A Repost from February 20, 2008
It has happened again. Another shooting an educational institution. And it makes me sad.
It makes me sad that there are people who are so mess up for one reason or another that they believe killing random people makes their suffering, their pain, their troubles, better.
I can understand somewhat the twisted logic of suicide (I AM NOT SUPPORTING OR ENCOURING SUICIDE, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS!).
But I can not even begin to understand the logic (or I guess illogic) of people that go in homicidal rages before commiting suicide. Why does the suffering and death of others make your life any better, just in time for you to take your own life?
This makes me sad.
It also makes me sad that people keep saying that more laws are going to stop this from happening. What the heck are the people thinking?
SHOOTERS DO NOT CARE FOR HUMAN LIFE, WHY WOULD THEY CARE FOR LAWS?
If you can answer that you are smarter than me. If you get to teh point that breaking one of the ten ULTIMATE laws seems like a good idea (that is a reference to the 10 Commandments, by the way) then why should 400 little gun laws get in way? Maybe because there are more of them? Go figure that one out.
At the Northern Illinois University shooting, the authorities reached the scene in 2 minutes. That is an amazing response time. Try running for 2 minutes and see how far you get. Not to far, a few hundred yards maybe? Even with that short amount of time, 5 were killed and 16 were wounded.
The only thing that could have stopped the shooter once he was in the classroom was someone in the classroom.
This is why I think that political action and grassroots organizations that say guns have no place in the classroom are wrong. Had someone was holding a legally oned, legally carried firearm, they could have stopped the shooter.
On March 7th 2007 legally armed citizens stopped what could have been senseless killing by using their firearms.
Below is quoted from wbri.com:
Armed citizens stop Memphis street shooter
copyright AP
Last Updated: 3/8/2007 2:09:14 PM
Police in Memphis say a gunman firing a pistol beside a busy city street was subdued by two passers-by who were also armed.
No one was hurt during the incident that apparently began with a minor traffic accident, but one passing car was believed hit by a bullet.
Brothers William Webber and Paul Webber told police they stopped their car and pulled their own pistols when they saw a man firing a handgun yesterday.
The brothers said they ordered the man to drop his weapon and then held him at gunpoint until police arrived a few minutes later. Police say the Webbers did not fire their pistols.
Police arrested Dementrius Roberson and charged him with reckless endangerment. Police say the Webber brothers and Roberson have licenses to carry firearms.
Paul Webber says Roberson was firing across traffic and they couldn't tell why he was shooting.
End Quote from wbri.com
As you can see from the above article, armed citizens were able to stop violence using their handguns. Had they been unarmed, the shooter would have roamed with impunity.
So when people say that guns in the classroom will only cause more violence, I ask them this:
When has not having a gun in the classroom stopped a shooter?
So stop taking away the legal right for people to carry their firearms for self protection against those who don't follow the rules.
If carrying a handgun becomes illegals, only criminals will carry handguns. Then what do we do to stop them when they have the guns and we don't?
I have no answer to that. But the university shootings seem to give a hint at that answer.
And that makes me sad.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Support of Troops and War
A Repost from May 17, 2007
It has become that time. What time is that you ask? Time when you can no longer support the troops and support the war. I
have discussed this with many of my friends over the last few years, and I believe I have finally be proven correct in my
theories. Here they are:
Theory One: If you vow to support the troops fully, you also support the war.
Theory Two: To end a war you must either; defeat the enemy or remove support/authorization for the war.
Theory Three: To remove support/authorization for the war, you must eventually remove support for the troops.
Yes, I know that the whole thing is one big theory in its own right, but they all can stand alone independently and remain true.
I will break it down by each theory then combine them all for my final points.
In theory one I state that by supporting troops, you support the war(s) they are fighting. If you give the troops all they need to fight and win, you provide the material to fight a war. If you give them the tools, the weapons, and the training, then their commanders (including the Commander in Chief, the President) will be able to fight a war when needed. This is the case with the current war. The troops are well trained, well equipped, and well armed. In battle, there is no foe that can stand against them. This allows the battles to be had and victories to be won. As long as the troops are supported, the war can continue on a logistical basis. If the weapons and tools are available, the commanders will fight the war until told to stop or until the war is won. That is their job, and they do it well.
In theory two I state that to end a war you must either defeat the enemy or remove the support/authorization for the war. If the enemy is defeated and there remains no opposition, the war is completed and success has been achieved on a strategic field. (I will not go into what constitutes a victory at this time) If the enemy remains or the objective has not been achieved, the war will continue until the objective is achieved. That is what the military does, and does it well. They do not back down, they continue to bring pressure to the fight and seek the enemy to destroy the enemy. As long as troops, tools, and weapons are available, the military will press on.
In theory three I state that to end a war the enemy must be eliminated or support/authorization must be removed. This is the most important part of the theories. The military will continue their mission as stated in theory two and as allowed by theory one. However, then it comes time for the war to end (this should be read as; when the political environment no longer supports the war as in this current conflict) there are limited methods in which to do so.
The most obvious one has already been discussed. Defeat the enemy and the war ends. If no one is left to oppose the troops, then they have no war to fight.
The second option is to end the war be declaration that the troops will no longer fight the war. (it should be noted that this does not say the troops are not WILLING to fight the war, instead they are ordered to stop their actions) In this current conflict we have reached this stage. The first option appears many years or decades away at best, and leaves only the second option. At present time the political will also seems to be unable to order the troops home, so the only remaining option to end a war is to remove the ability to fight the war.
This method of ending a war works well. It is the primary method of ending war that has work in the following conflicts;
Spanish American War, World War 1, World War 2, Cold War, Falklands War, First Iraq War, and even the Cuban Uprising/Liberation (depending on which side of the war you were on.) In all above listed, one side lost the ability to wage war effectively and were forced into surrender. In the world wars the enemy no longer had the material to support their war machines and surrendered. In the First Iraq War, the Iraqi Army was sufficiently destroyed as to have no ability to engage in battle. In none of these did the enemy surrender due to the lost will to fight, but instead the inability to resist further.
Again, we have reached this point in our current conflict. In order to end the war, the support to wage war must be removed. Once the ability to wage war is removed the conflict will end. Theory two states that commanders will fight using the tools and weapons available. If they lack the tools to complete the mission, they will not complete the mission. Granted, our military has shown an enormous ability to find the materials to wage war. (Armor not strong enough, we welded more on. Body armor too weak, we bought better armor. M-16 not powerful enough to go through concrete, we broke out the M-14 and strapped a scope on it. The list continues with defeating IED's and other items) However, if they lose the material and weapons, they cannot fight a war. They will not stand up to be shot at while having no ability to fight back.
Now we reach the final part of this discussion.
By removing the ability to wage war, thus end the war, you remove support for the troops. If the troops have the ability to fight, they will. If the troops do not have the ability to fight, they will not. If the troops are unable to fight, support for them has been lost. If support for the war has been lost, support for them will eventually be lost.
While the American People and the American Government will (hopefully) always respect those who serve, it remains impossible to support troops and not support a war. Just as a war cannot be fought with out supported troops, neither can troops be supported without support for the war they are engaged in. (See Vietnam conflict. Putting aside the stance of some being against the troops, once the ability to fight the war ended, so did the war. Plain and simple.)
It takes courage to stand up against things you do not believe in (and standing up for things you believe in takes courage,too). I respect everyone that is against and for the war. I hold nothing against those who want to end the war.
Most troops would also like to see the war over. They will, however, continue to fight the war as long as they are able to do so and are ordered to do so. That is their duty. They will do their duty until they cannot anymore.
Soon we will see what occurs with support for the war. Troops will continue to due the job, it is up to everyone else to tell them when the job is done. Hopefully, we tell them their job is done through an order, not through lack of support.
(see options for ending a war)
It has become that time. What time is that you ask? Time when you can no longer support the troops and support the war. I
have discussed this with many of my friends over the last few years, and I believe I have finally be proven correct in my
theories. Here they are:
Theory One: If you vow to support the troops fully, you also support the war.
Theory Two: To end a war you must either; defeat the enemy or remove support/authorization for the war.
Theory Three: To remove support/authorization for the war, you must eventually remove support for the troops.
Yes, I know that the whole thing is one big theory in its own right, but they all can stand alone independently and remain true.
I will break it down by each theory then combine them all for my final points.
In theory one I state that by supporting troops, you support the war(s) they are fighting. If you give the troops all they need to fight and win, you provide the material to fight a war. If you give them the tools, the weapons, and the training, then their commanders (including the Commander in Chief, the President) will be able to fight a war when needed. This is the case with the current war. The troops are well trained, well equipped, and well armed. In battle, there is no foe that can stand against them. This allows the battles to be had and victories to be won. As long as the troops are supported, the war can continue on a logistical basis. If the weapons and tools are available, the commanders will fight the war until told to stop or until the war is won. That is their job, and they do it well.
In theory two I state that to end a war you must either defeat the enemy or remove the support/authorization for the war. If the enemy is defeated and there remains no opposition, the war is completed and success has been achieved on a strategic field. (I will not go into what constitutes a victory at this time) If the enemy remains or the objective has not been achieved, the war will continue until the objective is achieved. That is what the military does, and does it well. They do not back down, they continue to bring pressure to the fight and seek the enemy to destroy the enemy. As long as troops, tools, and weapons are available, the military will press on.
In theory three I state that to end a war the enemy must be eliminated or support/authorization must be removed. This is the most important part of the theories. The military will continue their mission as stated in theory two and as allowed by theory one. However, then it comes time for the war to end (this should be read as; when the political environment no longer supports the war as in this current conflict) there are limited methods in which to do so.
The most obvious one has already been discussed. Defeat the enemy and the war ends. If no one is left to oppose the troops, then they have no war to fight.
The second option is to end the war be declaration that the troops will no longer fight the war. (it should be noted that this does not say the troops are not WILLING to fight the war, instead they are ordered to stop their actions) In this current conflict we have reached this stage. The first option appears many years or decades away at best, and leaves only the second option. At present time the political will also seems to be unable to order the troops home, so the only remaining option to end a war is to remove the ability to fight the war.
This method of ending a war works well. It is the primary method of ending war that has work in the following conflicts;
Spanish American War, World War 1, World War 2, Cold War, Falklands War, First Iraq War, and even the Cuban Uprising/Liberation (depending on which side of the war you were on.) In all above listed, one side lost the ability to wage war effectively and were forced into surrender. In the world wars the enemy no longer had the material to support their war machines and surrendered. In the First Iraq War, the Iraqi Army was sufficiently destroyed as to have no ability to engage in battle. In none of these did the enemy surrender due to the lost will to fight, but instead the inability to resist further.
Again, we have reached this point in our current conflict. In order to end the war, the support to wage war must be removed. Once the ability to wage war is removed the conflict will end. Theory two states that commanders will fight using the tools and weapons available. If they lack the tools to complete the mission, they will not complete the mission. Granted, our military has shown an enormous ability to find the materials to wage war. (Armor not strong enough, we welded more on. Body armor too weak, we bought better armor. M-16 not powerful enough to go through concrete, we broke out the M-14 and strapped a scope on it. The list continues with defeating IED's and other items) However, if they lose the material and weapons, they cannot fight a war. They will not stand up to be shot at while having no ability to fight back.
Now we reach the final part of this discussion.
By removing the ability to wage war, thus end the war, you remove support for the troops. If the troops have the ability to fight, they will. If the troops do not have the ability to fight, they will not. If the troops are unable to fight, support for them has been lost. If support for the war has been lost, support for them will eventually be lost.
While the American People and the American Government will (hopefully) always respect those who serve, it remains impossible to support troops and not support a war. Just as a war cannot be fought with out supported troops, neither can troops be supported without support for the war they are engaged in. (See Vietnam conflict. Putting aside the stance of some being against the troops, once the ability to fight the war ended, so did the war. Plain and simple.)
It takes courage to stand up against things you do not believe in (and standing up for things you believe in takes courage,too). I respect everyone that is against and for the war. I hold nothing against those who want to end the war.
Most troops would also like to see the war over. They will, however, continue to fight the war as long as they are able to do so and are ordered to do so. That is their duty. They will do their duty until they cannot anymore.
Soon we will see what occurs with support for the war. Troops will continue to due the job, it is up to everyone else to tell them when the job is done. Hopefully, we tell them their job is done through an order, not through lack of support.
(see options for ending a war)
Illegal Immigration
A Repost from May 10, 2007
If there is a subject that makes me wonder about this country sometimes it has to illegal immigration. I am sick and tired of hearing all of these complaints and arguments over this. It should be very simple. The solution comes from the very basic principles that make a society
work;
Laws govern all people equally. If the law is broken, you pay your debt.
There, done, over with. We have laws that cover immigration. We welcome LEGAL immigrants. We sponsor persons to come to this country and make a living, prosper, form churches, whatever. We also are a nation of laws and hold everyone accountable for what they have done.
We do not and cannot allow people to just ignore the rules. We cannot right laws to allow people that break that most sacred of all rules in the public contract of ignoring the laws.
Why are we rewarding people for breaking the laws? How is giving these people amnesty going to stem the problem we have now? If we keep giving these people amnesty then more will come over to just wait out the system and see if they can survive until the next amnesty.
This sort of neglect would never fly with other criminals. Police will issue arrest warrants for speeding tickets or not having insurance on file and will go and serve those warrants. If you decide to avoid the police for years, if they eventually catch you, they will eventually
charge you. No one would be thinking about writing a law that proclaims "avoid justice long enough and we will let it slide." This sort of attitude is not the American way. The United states prosecutes hate crime, racial crimes and old mob killings decades after they occur. Why is it that the same agency do not try to go after these illegal immigrants?
My theory is a very charged one. It contains elements of willful neglect for money, and some would call it a conspiracy. But I stand by this charge;
There is no money or glory to be gained by kicking illegal immigrants out of the country.
There, I have said it. By deporting the immigrants the agencies would be spending many thousands if not millions of dollars on something that would bring in no money (if you fine them or charge them taxes, you make money) or glory (bring attention to the great job you law enforcement does by showing off high value drug busts, lawmakers give you more money to continue these major cases.) Instead if you treat it with a mild neglect you are able to save a huge amount of funding for more urgent needs. In some sense you cannot fault these agencies for feeling that way. We have some many millions of laws on the book that these courts and enforcement agencies cannot possibly charge everyone with every law they break. They would be unable to hold everyone they prosecute (thus parole and probation) or have the funding to see every case through to its end. Instead, pick up the biggest offenders and the ones that grab
the biggest media attention. Drugs, murders, gang, etc.
But immigrants are low on that list. And the American public is allowing the illegal immigrants to spin this issue as if they (illegal immigrants) were the victims.
Paris Hilton is using the same tactic with her recent appeal to the public that she should not go to jail because the system is against her and it is unfair. The public is not buying it. She drove drunk, got off in a plea bargain that included no license to drive, attend alcohol classes, and stay out of trouble. She got in trouble with the law for driving (against parole) not once, but twice, as well as racking up two ADDITIONAL charges along the way (reckless driving and DUI.) I think
she should go to jail for longer than 45 days, but I am not the judge.
Would you let Paris Hilton off the hook? What if I did the same thing?
Would you let me off the hook?
Well, I would not let you off the hook. You did something that society believes is dangerous, then when you got treated in a very gentle way, you through that back in our faces. Then too bad. Off to jail with you.
The same feelings are towards the illegal immigrants. They have broken the law. The fact that they have made friends and have families in this country does not sway or eliminate the KEY issue. They (illegal immigrants) broke the law. It does not matter how many good things you do in life. You break the law once, you pay the price. We should send them home.
By not sending them home we cheapen the work and dedication of immigrants the FOLLOWED the rules and waited years to get in the country by following the law. All we are saying to them is, good job, you got screwed. You tried hard and succeed by following all the laws we could find. You win. Oh, and the guys that didn't follow the rules, cheated, stole, and otherwise lied, they win too. Have fun!
For all of my friends in college, image this:
Lets say that to work in America you have to go to college. After you get out you can finally go to work at the job of your dreams, take a vacation, whatever. But you have to finish school first.
You work hard in school. You get 4.0 and do volunteer activities and learn a foreign language and study foreign history. You apply to get in, and after months of waiting, you get accepted. Then they ask you to pay them yearly to stay at US College, just as you expected. Four years
later you graduate, get your degree and can work in America. Yay!
I, on the other hand, go about this a different way. Instead of going to school and getting 4.0's and applying to US College, I just sneak on Campus. Then, I pretend to be a graduate and receive a degree. I pay nothing, I do not have to attend classes, and I do not even have a real degree. But I get out of school before you and then land your job.
If that happened would you be mad?
So next time you hear about illegal immigrants wanting amnesty, remember, someone else had to work hard to get the same thing they want for free. And if the illegal immigrants get what they want, then we have all went to "college" for nothing.
If there is a subject that makes me wonder about this country sometimes it has to illegal immigration. I am sick and tired of hearing all of these complaints and arguments over this. It should be very simple. The solution comes from the very basic principles that make a society
work;
Laws govern all people equally. If the law is broken, you pay your debt.
There, done, over with. We have laws that cover immigration. We welcome LEGAL immigrants. We sponsor persons to come to this country and make a living, prosper, form churches, whatever. We also are a nation of laws and hold everyone accountable for what they have done.
We do not and cannot allow people to just ignore the rules. We cannot right laws to allow people that break that most sacred of all rules in the public contract of ignoring the laws.
Why are we rewarding people for breaking the laws? How is giving these people amnesty going to stem the problem we have now? If we keep giving these people amnesty then more will come over to just wait out the system and see if they can survive until the next amnesty.
This sort of neglect would never fly with other criminals. Police will issue arrest warrants for speeding tickets or not having insurance on file and will go and serve those warrants. If you decide to avoid the police for years, if they eventually catch you, they will eventually
charge you. No one would be thinking about writing a law that proclaims "avoid justice long enough and we will let it slide." This sort of attitude is not the American way. The United states prosecutes hate crime, racial crimes and old mob killings decades after they occur. Why is it that the same agency do not try to go after these illegal immigrants?
My theory is a very charged one. It contains elements of willful neglect for money, and some would call it a conspiracy. But I stand by this charge;
There is no money or glory to be gained by kicking illegal immigrants out of the country.
There, I have said it. By deporting the immigrants the agencies would be spending many thousands if not millions of dollars on something that would bring in no money (if you fine them or charge them taxes, you make money) or glory (bring attention to the great job you law enforcement does by showing off high value drug busts, lawmakers give you more money to continue these major cases.) Instead if you treat it with a mild neglect you are able to save a huge amount of funding for more urgent needs. In some sense you cannot fault these agencies for feeling that way. We have some many millions of laws on the book that these courts and enforcement agencies cannot possibly charge everyone with every law they break. They would be unable to hold everyone they prosecute (thus parole and probation) or have the funding to see every case through to its end. Instead, pick up the biggest offenders and the ones that grab
the biggest media attention. Drugs, murders, gang, etc.
But immigrants are low on that list. And the American public is allowing the illegal immigrants to spin this issue as if they (illegal immigrants) were the victims.
Paris Hilton is using the same tactic with her recent appeal to the public that she should not go to jail because the system is against her and it is unfair. The public is not buying it. She drove drunk, got off in a plea bargain that included no license to drive, attend alcohol classes, and stay out of trouble. She got in trouble with the law for driving (against parole) not once, but twice, as well as racking up two ADDITIONAL charges along the way (reckless driving and DUI.) I think
she should go to jail for longer than 45 days, but I am not the judge.
Would you let Paris Hilton off the hook? What if I did the same thing?
Would you let me off the hook?
Well, I would not let you off the hook. You did something that society believes is dangerous, then when you got treated in a very gentle way, you through that back in our faces. Then too bad. Off to jail with you.
The same feelings are towards the illegal immigrants. They have broken the law. The fact that they have made friends and have families in this country does not sway or eliminate the KEY issue. They (illegal immigrants) broke the law. It does not matter how many good things you do in life. You break the law once, you pay the price. We should send them home.
By not sending them home we cheapen the work and dedication of immigrants the FOLLOWED the rules and waited years to get in the country by following the law. All we are saying to them is, good job, you got screwed. You tried hard and succeed by following all the laws we could find. You win. Oh, and the guys that didn't follow the rules, cheated, stole, and otherwise lied, they win too. Have fun!
For all of my friends in college, image this:
Lets say that to work in America you have to go to college. After you get out you can finally go to work at the job of your dreams, take a vacation, whatever. But you have to finish school first.
You work hard in school. You get 4.0 and do volunteer activities and learn a foreign language and study foreign history. You apply to get in, and after months of waiting, you get accepted. Then they ask you to pay them yearly to stay at US College, just as you expected. Four years
later you graduate, get your degree and can work in America. Yay!
I, on the other hand, go about this a different way. Instead of going to school and getting 4.0's and applying to US College, I just sneak on Campus. Then, I pretend to be a graduate and receive a degree. I pay nothing, I do not have to attend classes, and I do not even have a real degree. But I get out of school before you and then land your job.
If that happened would you be mad?
So next time you hear about illegal immigrants wanting amnesty, remember, someone else had to work hard to get the same thing they want for free. And if the illegal immigrants get what they want, then we have all went to "college" for nothing.
Change, Thoughts About
A Repost from May 10, 2007
It is something that fights us at every corner. People want change when it is good and if they are the reason for the change. But we hate change that works against us or is not of our choosing. People want change in status as long as it is upwards. People want a change in relationships, normally towards being with someone. Promotions are welcome change, and children could be a welcome or unwelcome change.
The reason for this writing is my recent experience with change. A good friend and I had built a relationship into something that I thought we were both comfortable with. Perhaps it was just I that was comfortable with it, but that makes no difference in the outcome of this tale. I
fell into a state of comfort and contentment and thought that our arrangement worked out well for all parties. Then after a trip out of the area, my friend returns. and decided that the relationship paradigm must change.
Now the reason for the change is positive for my friend. They want to get their priorities straightened out and set themselves up for success, a goal that I support completely. Ironic that the goal I respect and in some ways feel help set up and progress has now placed me in an
interesting position. With her progression she has moved herself in a positive direction, but has caused my world to turn slightly downward until I can adjust to this new item.
This brings me to my next thought. Fate is what others make it. Yes, we can all choose our own destiny in the fact that we all make our own decisions, but most of what you respond to is the decisions of others. When others try to do better by themselves it may mean that someone else must fail to achieve their goals, and in mast cases anothers failure is a requirement of success. If two people are going for the same job position, and only one can land said position. The more qualified person will generally take the slot. This will affect both, but only one in
the wanted outcome. By the more qualified applicant's decisions, he has affected the other applicant's fate/life/destiny.
Does this make either applicant responsible for what happen? Yes, in fact both are responsible. Through their decisions and opportunities they each created the outcome that occurred. Does this make them responsible to each other? I say no. Niether made the decision against the other, or for each other. The decision was independent based upon personal factors. This cretes detachment as so that responsibility is also released for the involved. It should be noted that I do draw a line at using dishonest or other immoral devices to influence outcomes, and in such cases then the immoral person is indebted to the moral one.
As for my specific situation, it pleases me to see her moving forward, as I want only the best for her. She deserves it though her convictions and her overall tenacity among other things. But it intrigues me that such a good decision for her would cause me grief and doubt. In the end it will all work out, as it always seems to do. It just takes time.
It is something that fights us at every corner. People want change when it is good and if they are the reason for the change. But we hate change that works against us or is not of our choosing. People want change in status as long as it is upwards. People want a change in relationships, normally towards being with someone. Promotions are welcome change, and children could be a welcome or unwelcome change.
The reason for this writing is my recent experience with change. A good friend and I had built a relationship into something that I thought we were both comfortable with. Perhaps it was just I that was comfortable with it, but that makes no difference in the outcome of this tale. I
fell into a state of comfort and contentment and thought that our arrangement worked out well for all parties. Then after a trip out of the area, my friend returns. and decided that the relationship paradigm must change.
Now the reason for the change is positive for my friend. They want to get their priorities straightened out and set themselves up for success, a goal that I support completely. Ironic that the goal I respect and in some ways feel help set up and progress has now placed me in an
interesting position. With her progression she has moved herself in a positive direction, but has caused my world to turn slightly downward until I can adjust to this new item.
This brings me to my next thought. Fate is what others make it. Yes, we can all choose our own destiny in the fact that we all make our own decisions, but most of what you respond to is the decisions of others. When others try to do better by themselves it may mean that someone else must fail to achieve their goals, and in mast cases anothers failure is a requirement of success. If two people are going for the same job position, and only one can land said position. The more qualified person will generally take the slot. This will affect both, but only one in
the wanted outcome. By the more qualified applicant's decisions, he has affected the other applicant's fate/life/destiny.
Does this make either applicant responsible for what happen? Yes, in fact both are responsible. Through their decisions and opportunities they each created the outcome that occurred. Does this make them responsible to each other? I say no. Niether made the decision against the other, or for each other. The decision was independent based upon personal factors. This cretes detachment as so that responsibility is also released for the involved. It should be noted that I do draw a line at using dishonest or other immoral devices to influence outcomes, and in such cases then the immoral person is indebted to the moral one.
As for my specific situation, it pleases me to see her moving forward, as I want only the best for her. She deserves it though her convictions and her overall tenacity among other things. But it intrigues me that such a good decision for her would cause me grief and doubt. In the end it will all work out, as it always seems to do. It just takes time.
The Government Does Not Protect You!
A Repost from November 30, 2005
Here is an interesting case that has me all worked up. This case was brought to my attention by foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
“By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.”
Those are the words of foxnews.com, and put simply what is said by the Supreme Court:
“The issue presented to us is much narrower than is suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and their amici. Neither the tragic facts of the case, nor the importance of according proper deference to law enforcement professionals, should divert our attention from that issue. That issue is whether the restraining order entered by the Colorado trial court on June 4, 1999, created a "property" interest that is protected from arbitrary deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement for the ordinary citizen.”
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
As we can see here, the Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld that the Government has no legal responsibility to protect you from others. What? So who is supposed to protect me from other people? If it’s not the governments responsibility, surely that would indicate that only I am responsible for my safety. Yet, in this country, self defense has become more volatile than ever. Still, I dove further into this strange decision to look deeper at the precedence that has led up to this, in my opinion, amazing ruling. I looked at the above referenced DeShaney v. Winnebage, Et. Al. to learn more. “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”
Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL. v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
It is written clearly here what I think is a major concern for all Americans. Due Process is a very important right that we have to protect us from oppression or segregation. But realize what this decision is saying. The Clause is written ONLY to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon your rights. This is a most important distinction between the Government protecting your rights on your behalf, and the Government insuring that you have the legal right to not have the Government oppress your rights. But it does not mean the government has to protect that right FOR you. The difference is monumental. At the same time, even if they know thee is a risk for you, they are under no obligation to act by the law. One good thing is that many people in government and agencies with the government believe they have a moral obligation to protect the citizens. While this means that you may not suffer the fate of the woman in the first court case I mentioned, it doesn’t mean that it will never happen. That and in a country that prides itself on being able to live your own life as you see fit, it seem like a poor choice to let your safety fall on a few “moral” individuals. Of course the flip side is that such ‘moral’ persons may also be specifically prohibited from helping you, even if they want to.
I believe that these cases above are very interesting and I will be doing more research to better understand this development. I will also be ruminating on my opinions of self defense and the interventions against it.
Here is an interesting case that has me all worked up. This case was brought to my attention by foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
“By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.”
Those are the words of foxnews.com, and put simply what is said by the Supreme Court:
“The issue presented to us is much narrower than is suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and their amici. Neither the tragic facts of the case, nor the importance of according proper deference to law enforcement professionals, should divert our attention from that issue. That issue is whether the restraining order entered by the Colorado trial court on June 4, 1999, created a "property" interest that is protected from arbitrary deprivation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement for the ordinary citizen.”
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
As we can see here, the Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld that the Government has no legal responsibility to protect you from others. What? So who is supposed to protect me from other people? If it’s not the governments responsibility, surely that would indicate that only I am responsible for my safety. Yet, in this country, self defense has become more volatile than ever. Still, I dove further into this strange decision to look deeper at the precedence that has led up to this, in my opinion, amazing ruling. I looked at the above referenced DeShaney v. Winnebage, Et. Al. to learn more. “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”
Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL. v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
It is written clearly here what I think is a major concern for all Americans. Due Process is a very important right that we have to protect us from oppression or segregation. But realize what this decision is saying. The Clause is written ONLY to prevent the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon your rights. This is a most important distinction between the Government protecting your rights on your behalf, and the Government insuring that you have the legal right to not have the Government oppress your rights. But it does not mean the government has to protect that right FOR you. The difference is monumental. At the same time, even if they know thee is a risk for you, they are under no obligation to act by the law. One good thing is that many people in government and agencies with the government believe they have a moral obligation to protect the citizens. While this means that you may not suffer the fate of the woman in the first court case I mentioned, it doesn’t mean that it will never happen. That and in a country that prides itself on being able to live your own life as you see fit, it seem like a poor choice to let your safety fall on a few “moral” individuals. Of course the flip side is that such ‘moral’ persons may also be specifically prohibited from helping you, even if they want to.
I believe that these cases above are very interesting and I will be doing more research to better understand this development. I will also be ruminating on my opinions of self defense and the interventions against it.
What Does Happen at the End?
A Repost from November 27, 2005
I was thinking about this recently. What do you leave behind? Not just when you die, but in general. I started rather simply by me thinking about my wife. It has been just short of two years since her passing and Our anniversary of 2 years has passed me only a few weeks ago.
I was recounting some of the times we had together, when I was wondering what I had left of her. I have her physical remains back at home in her urn, but I was looking for something else tangible. I listed many objects, her favorite coat, pictures, a few arts and craft projects, and some personal items that do not need public mention. All these little things that are directly connected to her don’t give the connection I was looking for. Each Object help some memory, some feeling, but I could not find that which I was searching for.
So I expanded my search. I began to look at everything. I stopped and thought about our old home. The old apartment. We spent our entire 3 months of marriage and a few months of dating in that one bedroom one bath second floor with a balcony space. It occurred to me that the apartment was a part of the story that was her and I. On the physical sense, there are still pieces of her in that place. Skin cells, hair, a little blood from the cooking accident. Even with cleaning it, somewhere there is a part of her in there. In another sense, our neighbors are all remnants of our relationship. The neighbor who’s door we knocked on that Sunday at three in the morning as I tried to sleep to go to work all Sunday long. That person is thus a part of her story, and mine. The neighbor that knocked on our door when they needed a hand carrying furniture up three flights of stairs. Those above and below us, beside us and those who parked next to us and jockeyed for parking spots in the limited parking stalls. All these people are now a part of the life and memory of my wife.
My thoughts went back further. Her family and friends are in the same network. I thought it was interesting that they get named after our neighbors, but the relationship that we had with her family was special, and I am sure I will discuss it in a later posting. Every shop clerk, teacher, driver, doctor, student, and so on are all a part of her network. Even those people who she disliked or hated. Her boyfriend that was abusive is a part of her. That thought stuck with me for a moment. Even a person that she was so totally repulsed by once she realized what was going on, is now and forever an intrical part of her.
My thoughts now move forward. If everyone she touched is a part of her story, then obviously I am a part of her story, what she was and what she accomplished. And so I made this realization: She still touches people, her story still continues, and that in a sense I can never find what I am looking for. Of course the duality of the situation states that I have already found what I am looking for.
I love paradoxes.
So the answer to my question that I posed to myself is this: You leave everything behind. And the physical elements are the simplest and in a sense, the least important parts that you leave behind. And even once you do leave, whether it be from a room until the next workday or party, or you leave life all together, you continue to leave things behind.
I shall have fun exploring this.
I was thinking about this recently. What do you leave behind? Not just when you die, but in general. I started rather simply by me thinking about my wife. It has been just short of two years since her passing and Our anniversary of 2 years has passed me only a few weeks ago.
I was recounting some of the times we had together, when I was wondering what I had left of her. I have her physical remains back at home in her urn, but I was looking for something else tangible. I listed many objects, her favorite coat, pictures, a few arts and craft projects, and some personal items that do not need public mention. All these little things that are directly connected to her don’t give the connection I was looking for. Each Object help some memory, some feeling, but I could not find that which I was searching for.
So I expanded my search. I began to look at everything. I stopped and thought about our old home. The old apartment. We spent our entire 3 months of marriage and a few months of dating in that one bedroom one bath second floor with a balcony space. It occurred to me that the apartment was a part of the story that was her and I. On the physical sense, there are still pieces of her in that place. Skin cells, hair, a little blood from the cooking accident. Even with cleaning it, somewhere there is a part of her in there. In another sense, our neighbors are all remnants of our relationship. The neighbor who’s door we knocked on that Sunday at three in the morning as I tried to sleep to go to work all Sunday long. That person is thus a part of her story, and mine. The neighbor that knocked on our door when they needed a hand carrying furniture up three flights of stairs. Those above and below us, beside us and those who parked next to us and jockeyed for parking spots in the limited parking stalls. All these people are now a part of the life and memory of my wife.
My thoughts went back further. Her family and friends are in the same network. I thought it was interesting that they get named after our neighbors, but the relationship that we had with her family was special, and I am sure I will discuss it in a later posting. Every shop clerk, teacher, driver, doctor, student, and so on are all a part of her network. Even those people who she disliked or hated. Her boyfriend that was abusive is a part of her. That thought stuck with me for a moment. Even a person that she was so totally repulsed by once she realized what was going on, is now and forever an intrical part of her.
My thoughts now move forward. If everyone she touched is a part of her story, then obviously I am a part of her story, what she was and what she accomplished. And so I made this realization: She still touches people, her story still continues, and that in a sense I can never find what I am looking for. Of course the duality of the situation states that I have already found what I am looking for.
I love paradoxes.
So the answer to my question that I posed to myself is this: You leave everything behind. And the physical elements are the simplest and in a sense, the least important parts that you leave behind. And even once you do leave, whether it be from a room until the next workday or party, or you leave life all together, you continue to leave things behind.
I shall have fun exploring this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)