than at the lower number. But, none of the reasons he provided for the under count sounded very positive. The truth is, your honor, Detroit is suffering just like the rest of the region.

Detroit and most of the surrounding cities like much of Michigan will have to make do with less. Less people, less tax dollars and less sales for the businesses that employ the residents. With a lower population, revenue sharing from the state and federal government will not be as great. Yes, most revenue is shared on a population basis so there will be a cut. But, less people will also mean less representation in both the state and federal governments. States that have more representation will now demand a bigger share of the dollars.

But, there is something else going on that most don’t know about. It is the Headlee Amendment. With property values falling like they have because of foreclosures and people leaving the state (creating less demand) taxes generated from the property are also falling. Cities are having to work with budgets that are far less than they were just a few years ago. Services are being cut, personnel are being laid off and the security of communities is being affected. Many people are assuming that when property values start to grow again, so will tax revenues. But, the Headlee Amendment only allows a small increase in property tax revenues each year. Local governments now need to examine every means possible to make up for the loss of revenue over the long haul. They could ask for a Headlee override, but that is not likely in the short run.

Another way is begin consolidating services with other communities or create regional consortiums to provide base services. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in his government restructuring drive, is planning on asking the legislator to reduce revenue sharing to communities that don’t consolidate services with other communities.

Tight knit, well run communities may not want to consolidate with neighboring communities. The communities that they may need to consider consolidating services with may not be very well run. They also may have other problems like high unemployment or crime that wouldn’t make it a good fit.

But, let’s move back to the opening of this post. Detroit is losing population because people don’t like the way the city is run, they can’t make a good enough living, because crime is bad, or, for a long list of other reasons. If a community creates a large, intertwined system of services with other communities, people will not be able to just move across the street to avoid the problems in one community. They will have to either stay put and suffer or move much farther away, like out of state. Neither would benefit the local communities or the state.

With few exceptions, many small players is always better than a few large players. This is true in business and government. In business, many small players means no one business can dominate the market, if one fails there are plenty more and competition is much greater. Government works the same way. If people live in a region with many small communities, if one community turns bad, they can leave and go to another. But, if there is a large, regional consortium that is managing the entire region, there is nowhere to go except far away.

If the latest Census has taught us anything it is that people will vote with their feet. If we move to consolidating many of the small communities that we have now, we run the risk of people leaving the state.

Let’s not go there so people will stay here.

-----

Where is the outrage over Sharia Law?

2011-03-23T03:26:00.000-07:00

Where is the outrage against this blood payment?

The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.

Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.

The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.

So where is the outrage?

Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.

The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.

It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.

Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.

Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?

-----

Comments on events around the community

2011-03-19T06:49:00.000-07:00

Comments from around the community:

From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.

“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”

Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.

Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.

Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?

From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.

Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.

But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.

From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.

Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.

From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.

During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."

"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.

[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."

O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.

Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.

-----

American Exceptionalism

2011-03-18T03:29:00.000-07:00

Clearly one of the most troubling issues during the Bush administration were the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. Then, Senator Obama, while campaigning to replace Bush in the oval office, promised that he would close the prison one year from the time he took office. He signed an executive order to just that two days after he took office.

It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.

Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.

Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.

What is so troubling about this?

The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?

The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.

Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.

But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.

Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.

-----

Don't punishing school districts for good budget practices

2011-03-10T04:09:00.000-08:00

Save money and spend wisely, but not too wisely.

What?

That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.

School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.

State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.

Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.

Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.

When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.

-----

We must be certain about convictions

2011-03-08T03:33:00.000-08:00

A community can’t know with any certainty that they have the right answer if it doesn’t allow challenges to decisions it makes.

The United States Supreme court has opened the door to allow some forced DNA testing of evidence in Skinner v Switzer out of Texas. This is a very complex case that involves a lot of legal issues. With that in mind, only a brief explanation will be offered here. (For more on this issue, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/ )

In 1993, Hank Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and two sons. He claims he was asleep on a coach in an alcohol and cocaine induced haze when the killings took place. At the trial, the result of DNA testing on some of the evidence at the crime scene was presented, but not all the evidence was tested. Mr. Skinner’s attorney, concerned that the results from testing all of the evidence would prove to be injurious to his client’s defense, decline to request all the evidence be tested. After his conviction Mr. Skinner requested that the remaining testing be done. The district attorney refused on the grounds that it is merely a post conviction time and resource waster.

Of course, Mr. Skinner sued.

Then, in 2001 Texas passed a law that allowed post conviction testing of DNA. But, prosecutors and the lower courts all decided against Skinner. All deciding that it was pointless since no other evidence conclusively proved that Skinner did not commit the crime.

The Supreme Court decided that in very limited cases, courts must grant a post conviction request to be sure that state law allowed him due process. But, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized in strong terms that this was a very narrow ruling. Only in very particular circumstances could someone sue in the way Skinner did.

So many convicted prisoners claim their innocence that the joke is that the prisons are full of innocent people. This may be just more of the same. In our court system, with all the Constitutional protections, it is difficult to believe that there is a lot of error. Death Penalty Paper, a pro-death penalty web site, reports that 69 innocent death row convictions have been over turned since 1973. Based just on that number, it seems that the proverbial “99.9%” of all convictions have not been overturned and presumed rightfully convicted.

But, this case is more about two other issues than the innocence of Skinner. The first issue is our advancement in science. As science advances, more certainty about evidence can be presented in the courts. As more post conviction challenges are made based on the advancement of science, a responsible community can’t deny a person’s rights based solely on the fact that he was already convicted. Within narrow guidelines, as the recently Supreme Court ruling said, a state can’t deny someone’s basic due process.

The bigger issue here is certainty. The United States has built a criminal justice system that we can have confidence in, not that it is without errors. The way those errors can be reduced and abuse can be prevented is to allow challenges to the system to be given due process. When advances are made in science, there is no reason that a responsible community shouldn’t allow them to be applied to post conviction cases within reason.

-----

Only United States Laws

2011-03-04T03:23:00.000-08:00

Only United States laws that are enacted by legally elected representatives of the people of the country should be followed by all branches of government. No religious, ethnic, cultural or social laws should be enforced. Additionally, all laws that are enacted should also pass the constitutional test to ensure that it is not violating individual rights that are granted explicitly and implicitly by the Constitution.

There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.

Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.

The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.

What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.

Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.

A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.

-----

Members of Westboro Baptist can continue to demonstate

2011-03-03T03:24:00.000-08:00

“The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment,” said Margie Phelps, the lawyer defending the minister of the Westboro Church. Members of the church routinely demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who have died in in the service. In a 8 to 1 margin, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church’s right to continue those demonstrations.

In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.

The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.”

Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."

No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.

As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.

Personal responsiblity in the news this week

2011-03-01T03:50:00.000-08:00

Personal responsibility is making head line news this week. Two of the best examples – or worse, depending on your point of view – are Bernie Madoff and Charlie Sheen.

Let’s start with Madoff. Most of us know that he took billions of dollars from the rich and poor to run his own ponzi scheme. Banks, the government, security firms and other organizations that were suppose to catch this type of criminal activity missed it for many years. The organizations missed it because Madoff was making money for everyone and nobody wanted to risk that changing.

In an interview with Madoff that has received a lot of air play recently, we never hear him say he accepts full responsibility for his actions without conditions. He may say he did the things he is accused of, but says he is a good man. Madoff says that the many people that gave him money enabled made him. Or, that it was just a mistake that he could not get out of. The bottom line is, he is a crook and is right where he belongs, in prison. Those that looked the other way all this time should be there with him.

In another high profile interview, Charlie Sheen never takes full responsibility for any of his actions. He is in his mid forties and has the behavior of an unrestraint teen. Beside his abuse of alcohol and drugs, he has abused his wives, children and friends. (I am using a loose definition for abuse that includes mistreatment and not just physical abuse.) If it wasn’t for his money that enables him to continue his lifestyle, he would be a bum on the street if not in jail. Right now, CBS has cancelled the rest of the season of the show he headlined in, “Two and a Half Men.” The other stars in the show most likely are financially okay. But consider the others that work for the show that are just regular people. They are now out of a job because Charlie is a drunk.

Charlie has a high profile interview being shown on many media outlets. Again, like Madoff and many other people like the two of them, Charlie never takes full responsibility without any conditions. He says that he is a misunderstood person. That people need to see things from his point of view to understand his behavior. But the irony is that his self centered ego doesn’t allow him to see things the responsible way, that he is hurting other people.

In a community, let’s set about being responsible. The two of them certainly are wrong, we can all agree to that. But the reason Madoff did so well is because everyone around him didn’t do the responsible thing of asking questions. The most basic being, how is it you are doing so well when everyone else is not? As for Charlie, the show, “Two and a Half Men” is one of the most watched shows on television. With so many people tuning in each week to see Charlie act out his real life, all of us have enabled him to continue abusing the people around him. Stop watching the show and CBS will replace it with something else.

A responsible community can set a goal of a safe environment. But, unless people accept responsibility for their actions; not only after, but before; the community will never be able to fully achieve that goal.

-----

Separation of powers

2011-02-28T03:31:00.000-08:00

Why is it that we have three branches of government?

In the Constitution, the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government were created. Very wisely, each was created with autonomy that prevented each of the branches from interfering with the other. The legislative branch received the power to make the laws. The executive branch received the power to enforce the laws. In the end, the judicial branch was given the power to decide if a law was violated and what the punishment should be.

The Defense of Marriage act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September of 1996. It was passed by both the House and the Senate with wide margins. It states, in simple terms, that no state is required to except the marriage license of two people of the same sex solely based on that union being excepted in another state. It also states that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

A federal court in July 2010 declared that the portion of the law that states a marriage is only between one man and one woman unconstitutional. The federal government challenged that ruling in October 2010. But recently, United States Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew the challenge at President Obama’s request.

The ruling by the federal court doesn’t invalidate the law. That would take a ruling by the Supreme Court. And, the executive branch has not withdrawn completely from the case. This allows the challenge to continue and the House of Representatives can join the fight by ordering the judiciary committee to defend the act if it wishes.

The issue about the morality of same sex marriages aside, the National Organization for Marriage and other conservative groups are challenging President Obama’s authority to withdraw the challenge of the federal court ruling. They say, it is his responsibility to defend the laws of the country. But, the constitution allows the President to be silent on the issue because of the separation of powers. But, those same conservative groups, as far as the research on the issue revealed, have not leveled the same criticism at the House of Representatives who didn’t join the challenge in the first place. The House, because of the separation of powers, can also opt out of the fight, even though they were party to the original act.

The Constitutional issue is clear here. The separation of powers concept doesn’t compelled the executive branch to enforce a law it if feels it is not within its priorities. If the House challenges the court ruling of the law and wins, it can then challenge the President’s priorities and the go back to the courts again.

-----

Oil is our heroin

2011-02-24T04:04:00.000-08:00

It is interesting that the Tea Party can get so upset about the new Health Care law and how it abuses the citizens of this country, yet ignore the most obvious signs in other countries that they are abusing their own citizens.

The Tea Party, for the most, grew out of the anger from the Health Care legislation. There were, of course, many other reasons that the Angry Crowd finally organized to try and “take back” America. (As if someone had actually “taken it” in the first place.) We all remember the angry faces at the health care town meetings around the country claiming that the legislation was taking away our freedoms. There are also a big reason the conservatives won many seats in congress in the last election.

Part of the mantra the party use was to cut taxes, thereby, cutting the size of government. The size of the America government, or so they say, had grown to the point that it threaten our civil liberties. By cutting the flow of cash, governments would have to make deep and dramatic cuts, reduce the bureaucracy and let the people take more control over their lives.

But, the moment we apply that philosophy to another issue, the same people that want to cut the flow of cash to their own government, will not take the necessary steps to stop the flow of cash to many other truly illegal governments around the world.

What is the other issue? Oil. It is the heroin of our culture. We don’t care what the pusher man does as long as the oil continues to flow across the ocean to keep our way of life going. It is believed that only oil can fuel our way of life and to lose it would cripple us in such a way that our economy would collapse around us like castles of sand on a beach.

But, the reason there is such unrest in the parts of the world right now is because we have supported governments that really do oppress their citizens. The only reason we do this is because they have oil that we want or because they support us in making sure the oil keeps flowing.

This blog is not about economics and only occasionally has anything been written about it. This particular post is not about the economics of oil directly. This post is about oppressing people indirectly and not taking any responsibility to stop it.

Some say that we should leave it to the market to guide our actions. But markets aren’t always correct. If it were, the cost of oil would be higher than it is now because it would somehow include the cost of oppression, the oppression that the countries that supply our oil visits on their citizens. All those countries that supply oil to the world such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other theocracies and outright totalitarian regimes would not be able to sell their oil on the market if it included the cost in human suffering because it would be so much higher. Countries that supply oil that are legitimate governments would be able to sell their oil much cheaper.

But that isn’t to say that we should ignore markets all together. We can use them in a responsible way that helps us realize the true cost of a product, in this case, oil. By raising the cost of oil artificially in a steady, regulated way, the market would know that in a year or two what the cost of oil would be. So would the average person in the community. The economy could plan ahead instead of blindly watching the cost of oil on a daily basis and making decision that are short term.

We should tax oil and perhaps other energy supplies in a modest, but growing amount each year, if not monthly. The increase in cost would push the market in the direction that we need it to go, to other sources. The additional revenue would help pay for the deficit.

With less oil being purchased, especially from countries that suppress their population, there would not be the funds to maintain oppressive governments that now exist.

We would also not be surprised one morning to wake up to the news that more and more countries that supply our heroin is now in turbulence.

-----

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?

2011-02-21T05:34:00.000-08:00

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.

GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:

“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.”

According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.

The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.

The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?

If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.

Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.

-----

Let's not make it legal to kill abortion providers

2011-02-16T03:40:00.000-08:00

So, you tell me what this means, especially the lines that are in bold…

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

The lines that are in bold are the proposed changes to South Dakota’s law on justifiable homicide. State representative Phil Jensen is the author of the bill. Anyone reading the current law with the proposed changes can clearly interpret the meaning, that someone could kill an abortion doctor and claim that it was justifiable homicide.

In Rep. Jensen’s defense, he claims that he is merely attempting to bring consistency to current law. That, “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.”

Well, it can be seen that he pretends to be correct in his statement about the proposed changes. But, in my reading of the changes it has everything to do with abortion.

Abortion is the most divisive issue in America today. It is legal in this country as Rep. Jensen points out. Those that want to keep if that way are not willing to compromise. Those that oppose abortion find it difficult to slide in the direction of making some abortions legal. Their wish is to stamp it out completely.

So, those that mean well for their point of view, make end runs. Attempts are made to control abortion, to slow it down. Policy and laws are created that laden the activity with bureaucracy that will at the very least limit those that seek an abortion. But, responsible communities must be very careful about the unforeseen consequences of any law. In the beginning, a law may have the best intensions. Bu, as the law works its way into everyday life, a downside often presents itself.

To focus on the conservatives in this issue, the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was envisioned as a way to break up organized crime. It made it illegal to create an organization that manages illegal activity. Great, it worked on getting many people involved in organized crime off the streets. The surprise came when anti-abortion organizations began feeling the sting of RICO charges for their illegal activities (although in some cases minor, like protests that trespassed on private property or more concerning activity like releasing names of abortion providers).

No matter what Rep. Jensen says about the changes he is proposing, just like the authors of the RICO act, it will have a downside. To provide anyone a defense (or for that matter, a crazed zealot reading between the lines) for killing a doctor or any other person working in a medical setting that provides abortions is not the right direction.

All of us should work at limiting the amount of abortions, such as preventing pregnancies. But, let’s make sure our best intentions don’t create more problems.

-----

No rights to marry for prisoners

2011-02-14T03:53:00.000-08:00

Would you marry a man or woman that is in prison for second degree murder and a weapons charge?

Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.

A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.

Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.

So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.

On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.

Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.

-----

Keep school activities equal

2011-02-10T03:46:00.000-08:00

Little Jane should have the same opportunities as little Johnny, well, unless of course it interferers with the good ol’ boy sports programs.

If you listen to the good ol’ boys of sports, you would think that football is on the way out of high school sports. The panic is nationwide. The warnings come from none other than The College Sports Council, a organization created to support college sports.

A months ago, the National Women’s Law Center asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights investigate 12 school districts nationwide that they suggest are violating Title IX. It is a portion of the former Education Amendments of 1972, now called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author. It states in more precise legal language that no person should be denied equal opportunity in education on the basis of their gender.

The Pacific Legal Foundation recently filed a counter suit asking that the department of education not only reject the request to investigate the 12 school districts but suggested that the act doesn’t apply to K-12 education. Pacific Legal Foundation’s staff lawyer, Joshua Thompson, says that there is nothing in the act or in this regulation that applies to high school sports.

None of the school districts in question are in Michigan. But, every school district in the state will be watching the events. The outcome of the fight will effect districts by either loosening the regulations or by making them stronger.

Since 1972 every challenge of this act has been rejected. Every presidential administration, Republican and Democratic, have supported the Title IX and its regulation of high school sports. That includes the Reagan administration that was the inspiration for the founding of the lead challenger in this latest barrage, The Pacific Legal Foundation.

Whatever the legal outcome of this fight and those that may follow, a responsible community should not support any policy that discriminates by gender. Within that policy, it would not be expected that if a school district determines that there isn’t enough participation in a sport to field a team, then let it go. But, if there is, it should be treated as fairly as any other sport.

The National Women’s Law Center is right to asked the United States education department’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the school districts. The calls of foul by the Pacific Legal Foundation is off base.

The National Women’s Law Center, in their own words, champion laws and policies that work for women and families.

Pacific Legal Foundation is an organization, in their own words, that is rescuing liberty from coast to coast.

-----

Courts must rule from the Constitution and not religion

2011-02-05T06:06:00.000-08:00

What many of us mean when we say freedom of religion is really freedom of our religion at the exclusion of others.

An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.

Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.

The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.

This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.

It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.

-----

Right idea, wrong target

2011-02-02T02:00:00.000-08:00

The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem.

Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.

Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.

If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.

Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.

-----

Governor Synder, please consider this

2011-01-31T03:35:00.000-08:00

Arizona and Missouri have a good idea, but it only goes half way. Michigan would be smart to do the same thing only complete the job.

Since November of 2009 Arizona has required that welfare recipients not use drugs. If they do, they will lose their benefits. The state uses a survey of the applicants, as well as police and court records, to determine if someone should be tested. Since the start, only 16 have been identified. Eventually, one of the 16 was tested for drug use and denied benefits.

Missouri would like to do the same thing and legislation to allow it to do so was passed last week.

Michigan should go even farther. The Arizona and Missouri laws, for the most part, use “surveys” to determine if someone may be using drugs while accepting benefits. Michigan should make it mandatory as part of the application process and do random checks during the remaining time they are accepting benefits. The random tests should be at a scale that everyone will be checked at least once a month.

If someone is found to be using any illegal drugs, not only should they stop receiving benefits but they should then be ordered to attend a drug rehab program.

A community needs to take responsibility for those that may be unemployed for an extended period of time. But that doesn’t mean that the recipient should not take responsibility also. As in a post on this blog, Require a return on investment from unemployment, this should be a part of the overall requirements that both helps people become self sufficient and asks for a return from the benefits they are receiving.

Government Synder, please consider what they are doing in Arizona and Missouri.

-----

Short subjects

2011-01-29T02:00:00.000-08:00

• Frivolous lawsuits?

Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.

Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?

• Parents need to protect their children

It is important to stop the abusers. It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.

A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.

If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.

• Keep the news flowing

Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.

• Drunk driving in Tennessee

It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?

In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.

• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.

Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.

-----

Detroit City water board representation

2011-01-27T03:41:00.000-08:00

“No taxation without representation,” is a phrase that came out of the American Revolution.

When the government charges for something, either direct taxes on property or income or a fee for usage, it is a tax. By making that payment, representation should also be provided.

The Detroit water system provides the water that all of us in our homes. They charge a fee for that service but the residents of the suburbs do not have any direct oversight or representation on the water board of the city. That is in direct violation of the compact between a community’s government and its residents.

John McCulloch, Water Resources Commissioner for Oakland County, filed a motion in federal court asking to create a regional management board to oversee the water system. The system provides water and sewer treatment for 76 communities in the Detroit Metro area. About 3 million people use the water every day. McCulloch’s plan would allow each community to have some representation on the board. It would be able to bypass the current board, Detroit Water and Sewage Department, and the Detroit City Council. The council currently approves water rates for the system.

The water system and the suburbs have been fighting for control for over 30 years. The system, according to the Oakland Press article about the issue, is in violation of federal law. Depending on how the violations are settled, the suburbs could pay up to 60% of the cost of a fix to bring it in to compliance. This alone would be reason to have representation on the board and oversight of the expenditures.

There are those that argue that the representation on the board flows through the state. State legislation established the ability of the Detroit Water board to provide water to residents outside of the city. But that representation is indirect and convoluted.

It the federal courts don’t end this problem with a long term solution than the state needs to step in and provide legislation that does. Only by receiving proper and direct representation on the board by the residents of the communities the system serves can we achieve a long term solution that doesn’t violate the compact residents have with their community’s governments.

-----

Religious freedom is not absolute

2011-01-26T06:56:00.000-08:00

Trilochan Oberoi is a United States citizen that lives in California. He is a Sikh. He has applied for the position of a corrections officer with The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He has passed all the tests, his background check is clean and is deemed tough enough. For all reasons other than one, he should get the job. What is holding back the department from giving it to him? He won’t shave his beard.

Sikh’s in part, believe that they should look like their creator made them. If he cuts his beard (and his hair, which doesn’t appear to be an issue here) he would be violating one of the tenets of his belief. But, the department of corrections’ policy is that every man keep his face clean shaved. This allows for a gas mask to fit properly.

Oberoi is suing to have the department’s policy changed because it would be a violation of his religion to shave his beard.

We all know the quote from the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The word “Congress” in this case, via the Fourteenth Amendment, means any law making or policy setting body in the United States. The California Department of Correction and Rehilibation is a function of the state of California. It appears that “congress” in this case, the legislative branch of California, has a policy that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. End of story.

Well, not so fast.

Never did the Founding Fathers, anyone else that voted in support of the Constitution, anyone that has ruled on cases involving religion or people living in any responsible community believe that it means that the right is absolute. Public safety is the most important issue. Of course, congress should not make laws without any reason, but when the public safety is involved, all rights are subordinate.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy that men keep their beards shaved so that a gas mask can fit properly is not a violation of Oberoi’s religious freedom. The policy is there for a reason, so that men can be sent into a situation where tear gas will be used. If the commander of the guards can’t be certain about an individual’s ability to perform at the peak of performance, in this case Oberoi, he should not have the job.

The phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not just three words strung in any order. They are in order of importance. Life being the most important. If communities can’t help protect the lives of the individuals in the community, all liberties would be in jeopardy. Mandating that every corrections officer shave his beard is a way that the community can help individuals protect the lives of everyone.

-----

The citizens of Pontiac are losing control of their government

2011-01-21T06:42:00.000-08:00

The government of any community has many responsibilities. It is up to the citizens of the community, to a point, to define what they expect from their government. Pick up the trash, manager police and fire, maintain parks, keep the streets in good shape, run the local little league may be some of the things city governments manage.

All of these things must be paid for mostly by local taxes. When there isn’t enough funding the list needs to be prioritized. The item with the highest priority is the security of the community. That means that police and fire should be on the top of the list for funding. Once they are paid for, other things can be funded.

The City of Pontiac is going through some tough times right now. With the city legislative branch essentially replaced by the emergency financial manager, Michael Stampfler, the community has little or no direct voice in the management of their city. They are not able to help decide the priorities that must be set because of the falling revenues that have placed the city in a deficient. Stampfler is setting the priorities and making all the decisions. One of his tricks to force changes in the police department was to lay off 23 officers to bring the total on the road to only 51. This has placed the security of the city in a dire situation and is forcing the outsourcing of the department’s services.

The Oakland County board of commissioners was asked and has approved a proposal to replace the Pontiac police and dispatch services with the Sheriff department. There are many agreements that need to be made before the Sherriff officially takes over, but it is likely to happen.

If there is trash collection, parks that are being maintained, road improvements being made or any other nonessential services being funded by the city, they should all be curtailed or eliminated before the police and fire is outsourced. Not only is police and fire the highest priority of any community’s responsibility, it is one of the ways that a government stays in balance and in control by checking the power of the other branches of government. With Stampfler replacing the legislative branch and the police soon to be controlled by an outside authority, the community is losing nearly complete control of its government.

Successful communities are founded and maintained by having the local citizens directly in control of their government. While the city of Pontiac must find a way out of the financial difficulties it is in, it must do so by not losing control of its government.

-----

Pontiac's emergency financial manager must communicate better

2011-01-20T03:38:00.000-08:00

The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, gave his state of the state address last night in Lansing, Michigan. As was expected, he touched on most of the broad issues that are important to the citizens of the state and its economy. Snyder promised to develop a system that will more effectively communicate how effective his actions are. He calls it a “dashboard” that will be on the state’s website.

One of the topics was that of emergency financial managers. They are installed in cities that are in financial trouble and have offered no plan to solve the problem. Snyder said that he wants to overhaul that laws that govern the managers. Pontiac is one of the cities in the state that is operating with a emergency financial manager right now.

For many reasons, usually because of a combination of politics and poor management, cities can get into financial trouble and run a deficient. Some cities are able to react to the problem with a tough plan that will bring them back from the brink. Others though, because of politics, are just not able to find a compromise between competing interests that will see them through.

That was the case with Pontiac. The current city manager, Michael Stampfler, has a resume that makes him very qualified to make financial decisions that will help the city get back on the road to recovery. But, he is not a good communicator and appears to not know how to work with political organizations. Just as Snyder has announced that he will develop a dashboard for the state, Stampfler needs to develop one for Pontiac.

There is no doubt that it is perhaps the toughest job on the planet. He has to dig deep into a budget that is out of whack, deal with people that are protecting their jobs and turf, make decisions that will make everyone unhappy and cut services that citizens have come to expect. Add to all of this the fact that he a non-elected boss that is placed there by an outside authority. Not a good mix.

But, Stampfler, is not forth coming with the reasoning for his actions. It is rumored that he shuts people out of meetings, make decisions with little announcements about why and doesn’t report to the people that count the most, the citizens of the City of Pontiac. When an elected official isn’t a good communicator many people complain. But when a non-elected official isn’t a good communicator, the entire community is left outside of the process.

Open government and decision making is an important principal in a republic. People in a community can’t make effective decisions about their representatives in government if they are not communicating with them about what decisions are being made and the reasoning behind the actions. This is even more important when someone from outside the community places someone with the authority of an emergency financial manager to temporarily make all the decisions. Stampfler, and his boss Governor Snyder, must be held accountable for their actions. The only way to do this is for both to communicate better with the citizens of Pontiac.

-----

Gun rights should be the same every where

2011-01-18T03:58:00.000-08:00

In New Jersey, a man from Utah man, Greg Revell, was traveling through a New Jersey airport on his way to somewhere else. In his baggage he had an unloaded hand gun. He told the airport security where he was coming from about the weapon when he checked his bags. He was allowed to check his bags and was just changing planes in New Jersey. His connecting flight was cancelled, so he retrieved his bags and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning he arrives at the airport and does the honest thing and tells airport police about his gun. He is then arrested and spends ten days in jail.

The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.

If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.

It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.

Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.

It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.

It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.

Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.

-----

Banning speech at the funeral of the Arizona victums

2011-01-12T14:09:00.000-08:00

Tragedy visited Arizona over the weekend. A representative of congress was seriously wounded and 6 others were killed. The gunman’s motives are unclear right now and may never really be known.
The debate after all of this is about the freedom of speech. The representative that was wounded was the focus of harsh comments by many that didn’t agree with her politically. The question that is being tossed around the media is what responsibility do those that preach political hate have? The answer for many is none. Political pundits and talk show hosts, many say, are just exercising their freedom of speech and should in no way be connected with what this young man did in Arizona. Even though his actions killed people, the freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.

Well, unless of course, politics get in the way.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas will be in town for the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, a 9 year old girl that was one of the people that were killed. The church group is most famous for showing up at the funerals of veterans suggesting that the reason they died was because the United States accepts the gay lifestyle, as well as other issues. This time, they will arrive because “God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America.”

The Westboro Baptist Church is the focus of a Supreme Court case about the freedom of speech. Last fall, they argued that they have the right to express their opinion and should not have to pay damages to the father of a veteran that they picketed. That case is expected to be released sometime this Spring.

Lawmakers in Arizona have now crafted a law that will not allow the members of the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing the funeral of the little girl. The lawmakers suspended most of the rules to make this happen before the funeral. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, signed the bill.

Even if every last person in Arizona agrees with the law banning the picketers, that doesn’t make it right. You can’t on one side of the argument defend the freedom of speech, then, make laws that limit the freedom of speech for no other reason than because it is uncomfortable.

The Westboro Church group may make us cringe to think that anyone would want to turn a funeral into a political statement and not respect the deep sorrow of the families of the 9 year old girl. The Westboro Church, though, at the very least broaden the limits of our freedoms. The lawmakers that are worked so hard at banning the Westboro group are limiting our freedoms in ways that may come to haunt us in the future.

-----

Politicians need to open about their income and contributions

2011-01-12T04:15:00.000-08:00

Jack is the owner of a diner in Pontiac. He services up good food to working class people from the neighborhood and others that work in the area.

Jack immigrated to the United States from Iraq between the wars. He has known first hand corrupt politicians and officials. He lived under a dictatorship that only held elections to appease the voters. Where money came from to run campaigns and pay people was not known. That is no way to run a government he would often say.

When he came to America, Jack just knew things would be different. He quickly adds that it wasn’t the money. It was the way the government is run. But, it hasn’t turned out like he thought.

“They are all corrupt,” he was ranting the other day. “Every politician that is elected is corrupt.”

Thinking he meant the local politicians and officials from the city, I begin to quiz him about what he was really saying. There may be a few corrupt people working in Pontiac, but for the most part they are just everyday people.

“No, I don’t mean them…” he said with a roll of his eyes. “I am talking about everyone that goes to Washington.”

He must of seen my own roll of the eyes. Seems that most people think politicians are corrupt, even though they don’t have any proof. Everyday people, just like those that come into his diner, knows it for a fact… mostly because everyone else thinks so.

“Look, every time Verizon, or GM or some other big corporation gives money to one side, they give money to the other side,” he started explaining. “If they were giving money for the right reasons, they wouldn’t give money to both sides. Do you think anyone in this restaurant right now would give money to someone if it weren’t in their best interest?”

“This was a hard working class of people, they won’t give any of the little money they do have if it wasn’t for something good,” I had to admit. “But, giving campaign contributions is legal. It isn’t corrupt if it is legal. Besides, the Supreme Court said not only can they, but they don’t have to reveal themselves to the public.”

“But, the outcome is the same,” he challenged back with a growing passion. This was clearly a subject he had strong feelings about. “If I kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it was legal, the person is still dead. It is the same here. Politicians go to Washington and even if they don’t want to, they learn how to be corrupt.”

Jack’s words were harsh and passionate. But, his comparative approach to his home country and the United States did have merit. If the contributions to a politician come from a business or organization that disagreed with his or her political positions, most politicians will still take the money. Not that they can be blamed. Even the most honest politician knows that it takes money, and lots of it, to run a campaign. Politicians that have little money because they take limited contributions from only individuals most always loses to the one with lots and lots of money.

We as individual voters, not unlike all the people that eat lunch at Jack’s, need to know where that money is coming from for campaigns. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says. If we as voters will not support a candidate, even if they take positions we agree with, unless they reveal all their sources, it would stop.

An example is Carol Moseley Braun. She is one of six candidates, including ex-White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made the cut yesterday in the run for Mayor of Chicago. She first said she wouldn’t release here income tax records. Then, changed her mind and did release them. But, now, she refuses to release details about her income.

If open government has any meaning, it means that the lives of politicians lose a lot of privacy when they run for office. Just as it should since they are suppose to be representing people, just like us, at Jack’s.

-----

6 gunned dead in Arizona, including a 9 year old girl

2011-01-10T03:00:00.000-08:00

A shooting in Arizona brings back the debate about the freedom of speech and foreseeable harm that may result.

It was just two weeks ago a post was made on this blog about a disgusting man who wrote a book to help pedophiles. (The pedophile's book is free speech) A sheriff in Florida sent deputies to Colorado to arrest him because the author had sold a book via mail order to the deputies. Charged with breaking Florida’s obscenities laws, the author’s defense lawyer claimed the book is protected speech. The conservative Republican sheriff’s response was that it is speech, but speech and words have consequences and can cause some to take action that can cause harm.

The blog took the side of freedom of speech, but hoped that someone could find a way to censor the author’s book without damaging one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech.

Sunday, six people were killed and a Democratic congresswomen was left with a bullet wound to her brain by a 22 year old gunman. (Congresswoman still sedated after gunman’s attack; second person of interest sought) The congresswoman was one of the 20 districts that Sarah Palin had targeted on her website, with cross hairs like that of a gun site. (We diagnosed the problem... )Others across the country, using a variety of media as their outlet, have also expressed in very vitriolic rhetoric, their hatred of people that disagree with their opinions in politics. The sharpness of political debate has come to the edge if not just crossing the line of speech that has consequences.

There are plenty of people with personalities that are easily manipulated. Political opinion leaders in the media know it well. They have built their careers, and filled their pockets, on the loyal readership, viewers and audience that follow their every word. As was suggested by the sheriff in Florida, speech can provide the justification needed to lead some to take action that they might not have otherwise.

This rhetoric flows in a circle. The opinion leader makes expressions that pulls in the audience. The audience then responds with their own harsh comments. That is then echoed back and forth until the debate loses any rational basis, leaving only the hate. In the last Presidential election, Senator John McCain stopped the echo when he shut down a woman in a televised town hall meeting. To his credit, he brought back the debate from the edge. Political opinion leaders need to do the same.

Political debate has always been hot. But, the opinion leaders’ venomous expressions have taken a sharp turn to the edge of lunacy. It will be difficult to find that line between freedom of speech and criminal activity. But to continue without backing up from the edge means that the expressions of some will be like the man that yells “fire” in a crowded theater or incites a riot. The freedom of speech ends when as a result, there is foreseeable harm.

-----

Responsible Community

Immigration

Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights

No "Right to Life" Michigan license plates

Not a third world junta government

Arizona's inferior education system

Happy New Year

How far will we go?

Gingrich's plan for the courts is dangerous

Social engineering?

To live peacefully together, we some times have to step back

Right is right until it interferes with business in Alabama

No religion in public schools

We don’t need a victim in the highest office in our community

The NRA's grand conspiracy

One way to solve the illegal immigration problem

End banks that are too big to fail

No religious test for illegal immigrants

Failure of debt committee could start a real conversation about government

Protect IP act is no protection

Supreme Court Justices should keep an open mind

Keep an age limit on hunters in Michigan

Herman Cain is out of touch and doesn't deserve to be President

A candidate for all the people

Regulations protect people and environments

Medical marijuana law in Michigan is confusing at best

No tax increase doesn't make sense

BART shuts down cell phone use in subway stations

Rick Perry and his call to prayer

FAA employees are laid off while Congress is on vacation - tell me this is right!

Israeli Chamber Orchestra played Wagner Tuesday evening

Herman Cain supports banning mosques

Don't follow the leader

Charter Schools are not the answer

The right to trial in open court

The Declaration of Independence declared all people are equal

The "Internet Kill Switch" needs some safe guards

Helmet law repeal should be, well, repealed

Violent video games should be restricted

Religion is the first right

Between truth and lies is free speech

Palin's fear is a poor trait to support

Let's not make an example of a 70 year woman in an attempt to stamp our the evil weed

A community should not support a faulted exercise of freedoms

It is obvious Representative Anthony Weiner needs to leave

We must build

Innovation is the key to rising above

Education is more than just teaching the acadmics

A common defense is the first purpose of government

Protect, educate, innovate and build

You don't have to be a birther to believe in presenting proof

Don't exclude a voice

Home prices are at their lowest in years, so are property taxes

An arguement for small communities

Where is the outrage over Sharia Law?

Comments on events around the community

American Exceptionalism

Don't punishing school districts for good budget practices

We must be certain about convictions

More guns is not the answer

Only United States Laws

Members of Westboro Baptist can continue to demonstate

Personal responsiblity in the news this week

Separation of powers

Oil is our heroin

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?

Let's not make it legal to kill abortion providers

No rights to marry for prisoners

Keep school activities equal

Courts must rule from the Constitution and not religion

Right idea, wrong target

Governor Synder, please consider this

Short subjects

Detroit City water board representation

Religious freedom is not absolute

The citizens of Pontiac are losing control of their government

Pontiac's emergency financial manager must communicate better

Gun rights should be the same every where

Banning speech at the funeral of the Arizona victums

Politicians need to open about their income and contributions