with a very beautiful and wonderful young lady, and the subject of the conversation was why I never really pursued my childhood dream of going to law school.
In short, I explained to my friend that I could never be a practicing attorney, because I have far too much respect for justice.
Ask your average 25-35 year old male if, right now at this moment, he'd rather experience the best sex of his life or the freedom to open his bedroom door and step outside onto his front porch. We're not talking about white-bread vanilla sex with your wife of seventeen years, we're talking about "bending a Brazilian supermodel over the hood of your paid-for Ferrari convertible with the Grand Canyon in the background" kind of sex...versus the mere freedom to walk outside on the front porch.
About 99% of all Americans would choose sex over freedom. That's because they don't truly understand freedom. Right now, one in every one hundred American males is incarcerated. RIGHT NOW. Ask a man that is locked in a cage the size of your bathroom every night if he'd rather have doggy-style with a supermodel, or be allowed to open his door and walk outside...and see what his response to that question is.
Now, take a look at our "justice" system. Today, a man was freed from a Texas prison on a PR bond after serving more than half of his life in a cage the size of your bathroom...for a crime that has been proven that he did not commit, via DNA evidence. He was supposed to have been freed yesterday, but this man who has been caged since the age of 18 and is now 35 had an "outburst" while waiting to see a judge, and was locked up for an additional night. Sorry, but I'd be doing more than screaming if it were me.
Anyhow, moving right along. I can't go a week without reading in our Houston paper about how someone has been released from prison after serving a decade or more on a wrongful conviction. Not a "wrongful conviction" in terms of some legal technicality that allowed them to skate after robbing/raping/killing someone, but a "wrongful conviction" in terms of the wrong person being convicted. Seriously, this kind of thing is popping up on a weekly basis.
I thank God that I've never been charged with a felony, and 27 hours is the longest I've ever had to spend in county jail. However, as my "arrest v. dismissed charges" ratio will certainly attest to, I have most certainly been wrongfully arrested in the past. Sadly, because the officers claim to have acted in "good faith" (and while the evidence proves innocence, it cannot prove the officer's intent), there is no legal recourse. As I have never been actually wrongfully convicted of any charges I've fought, I have no avenue of seeking redress or recompense for these state-sanctioned kidnappings.
However, I do understand how truly great it feels to be able to step outside on my front porch. On that note, I think I'll go outside and have a cigarette while I listen to the bullfrogs in my pool. I sincerely hope that you are able to do the same. Keep rockin' in the free world, and remember that you never truly know what you have until it's gone...
Friday, July 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Do you honestly believe?
In the concept of freedom, I mean? Far too often, I see people on both sides of the aisle claim to be upset about losing their rights and freedoms.
Within the ranks of the "right", you hear them talk about how they're losing their gun rights and their right to make personal decisions about their health care. On the "left", they rail about losing their other essential civil liberties. All the while, neither "team" seems to care about the other, they're far too interested in winning their little games on capitol hill to secure their "rights".
Well, I've got a piece of news, son. If you're worried about a handgun ban, but think anyone caught a pound of weed should be thrown in jail to rot for the rest of his life, you either don't really give a rat's ass about freedom or you simply misunderstand it. The same holds true if you're concerned about having your emails read by government snoops, but think our government has the right to tax the ever-living hell out of a working man to pay for "universal health care".
Granted, you don't really need to smoke pot to get through daily life, nor do you honestly need a handgun to defend your home...the city of Chicago (currently under an unconstitutional all-out ban on handguns) allows a shotgun in a person's home, which is actually better suited to that purpose anyway. Just as any teenager with $50 can find an ounce of weed in Texas RIGHT NOW, any gangbanger in the Windy City can find a stolen Glock for sale. You aren't stopping the criminals from getting either, but you are creating a situation where those who would harm no one by possessing a 9mm or a joint are criminalized for this act.
Bans on dope, as well as "assault weapons", are supported because of what someone MIGHT do with it. A dopehead (of any sort) may rob, steal, or kill to get his dope. Yes, like it or not, I've even seen potheads steal to get pot...however, these were the type that were unlikely to be working a real job to begin with. Just wanted to clear that up, in case ignorant people think pot is somehow "addictive", and smokers will kill to get it. However, over 3/4 of Americans aged 12 and up used an illegal substance at some point last year, either recreationally or habitually. 3/4 of Americans aged 12 and up weren't out committing felonies to feed their heads.
Anyhow, the banning of firearms is also supported by people for the same reason. Owning one makes it more easy to go on a "shooting spree" if he has a gun, as opposed to a bow and arrow...or just a sharp pointed stick. However, even when one considers that guns are quite often the "weapon of choice" for murder in this country, there are two important facts to consider. One is that often, the number of rounds in the magazine of a typical "assault" rifle far exceeds the number of victims (in more than 95% of all murders in America, there is only one "victim"). The other is the fact that, in the majority of murders, the killer and victim actually know each other well enough that a firearm isn't a necessity.
Yet, the same people who think that we need to ban drugs in this country often seem to think we should be allowed to own full-auto machine guns mounted on the roofs of our SUVs if we can afford to buy them. Many of the same people who think we need to ban firearms because of what someone "might" do with them, are the same people who think we should be allowed to walk down a crowded street while blazing a joint.
Personally, I think we should be allowed to do BOTH of these things (albeit in the interest of ones' own safety, as well as the safety of others, we should probably refrain from doing both at the same time!), provided we can afford to do them and choose to do them, while punishing people who commit actual crimes against actual non-consensual victims.
Really? Did I just say that? Potsmokers should be allowed to own machine guns? ABSOLUTELY! More importantly, ordinary Americans should be allowed to possess anything they can safely keep without endangering the lives of others by simply owning it or using it responsibly. While I'm not opposed to checking ID (to ensure that one is not a convicted violent felon prior to the purchase of a firearm, or that one is under the age of legal majority prior to purchasing dope), I think both of these items should be for sale by anyone wishing to do so.
Murder, theft, and robbery are against the law, regardless of the motive or the tools used to commit it. It doesn't matter if you steal a television simply because yours broke, or because you need to pawn it to feed your crack habit...you still stole a damned television. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you kill someone with a high-capacity "assault" rifle, or kill your cheating husband with the family Mercedes (like my dentist did!)...you've still murdered someone.
If you're going to preach about your rights, do us all a favor and be a bit more consistent with it. Freedom...either you have it, or you don't. If you're worried about banning something because of what someone MIGHT do, as opposed to punishing someone for something that they actually HAVE done to someone else, you don't really give a damn about freedom.
Within the ranks of the "right", you hear them talk about how they're losing their gun rights and their right to make personal decisions about their health care. On the "left", they rail about losing their other essential civil liberties. All the while, neither "team" seems to care about the other, they're far too interested in winning their little games on capitol hill to secure their "rights".
Well, I've got a piece of news, son. If you're worried about a handgun ban, but think anyone caught a pound of weed should be thrown in jail to rot for the rest of his life, you either don't really give a rat's ass about freedom or you simply misunderstand it. The same holds true if you're concerned about having your emails read by government snoops, but think our government has the right to tax the ever-living hell out of a working man to pay for "universal health care".
Granted, you don't really need to smoke pot to get through daily life, nor do you honestly need a handgun to defend your home...the city of Chicago (currently under an unconstitutional all-out ban on handguns) allows a shotgun in a person's home, which is actually better suited to that purpose anyway. Just as any teenager with $50 can find an ounce of weed in Texas RIGHT NOW, any gangbanger in the Windy City can find a stolen Glock for sale. You aren't stopping the criminals from getting either, but you are creating a situation where those who would harm no one by possessing a 9mm or a joint are criminalized for this act.
Bans on dope, as well as "assault weapons", are supported because of what someone MIGHT do with it. A dopehead (of any sort) may rob, steal, or kill to get his dope. Yes, like it or not, I've even seen potheads steal to get pot...however, these were the type that were unlikely to be working a real job to begin with. Just wanted to clear that up, in case ignorant people think pot is somehow "addictive", and smokers will kill to get it. However, over 3/4 of Americans aged 12 and up used an illegal substance at some point last year, either recreationally or habitually. 3/4 of Americans aged 12 and up weren't out committing felonies to feed their heads.
Anyhow, the banning of firearms is also supported by people for the same reason. Owning one makes it more easy to go on a "shooting spree" if he has a gun, as opposed to a bow and arrow...or just a sharp pointed stick. However, even when one considers that guns are quite often the "weapon of choice" for murder in this country, there are two important facts to consider. One is that often, the number of rounds in the magazine of a typical "assault" rifle far exceeds the number of victims (in more than 95% of all murders in America, there is only one "victim"). The other is the fact that, in the majority of murders, the killer and victim actually know each other well enough that a firearm isn't a necessity.
Yet, the same people who think that we need to ban drugs in this country often seem to think we should be allowed to own full-auto machine guns mounted on the roofs of our SUVs if we can afford to buy them. Many of the same people who think we need to ban firearms because of what someone "might" do with them, are the same people who think we should be allowed to walk down a crowded street while blazing a joint.
Personally, I think we should be allowed to do BOTH of these things (albeit in the interest of ones' own safety, as well as the safety of others, we should probably refrain from doing both at the same time!), provided we can afford to do them and choose to do them, while punishing people who commit actual crimes against actual non-consensual victims.
Really? Did I just say that? Potsmokers should be allowed to own machine guns? ABSOLUTELY! More importantly, ordinary Americans should be allowed to possess anything they can safely keep without endangering the lives of others by simply owning it or using it responsibly. While I'm not opposed to checking ID (to ensure that one is not a convicted violent felon prior to the purchase of a firearm, or that one is under the age of legal majority prior to purchasing dope), I think both of these items should be for sale by anyone wishing to do so.
Murder, theft, and robbery are against the law, regardless of the motive or the tools used to commit it. It doesn't matter if you steal a television simply because yours broke, or because you need to pawn it to feed your crack habit...you still stole a damned television. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you kill someone with a high-capacity "assault" rifle, or kill your cheating husband with the family Mercedes (like my dentist did!)...you've still murdered someone.
If you're going to preach about your rights, do us all a favor and be a bit more consistent with it. Freedom...either you have it, or you don't. If you're worried about banning something because of what someone MIGHT do, as opposed to punishing someone for something that they actually HAVE done to someone else, you don't really give a damn about freedom.
Monday, June 21, 2010
A bit of anger toward our government...
Yes, I'm rather upset about our government right now. Big shocker, huh? Anyhow, this is my latest bitch with these United States, and it involves the use of our National Guard.
I just read an article today that infuriated me. Since long before my lifetime, the US military has been known as the most bad-ass armed force in the known world. For decades, our government has offered specialized training to members of the armed forces of our political allies so that they may help to further our foreign policy directives militarily.
One of these nations was Mexico. We have trained several members of their army, with the official story being that it was so they could properly help us fight a war against a bumper-sticker idea known as drug trafficking. After we trained these people, they went back to Mexico and used what they learned to train others in the Mexican military.
As if you weren't having your rights eroded away fast enough, the current administration has consistently been looking for a way to not only reinstate the "Assault Weapons Ban" (that piece of legislation that would effectively make it illegal to purchase the majority of the firearms in my home) because 90% of the "traceable" guns used in Mexican drug cartel crime are traced back to American buyers, but they also want to make it PERMANENT. In effort to further this, our beloved Secretary of Statism Hillary R. Clinton has signed a UN treaty aimed at stopping "illicit small-arms traffic".
What they aren't telling you (but I have, in my previous postings on this very blog!) is the fact that their "90%" figure is total crap. That's the number of "traceable" weapons confiscated by Mexican officials...traceable by the US government. It does not include the following:
A) Weapons without serial numbers.
B) Weapons never registered in this nation.
C) Weapons sold to the Mexican government by the US government.
The overwhelming majority of weapons used by drug cartels are NOT your standard "gun show" or "sporting goods store" rifles purchased over-the-counter in America. They are full-auto firearms imported from the governments of Venezuela, China, and the United States. You cannot buy an M16 at a gun show, period, because doing so requires hundreds of dollars worth of tax stamps and government paperwork. You cannot own a grenade, period. However, my hunting rifles are somehow contributing to the violence associated with the Mexican drug cartels.
Anyhow, I digress. The real reason I am nine kinds of pissed off right now concerning Mexico is the fact that our government is absolutely REFUSING to do a damned thing about the drug cartel violence spilling over into America. The United States has four different branches of its military available for use during foreign conflicts, and three branches available for use in domestic operations.
In this discussion, the applicable branch would be our National Guard. In Arizona, the US government has essentially allowed an invasion of Mexican drug cartels to take over three border-area counties. Not simply Mexican immigrants coming to America to work or do whatever they do, but armed gangs of drug smugglers.
If this is not a justifiable reason to have troops on the ground right here in America, I'm not absolutely certain what is. Unfortunately, Obama&Co have surrendered these areas of Arizona...all the while, National Guard units are still being shot at in another desert on the other side of the world, for the sake of "staying the course" in another war against another bumpersticker slogan called "Terror".
Many would like to blame this on American citizens providing a profit motive for the cartels by continuing to smoke/snort/inject meth/coke/smack, but I cannot justifiably lend any credence to this explanation. I cannot rightfully blame this situation on people exercising their God-given right to lead their own lives as they see fit, simply because the government has decided that it is illegal...especially when our government's prohibition is the only thing providing a profit motive large enough to engage in this kind of violence. History has shown that a market free from excessive regulation will allow entrepreneurs to set up shop peacefully, just as they did with drugs prior to prohibition of drugs. History has also shown, during alcohol prohibition, that government prohibition will not stop the trade; rather, it will only stop the PEACEFUL trade while simultaneously providing organized criminal organizations the opportunity to make a profit and protect this profit with violence. When you outlaw the sale of dope, only outlaws will sell dope...but it will still be sold!
So, you can blame this mess in Arizona on "crackheads and wetbacks", but only if you refuse to open your eyes and take a long hard look at reality. The hard reality of the situation is the fact that a large chunk of our country has been essentially taken over by Mexican drug cartels, and the following reasons are directly responsible:
A) America still engages in domestic policies requiring the outright prohibition of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
B) America still engages in foreign policies requiring the branches of our military directly responsible for guarding our nation (I.E. the "National Guard"...you'd think the name would give it away?) being in far-off corners of the world.
As I've said before, you could have a military outpost for every 20 miles of our international borders. That's "borders", plural, with an "S". You could have this, if our government would simply close down half of our completely unneeded overseas military bases. Let's do the math and see what happens when you put only 200 people at each installation...
There are 672 hours in every 28 day (four week) period. Divided into twelve hour shifts (just like process operators at Dow Chemical), you now have 56 shifts every 28 days. If you have a man working seven days on and seven days off, you need four men to make this run around the clock. It will require 80 men to secure our borders, per outpost, to put one man per mile on our border if we have an outpost every 20 miles...leaving the other 120 people to work as support staff (administration, motor pool, medical, et cetera). And, keep in mind, this is with only 200 men per outpost. Imagine if we had as many people as our foreign outposts currently have? Now, think about the logistical ease we would have, having our outposts spread out every 20 miles, as opposed to spread across the world. That's a whole lot of money!
Now, keep in mind, this would require closing only HALF of America's overseas bases...
I just read an article today that infuriated me. Since long before my lifetime, the US military has been known as the most bad-ass armed force in the known world. For decades, our government has offered specialized training to members of the armed forces of our political allies so that they may help to further our foreign policy directives militarily.
One of these nations was Mexico. We have trained several members of their army, with the official story being that it was so they could properly help us fight a war against a bumper-sticker idea known as drug trafficking. After we trained these people, they went back to Mexico and used what they learned to train others in the Mexican military.
As if you weren't having your rights eroded away fast enough, the current administration has consistently been looking for a way to not only reinstate the "Assault Weapons Ban" (that piece of legislation that would effectively make it illegal to purchase the majority of the firearms in my home) because 90% of the "traceable" guns used in Mexican drug cartel crime are traced back to American buyers, but they also want to make it PERMANENT. In effort to further this, our beloved Secretary of Statism Hillary R. Clinton has signed a UN treaty aimed at stopping "illicit small-arms traffic".
What they aren't telling you (but I have, in my previous postings on this very blog!) is the fact that their "90%" figure is total crap. That's the number of "traceable" weapons confiscated by Mexican officials...traceable by the US government. It does not include the following:
A) Weapons without serial numbers.
B) Weapons never registered in this nation.
C) Weapons sold to the Mexican government by the US government.
The overwhelming majority of weapons used by drug cartels are NOT your standard "gun show" or "sporting goods store" rifles purchased over-the-counter in America. They are full-auto firearms imported from the governments of Venezuela, China, and the United States. You cannot buy an M16 at a gun show, period, because doing so requires hundreds of dollars worth of tax stamps and government paperwork. You cannot own a grenade, period. However, my hunting rifles are somehow contributing to the violence associated with the Mexican drug cartels.
Anyhow, I digress. The real reason I am nine kinds of pissed off right now concerning Mexico is the fact that our government is absolutely REFUSING to do a damned thing about the drug cartel violence spilling over into America. The United States has four different branches of its military available for use during foreign conflicts, and three branches available for use in domestic operations.
In this discussion, the applicable branch would be our National Guard. In Arizona, the US government has essentially allowed an invasion of Mexican drug cartels to take over three border-area counties. Not simply Mexican immigrants coming to America to work or do whatever they do, but armed gangs of drug smugglers.
If this is not a justifiable reason to have troops on the ground right here in America, I'm not absolutely certain what is. Unfortunately, Obama&Co have surrendered these areas of Arizona...all the while, National Guard units are still being shot at in another desert on the other side of the world, for the sake of "staying the course" in another war against another bumpersticker slogan called "Terror".
Many would like to blame this on American citizens providing a profit motive for the cartels by continuing to smoke/snort/inject meth/coke/smack, but I cannot justifiably lend any credence to this explanation. I cannot rightfully blame this situation on people exercising their God-given right to lead their own lives as they see fit, simply because the government has decided that it is illegal...especially when our government's prohibition is the only thing providing a profit motive large enough to engage in this kind of violence. History has shown that a market free from excessive regulation will allow entrepreneurs to set up shop peacefully, just as they did with drugs prior to prohibition of drugs. History has also shown, during alcohol prohibition, that government prohibition will not stop the trade; rather, it will only stop the PEACEFUL trade while simultaneously providing organized criminal organizations the opportunity to make a profit and protect this profit with violence. When you outlaw the sale of dope, only outlaws will sell dope...but it will still be sold!
So, you can blame this mess in Arizona on "crackheads and wetbacks", but only if you refuse to open your eyes and take a long hard look at reality. The hard reality of the situation is the fact that a large chunk of our country has been essentially taken over by Mexican drug cartels, and the following reasons are directly responsible:
A) America still engages in domestic policies requiring the outright prohibition of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.
B) America still engages in foreign policies requiring the branches of our military directly responsible for guarding our nation (I.E. the "National Guard"...you'd think the name would give it away?) being in far-off corners of the world.
As I've said before, you could have a military outpost for every 20 miles of our international borders. That's "borders", plural, with an "S". You could have this, if our government would simply close down half of our completely unneeded overseas military bases. Let's do the math and see what happens when you put only 200 people at each installation...
There are 672 hours in every 28 day (four week) period. Divided into twelve hour shifts (just like process operators at Dow Chemical), you now have 56 shifts every 28 days. If you have a man working seven days on and seven days off, you need four men to make this run around the clock. It will require 80 men to secure our borders, per outpost, to put one man per mile on our border if we have an outpost every 20 miles...leaving the other 120 people to work as support staff (administration, motor pool, medical, et cetera). And, keep in mind, this is with only 200 men per outpost. Imagine if we had as many people as our foreign outposts currently have? Now, think about the logistical ease we would have, having our outposts spread out every 20 miles, as opposed to spread across the world. That's a whole lot of money!
Now, keep in mind, this would require closing only HALF of America's overseas bases...
Monday, May 3, 2010
Arizona, "wetbacks", and dirty cops...
As I'm sure you're aware, Arizona has recently passed a law making it a crime to break the law. One would expect it to be enforced by the Department of Official Redundancy Department, but apparently it's supposed to be enforced by every agency in the state.
Now, let's talk about the aspect of immigration. Personally, I'm all for it. What I don't like about illegal immigration is NOT the fact that people don't feel like waiting for years (or even decades) while sitting through red tape, but rather, the way our government makes things so complicated.
Obviously, having a very porous border is dangerous, from a national security aspect. We have ZERO control over what goes through our borders...both of them. Daily, we see episodes of "border violence" spilling over from Mexico, as a result of our government's prohibition of certain illicit substances.
Does this mean I have a problem with the Mexican people? HELL, NO! Anyone who wants to give an honest day's work for an honest day's wage at fair market value should have the freedom to do so.
The Mexican culture has given me so much that it's not even funny. The sense of liberty that I feel so strongly about, that was bred into me as a resident of the Great State of Texas, would likely not be present if it weren't for the multitudes of Mexican citizens rebelling against Santa Anna. In case you've forgotten...they fought, bled, and died right alongside white settlers for the cause of Texas Independence.
Today, those in the Brazosport area take decent Mexican food and cheap lawn care for granted, as they have become cliche as SUVs with excessive chrome, neck tattoos from jail, and seventeen children in the back of a pickup truck.
But is that what it means to be a Mexican in America? Hardly. Those who bitch and moan about "those damned dirty wetbacks and their anchor babies" don't have a clue. You can't fault someone for wanting a better life for themselves. And honestly, you can't really fault those who are American citizens, and don't want to see them over here.
Every week, I see almost a solid third of my paycheck go toward taxes, with ZERO return on this "investment". I have an "on the books legal" job, I have a valid social security number, I have a valid driver's license, and everything else necessary to be a "productive" member of society...which, essentially, means I have everything necessary for the government to steal from me. I'm nowhere not in the lowest tax bracket, but I'm not by any means "rich". I'm getting by, but still earning less than the average "on the books" American. One third of my check is gone before I ever see it, because I don't have the write-offs to keep it.
Unfortunately, our entire government is set up to perpetuate this. Our economy is, like it or not, dependent upon cheap labor. People who earn $3 per day in Mexico will gladly come to the US and bust their ass for $3 per hour. People in the US will gladly pay $3 per hour to a Mexican if they can get away with it, and they do.
If our government had any desire, WHATSOEVER, to change the situation, they would pull their heads out of their collective ass and start doing what makes sense. Of course, in doing so, it would alleviate the need for a good bit of our government.
Of course, there are two very serious issues that simply won't be overcome in our lifetime. For starters, the average government worker earns roughly twice what the average private-sector employee earns, which takes away any real desire for reducing the necessity of our government. Second, the biggest "border security" and/or "border violence" issue is related directly to drug cartels.
So, here's what needs to be done, regarding the immigration situation, in my not-so-humble opinion...and most importantly, WHY it needs to be done:
A) ELIMINATE DRUG PROHIBITION.
This should be common sense for any student of history. Al Capone didn't get rich because he was ruthless. He got rich because he was ruthless and willing to supply a market with a product that had been outlawed. Eliminate drug prohibition, and you instantly castrate the drug cartels. When you make a product available for anyone with a valid license (such as they do with booze), you keep the market filled with entrepreneurs who are willing to obey the law.
B) SIMPLIFY THE IMMIGRATION/CITIZENSHIP PROCESS.
Again, this should be common sense. If a person wants to be an American citizen, let him fill out the paperwork, denounce his previous citizenship, and become an American. Encourage him to learn English, appreciate his new homeland, and stop driving him into the underground. Let him get his papers, his Social Security card, and a W2 form so he can start paying taxes like the rest of us.
C) GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF FOREIGN MILITARY BASES, AND PUT THEM ON THE BORDER.
We have over 700 military bases worldwide. Close down half of them, relocate them to both our Mexican AND Canadian borders, and we can have a base every 20 miles. Force everyone wishing to come into this nation to fill out the proper paperwork, and go through an approved point of entry...and shoot EVERYONE that refuses to comply. Keep in mind, this can be accomplished by closing only HALF of our overseas bases.
If we were to do these three things, we would have no more problem with illegal immigration. No more will you see people being gunned down in border towns over drug-related violence, because there is a controlled and regulated market. You see no more whorehouses specializing in 15 year old Mexican girls near the ship channel, because these girls don't have to be smuggled across the border. You don't see day laborers having to wait in the Home Depot parking lot (while hiding when the cops roll by), because they are able to have a legal job.
Most importantly, you have stripped away the biggest threat to the freedom of actual American citizens. I can't count the number of times my car has been ransacked by cops, who have gone on fishing expeditions for dope after pulling me over for the most trivial of reasons (yes, one even pulled me over because my taillights weren't "red enough"!). Cops must justify their jobs by inventing problems, in the absence of actual problems. While the majority of agencies do not refer to this as a "quota" system, most acknowledge that a "minimum performance standard" exists. In other words, a cop has to write a specific amount of tickets and make a specific amount of arrests, or face either disciplinary action or a lack of promotion (and the benefits that go along with it).
If you do away with the criminality of drugs, you've instantly done away with the crime that consumes the majority of the time and money spent by our government with regard to law enforcement. Our border patrol doesn't care about illegal immigrants, they want to bust a truckload of dope. Our local cops don't care about burglars, they want to bust the guy with a roach in his ashtray.
In the case of Arizona, the big new thing is now the issue of catching "illegal aliens", because that's where the budget money is gonna flow (just as it is elsewhere already, with drugs)...which is why we've already seen at least one American citizen arrested and detained for failure to produce a birth certificate after being pulled over on a chickenshit traffic stop.
This issue is NOT about illegal immigration, but rather, about a government power grab. It has used the "illegal immigration" issue to garner support. It relies on both unabashed racism in the form of supporters who want to see "all those wetbacks sent back across the border", as well as people who work for a living and pay taxes who get tired of seeing a bunch of illegals they are paying for in the Emergency Room because they can't legally get health coverage.
The notion of "reasonable suspicion" is, pure and simple, BULLSHIT. There is no possible way to have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person may be an illegal immigrant, without violating the law against racial profiling. I am white as a raw biscuit, but I don't even possess a birth certificate with my legal name on it. Are they going to throw me in jail until I produce one (or, for that matter, even ASK me for one), if I get stopped by a cop in Arizona? Doubtful.
Arizona is, interestingly enough, home to not only a metric shitload of illegal immigrants, but also a whole lot of UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHO HAPPEN TO BE OF HISPANIC ORIGIN...just like Texas, and many other border states.
Take, for instance, my little brother. He is currently 22 years old. His father's heritage is half Mexican and half Spaniard, although this man's youngest immigrant ancestor came here three generations ago. On our mother's side, there's a bit of Comanche in our blood. While my father was the son of East Texas hillbillies, my brother's father was not. He has very distinct "native" features, given the overwhelming presence of native blood in his veins. He is dark-skinned, has straight dark hair, et cetera...and, given the environment he grew up in, speaks fluent Spanish and his English has a Hispanic accent. My brother is, for all intents and purposes, a Hispanic American...but, most importantly, he is an AMERICAN, just the same as you and I. He doesn't carry a birth certificate around with him in public, either.
Is he any less of an American than his half-brother, even though we were both born and raised the the Great State of Texas? Imagine, if you will, the following hypothetical situation:
Me and my half-brother are born and raised in Arizona, under the same set of circumstances concerning our parents. We both get really hammered drunk together at mom's house one night, wake up in the morning, and decide to take a leisurely stroll down to the local diner. Because we're both very hung over, neither one of us has shaved all weekend, and we look "suspicious" for walking down the street in such a manner (it's happened to my pasty ass, so please don't tell me it can't happen!), and we've both left our wallets at home. It's long-since been a habit of mine to not carry my money in my wallet, as it was something I picked up from my father...and my brother never has any money, so this scenario is a bit more than just "possible"! Anyhow, we get stopped. Being half-brothers, we have different last names, and the fact that we're both blind as bats and wear glasses is about the only physical characteristic we actually share. To this day, it's hard to convince people we're actually brothers if those people don't know our family history.
I'm the grey-haired white guy wearing Levi's and a pair of work boots. He's the 22 year old Mexican dude with hair halfway down to his ass, with a wife-beater that shows off the pot leaf tattoo on his shoulder. When the cop chirps his siren to stop us, who faces the "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant? Is it the aging white dude, or is it the Mexican kid? Remember, we're brothers. Neither one of us has ID. I grew up around hillbillies, and speak with a slight southern drawl. He grew up around his Hispanic family, and speaks with the appropriate accent of someone who has done so.
In all likelihood, I'm going to be walking back to mom's house, so we can round up an attorney and go down to the I.C.E. detention center...hopefully, with this poor bastard's birth certificate in my hand, so I can spring him from jail.
This is America? FUCK YOU, ARIZONA!
Now, let's talk about the aspect of immigration. Personally, I'm all for it. What I don't like about illegal immigration is NOT the fact that people don't feel like waiting for years (or even decades) while sitting through red tape, but rather, the way our government makes things so complicated.
Obviously, having a very porous border is dangerous, from a national security aspect. We have ZERO control over what goes through our borders...both of them. Daily, we see episodes of "border violence" spilling over from Mexico, as a result of our government's prohibition of certain illicit substances.
Does this mean I have a problem with the Mexican people? HELL, NO! Anyone who wants to give an honest day's work for an honest day's wage at fair market value should have the freedom to do so.
The Mexican culture has given me so much that it's not even funny. The sense of liberty that I feel so strongly about, that was bred into me as a resident of the Great State of Texas, would likely not be present if it weren't for the multitudes of Mexican citizens rebelling against Santa Anna. In case you've forgotten...they fought, bled, and died right alongside white settlers for the cause of Texas Independence.
Today, those in the Brazosport area take decent Mexican food and cheap lawn care for granted, as they have become cliche as SUVs with excessive chrome, neck tattoos from jail, and seventeen children in the back of a pickup truck.
But is that what it means to be a Mexican in America? Hardly. Those who bitch and moan about "those damned dirty wetbacks and their anchor babies" don't have a clue. You can't fault someone for wanting a better life for themselves. And honestly, you can't really fault those who are American citizens, and don't want to see them over here.
Every week, I see almost a solid third of my paycheck go toward taxes, with ZERO return on this "investment". I have an "on the books legal" job, I have a valid social security number, I have a valid driver's license, and everything else necessary to be a "productive" member of society...which, essentially, means I have everything necessary for the government to steal from me. I'm nowhere not in the lowest tax bracket, but I'm not by any means "rich". I'm getting by, but still earning less than the average "on the books" American. One third of my check is gone before I ever see it, because I don't have the write-offs to keep it.
Unfortunately, our entire government is set up to perpetuate this. Our economy is, like it or not, dependent upon cheap labor. People who earn $3 per day in Mexico will gladly come to the US and bust their ass for $3 per hour. People in the US will gladly pay $3 per hour to a Mexican if they can get away with it, and they do.
If our government had any desire, WHATSOEVER, to change the situation, they would pull their heads out of their collective ass and start doing what makes sense. Of course, in doing so, it would alleviate the need for a good bit of our government.
Of course, there are two very serious issues that simply won't be overcome in our lifetime. For starters, the average government worker earns roughly twice what the average private-sector employee earns, which takes away any real desire for reducing the necessity of our government. Second, the biggest "border security" and/or "border violence" issue is related directly to drug cartels.
So, here's what needs to be done, regarding the immigration situation, in my not-so-humble opinion...and most importantly, WHY it needs to be done:
A) ELIMINATE DRUG PROHIBITION.
This should be common sense for any student of history. Al Capone didn't get rich because he was ruthless. He got rich because he was ruthless and willing to supply a market with a product that had been outlawed. Eliminate drug prohibition, and you instantly castrate the drug cartels. When you make a product available for anyone with a valid license (such as they do with booze), you keep the market filled with entrepreneurs who are willing to obey the law.
B) SIMPLIFY THE IMMIGRATION/CITIZENSHIP PROCESS.
Again, this should be common sense. If a person wants to be an American citizen, let him fill out the paperwork, denounce his previous citizenship, and become an American. Encourage him to learn English, appreciate his new homeland, and stop driving him into the underground. Let him get his papers, his Social Security card, and a W2 form so he can start paying taxes like the rest of us.
C) GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF FOREIGN MILITARY BASES, AND PUT THEM ON THE BORDER.
We have over 700 military bases worldwide. Close down half of them, relocate them to both our Mexican AND Canadian borders, and we can have a base every 20 miles. Force everyone wishing to come into this nation to fill out the proper paperwork, and go through an approved point of entry...and shoot EVERYONE that refuses to comply. Keep in mind, this can be accomplished by closing only HALF of our overseas bases.
If we were to do these three things, we would have no more problem with illegal immigration. No more will you see people being gunned down in border towns over drug-related violence, because there is a controlled and regulated market. You see no more whorehouses specializing in 15 year old Mexican girls near the ship channel, because these girls don't have to be smuggled across the border. You don't see day laborers having to wait in the Home Depot parking lot (while hiding when the cops roll by), because they are able to have a legal job.
Most importantly, you have stripped away the biggest threat to the freedom of actual American citizens. I can't count the number of times my car has been ransacked by cops, who have gone on fishing expeditions for dope after pulling me over for the most trivial of reasons (yes, one even pulled me over because my taillights weren't "red enough"!). Cops must justify their jobs by inventing problems, in the absence of actual problems. While the majority of agencies do not refer to this as a "quota" system, most acknowledge that a "minimum performance standard" exists. In other words, a cop has to write a specific amount of tickets and make a specific amount of arrests, or face either disciplinary action or a lack of promotion (and the benefits that go along with it).
If you do away with the criminality of drugs, you've instantly done away with the crime that consumes the majority of the time and money spent by our government with regard to law enforcement. Our border patrol doesn't care about illegal immigrants, they want to bust a truckload of dope. Our local cops don't care about burglars, they want to bust the guy with a roach in his ashtray.
In the case of Arizona, the big new thing is now the issue of catching "illegal aliens", because that's where the budget money is gonna flow (just as it is elsewhere already, with drugs)...which is why we've already seen at least one American citizen arrested and detained for failure to produce a birth certificate after being pulled over on a chickenshit traffic stop.
This issue is NOT about illegal immigration, but rather, about a government power grab. It has used the "illegal immigration" issue to garner support. It relies on both unabashed racism in the form of supporters who want to see "all those wetbacks sent back across the border", as well as people who work for a living and pay taxes who get tired of seeing a bunch of illegals they are paying for in the Emergency Room because they can't legally get health coverage.
The notion of "reasonable suspicion" is, pure and simple, BULLSHIT. There is no possible way to have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person may be an illegal immigrant, without violating the law against racial profiling. I am white as a raw biscuit, but I don't even possess a birth certificate with my legal name on it. Are they going to throw me in jail until I produce one (or, for that matter, even ASK me for one), if I get stopped by a cop in Arizona? Doubtful.
Arizona is, interestingly enough, home to not only a metric shitload of illegal immigrants, but also a whole lot of UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHO HAPPEN TO BE OF HISPANIC ORIGIN...just like Texas, and many other border states.
Take, for instance, my little brother. He is currently 22 years old. His father's heritage is half Mexican and half Spaniard, although this man's youngest immigrant ancestor came here three generations ago. On our mother's side, there's a bit of Comanche in our blood. While my father was the son of East Texas hillbillies, my brother's father was not. He has very distinct "native" features, given the overwhelming presence of native blood in his veins. He is dark-skinned, has straight dark hair, et cetera...and, given the environment he grew up in, speaks fluent Spanish and his English has a Hispanic accent. My brother is, for all intents and purposes, a Hispanic American...but, most importantly, he is an AMERICAN, just the same as you and I. He doesn't carry a birth certificate around with him in public, either.
Is he any less of an American than his half-brother, even though we were both born and raised the the Great State of Texas? Imagine, if you will, the following hypothetical situation:
Me and my half-brother are born and raised in Arizona, under the same set of circumstances concerning our parents. We both get really hammered drunk together at mom's house one night, wake up in the morning, and decide to take a leisurely stroll down to the local diner. Because we're both very hung over, neither one of us has shaved all weekend, and we look "suspicious" for walking down the street in such a manner (it's happened to my pasty ass, so please don't tell me it can't happen!), and we've both left our wallets at home. It's long-since been a habit of mine to not carry my money in my wallet, as it was something I picked up from my father...and my brother never has any money, so this scenario is a bit more than just "possible"! Anyhow, we get stopped. Being half-brothers, we have different last names, and the fact that we're both blind as bats and wear glasses is about the only physical characteristic we actually share. To this day, it's hard to convince people we're actually brothers if those people don't know our family history.
I'm the grey-haired white guy wearing Levi's and a pair of work boots. He's the 22 year old Mexican dude with hair halfway down to his ass, with a wife-beater that shows off the pot leaf tattoo on his shoulder. When the cop chirps his siren to stop us, who faces the "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant? Is it the aging white dude, or is it the Mexican kid? Remember, we're brothers. Neither one of us has ID. I grew up around hillbillies, and speak with a slight southern drawl. He grew up around his Hispanic family, and speaks with the appropriate accent of someone who has done so.
In all likelihood, I'm going to be walking back to mom's house, so we can round up an attorney and go down to the I.C.E. detention center...hopefully, with this poor bastard's birth certificate in my hand, so I can spring him from jail.
This is America? FUCK YOU, ARIZONA!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
On the subject of Christianity and freedom...
One of the favorite verses (or, at least, one of his favorites to quote when we're arguing about the issue of statism!) of my cousin Will would have to be the first passage of Romans 13. He seems to interpret this as an endorsement of totalitarianism and the "mob rule" of 51% Majority Democracy. Realizing that we DO NOT live in a "democracy", but rather a Constitutional Republic", I tend to disagree with him quite often on this subject.
In my personal opinion, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in this nation, and it is one of the greatest gifts my Almighty God ever bestowed upon me. It also trumps the decisions of every cop, district attorney, legislator, and judge...with the notable exception of when our federal legislature properly acts to modify it.
As such, this constitution has the final say, which gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside when I disregard those who act OUTSIDE their lawful authority of the constitution...and, in my own opinion, the Bible is backing me up on this.
While I understand that this nation was founded by people who readily identified themselves as "Christian", I do not buy into the baloney spewed forth by wallbuilders.org and their ilk, who claim that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation". Simply put, history tells us it wasn't...and our founders had good reason for doing so.
Even within the basic general umbrella of "Christianity", under which I personally fall, there is a great deal of disagreement over beliefs once you get past the general observation that Christ is our Lord and Savior. My uncle's church physically demonstrates a belief and reverence toward Christ by drinking wine every Sunday, but my grandmother's church declares the mere act of drinking to be a sin. The list could go on, but I think you see where I'm going with that.
Our founders instituted a secular (read: NOT ATHEIST, NOR CHRISTIAN) government that allowed each person to worship as he saw fit. This was the entire purpose of the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause".
I am a taxpayer. I am an ANGRY taxpayer. I am what the IRS would (and probably has!) labeled as a "Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer"! As such, I hate to see my money being wasted on things that are prohibited by the constitution...mainly, because I hate to see an entire third of my paycheck being stolen from me before I eve get a chance to pull it out of that little envelope.
My anger toward unnecessary taxpayer expenditures run the gamut. Among the things I'm very upset about are unconstitutional aggressive wars, welfare hand-outs, "wars" against bumpersticker slogans like poverty, drugs, et cetera.
Also, there are public expenditures at our local level that fly in the face of the US Constitution, since the First Amendment has been incorporated to the Several States via the SCOTUS. Infringements of our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly don't typically waste money that wouldn't be spent otherwise...so while I do plenty of bitching about these infringements, I understand that they aren't really wasting money in most cases.
As far as the First Amendment goes, the infringement that seems to always seems to be costing the most money occurs when our right to religious freedom is stepped on. I am a Christian. Most of the people who actually take the time to read this also identify themselves as "Christian". However, even though people who claim Christianity as their religion may be the "majority" in this nation, they are not the ONLY taxpayers in this nation.
We all have a right to not be forced to engage in publicly-funded displays or endorsements of religion...yes, even if it's a "Nativity Scene" in front of city hall. I personally don't have a problem with that, nor do I honestly have a problem with any other religion's public displays, as it's not costing me money. What DOES cost money, however, are legal battles that get fought when people offended by government-endorsed public displays of Christianity are willing to take them to court.
Personally, I never really cared about the opinions of others, so long as it was simply an OPINION...and not something that actually affected my life. However, there are a good many taxpaying Americans who actually ARE offended by the notion of Christianity.
To put yourself in their shoes, I'll ask...how would you feel if your local city government decided that, instead of putting up a nativity scene during the winter holiday season, it instead allowed a Wiccan organization to put up a lighted pentacle in observance of the Winter Solstice on the courthouse lawn?
You and I both know that many otherwise decent Christians would, out of ignorance, start foaming at the mouth and organizing protests against such "devil worship"...even though every Wiccan I've ever had the pleasure of meeting followed a personal set of morals that is more "Christ-like" than the majority of Christians I know.
People love bashing the ACLU over the fact that they had the audacity to sue the federal government, in order to have a large and obtrusive cross removed from the gates of a US Military cemetery on grounds that it violated the establishment clause...and, yet, what these same people continue neglecting to mention is the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE BURIED THERE ARE JEWISH!
Imagine if your husband, brother, or son were buried in a military cemetery that had a Muslim crescent and star emblazoned on the front gates? Would you feel like your constitutional rights had been violated?
The fact remains that our government is simply NOT permitted to endorse religion in any form or fashion...and, while a law may not have been passed that specifically endorses religion, TAXPAYER-FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES, AND BUREAUS ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, PRACTICES, AND/OR RECOGNITION AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY. The reason for this, of course, is what I have been getting at since the early part of this posting...it boils down to our government forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for these agencies.
The moment a law is passed granting our government the right to tax a citizen or business, any organization or agency receiving tax dollars is prohibited from endorsing or officially recognizing any particular religion if one religion is shown preference over another.
This is, whether it suits our purposes or not, the LAW OF THE LAND. Our constitution is a gift from God, and we should respect it. Our religious beliefs belong in our churches, our homes, and our hearts. We are allowed to exercise our personal religious freedoms anywhere we choose, unless it requires taxpayer money to do so.
You wouldn't like it if views you didn't agree with were forced upon you, while being paid for with the taxes stolen from your paycheck, so please don't expect others to sit down, shut up, and smile as you force your beliefs on others while forcing them to pay for it. Our government, and everything it owns, is in reality actually owned by ALL American citizens...Christian or otherwise.
In my personal opinion, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in this nation, and it is one of the greatest gifts my Almighty God ever bestowed upon me. It also trumps the decisions of every cop, district attorney, legislator, and judge...with the notable exception of when our federal legislature properly acts to modify it.
As such, this constitution has the final say, which gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside when I disregard those who act OUTSIDE their lawful authority of the constitution...and, in my own opinion, the Bible is backing me up on this.
While I understand that this nation was founded by people who readily identified themselves as "Christian", I do not buy into the baloney spewed forth by wallbuilders.org and their ilk, who claim that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation". Simply put, history tells us it wasn't...and our founders had good reason for doing so.
Even within the basic general umbrella of "Christianity", under which I personally fall, there is a great deal of disagreement over beliefs once you get past the general observation that Christ is our Lord and Savior. My uncle's church physically demonstrates a belief and reverence toward Christ by drinking wine every Sunday, but my grandmother's church declares the mere act of drinking to be a sin. The list could go on, but I think you see where I'm going with that.
Our founders instituted a secular (read: NOT ATHEIST, NOR CHRISTIAN) government that allowed each person to worship as he saw fit. This was the entire purpose of the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause".
I am a taxpayer. I am an ANGRY taxpayer. I am what the IRS would (and probably has!) labeled as a "Potentially Dangerous Taxpayer"! As such, I hate to see my money being wasted on things that are prohibited by the constitution...mainly, because I hate to see an entire third of my paycheck being stolen from me before I eve get a chance to pull it out of that little envelope.
My anger toward unnecessary taxpayer expenditures run the gamut. Among the things I'm very upset about are unconstitutional aggressive wars, welfare hand-outs, "wars" against bumpersticker slogans like poverty, drugs, et cetera.
Also, there are public expenditures at our local level that fly in the face of the US Constitution, since the First Amendment has been incorporated to the Several States via the SCOTUS. Infringements of our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of peaceable assembly don't typically waste money that wouldn't be spent otherwise...so while I do plenty of bitching about these infringements, I understand that they aren't really wasting money in most cases.
As far as the First Amendment goes, the infringement that seems to always seems to be costing the most money occurs when our right to religious freedom is stepped on. I am a Christian. Most of the people who actually take the time to read this also identify themselves as "Christian". However, even though people who claim Christianity as their religion may be the "majority" in this nation, they are not the ONLY taxpayers in this nation.
We all have a right to not be forced to engage in publicly-funded displays or endorsements of religion...yes, even if it's a "Nativity Scene" in front of city hall. I personally don't have a problem with that, nor do I honestly have a problem with any other religion's public displays, as it's not costing me money. What DOES cost money, however, are legal battles that get fought when people offended by government-endorsed public displays of Christianity are willing to take them to court.
Personally, I never really cared about the opinions of others, so long as it was simply an OPINION...and not something that actually affected my life. However, there are a good many taxpaying Americans who actually ARE offended by the notion of Christianity.
To put yourself in their shoes, I'll ask...how would you feel if your local city government decided that, instead of putting up a nativity scene during the winter holiday season, it instead allowed a Wiccan organization to put up a lighted pentacle in observance of the Winter Solstice on the courthouse lawn?
You and I both know that many otherwise decent Christians would, out of ignorance, start foaming at the mouth and organizing protests against such "devil worship"...even though every Wiccan I've ever had the pleasure of meeting followed a personal set of morals that is more "Christ-like" than the majority of Christians I know.
People love bashing the ACLU over the fact that they had the audacity to sue the federal government, in order to have a large and obtrusive cross removed from the gates of a US Military cemetery on grounds that it violated the establishment clause...and, yet, what these same people continue neglecting to mention is the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE BURIED THERE ARE JEWISH!
Imagine if your husband, brother, or son were buried in a military cemetery that had a Muslim crescent and star emblazoned on the front gates? Would you feel like your constitutional rights had been violated?
The fact remains that our government is simply NOT permitted to endorse religion in any form or fashion...and, while a law may not have been passed that specifically endorses religion, TAXPAYER-FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES, AND BUREAUS ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, PRACTICES, AND/OR RECOGNITION AS A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY. The reason for this, of course, is what I have been getting at since the early part of this posting...it boils down to our government forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for these agencies.
The moment a law is passed granting our government the right to tax a citizen or business, any organization or agency receiving tax dollars is prohibited from endorsing or officially recognizing any particular religion if one religion is shown preference over another.
This is, whether it suits our purposes or not, the LAW OF THE LAND. Our constitution is a gift from God, and we should respect it. Our religious beliefs belong in our churches, our homes, and our hearts. We are allowed to exercise our personal religious freedoms anywhere we choose, unless it requires taxpayer money to do so.
You wouldn't like it if views you didn't agree with were forced upon you, while being paid for with the taxes stolen from your paycheck, so please don't expect others to sit down, shut up, and smile as you force your beliefs on others while forcing them to pay for it. Our government, and everything it owns, is in reality actually owned by ALL American citizens...Christian or otherwise.
Friday, April 16, 2010
When the shit hits close to home...
If you know me, you know that the "War On Drugs" hits very close to home for me, in so many ways. My youngest brother was a convicted felon before he was old enough to have a driver's license, due to crimes committed in an effort to support his drug addiction and our state's willingness to try children as adults so politicians can get votes.
The War on Drugs is responsible for a particular incident in my own life that, ironically, was both the biggest reason for my decision to enlist in the United States Marine Corps...as well as being the cause of my getting booted for fraudulent enlistment. The real irony? I had, at that point, never even smoked a cigarette. My "experimentation with drugs", at the time, consisted of taking a single sip of champagne at a wedding when I was twelve.
In the past week, there have been three incidents that severely trouble my heart.
I was made aware of the first incident via a friend of mine working for the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office. I was told of how a classmate and mutual friend of ours had gone down a different route, and had somehow gotten tangled up in methamphetamine.
The second was a major bust involving nine people in Brazoria County (including a girl I didn't personally know, but was known by friends of mine) involving the meth trade.
The third incident is, tonight, a "web-first breaking news" story about 16 high school kids being arrested for drugs at Columbia High School in West Columbia, TX today.
Now, before I go any further, I'll come right out and say that I am "old school". I was born in the latter part of the Carter administration, which means that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was coming about in full swing when I entered the first grade.
My mother, a drug abuser, was also a registered nurse...which means I had access to her textbooks when I'd go to visit as a youngster. Me, being the introverted little shit that I was, liked to read a lot....and I learned quite a bit about the effects of drugs. I also went to a public high school, and had health class. I knew drugs were bad for you.
The thing that really taught me what was up, however, was having a father to teach me. I distinctly remember driving through Houston one day with him as a teenager, and we had stopped at a gas station. If memory serves, it was because he needed a beer, but I suppose that's probably not important. Anyhow, there was a toothless bum wearing a ripped t-shirt in the middle of February, begging for change. My father looked at me and said, "See that? That's what drugs do to you." Needless to say, I've got enough problems, I never felt the need to complicate them with a crack pipe.
Obviously, there are all manner of crimes assorted with drugs. You get murder, robbery, and theft when people can't afford their fix, can't pay their drug debts, can't report being ripped off, et cetera.
You can't open a newspaper today without reading a story about this happening last night. Mexico, formerly an impoverished nation that relied upon American tourist dollars, is now even poorer because Americans are afraid to travel there. In Ciudad Juarez, the drug cartels have reportedly completely taken over and now essentially own the city.
Right here in America, people are being arrested in record numbers for drug offenses.
Is it worth it? Not quite.
Drugs are bad, m'kay? Meth, coke, smack, et cetera will KILL YOU. If it doesn't kill you while you're doing it, it's going to kill you slowly over an extended period of time. Everyone with half a brain knows this.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE THREAT OF GOING TO PRISON IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE, IF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH DOESN'T? Seriously, grow a fucking brain.
If you're too ignorant to know that snorting anything made out of anti-freeze, rat poison, diesel engine starting fluid, et cetera isn't bad for you, making it against the law won't help.
Does it suck to have some crackhead rip off your shit? Of course it does. Are our drug laws working? Hell, no!
Imagine, if you will, that meth, smack, coke, pot, et cetera are instantly legalized in this nation. What happens?
Instantly, a full 20% of prisoners are no longer the responsibility of the American taxpayer, because they don't stay locked up for the nonviolent offense of merely being in possession of, or selling, drugs.
Then, the majority of our law enforcement resources are freed up, because we don't have years-long investigations into someone selling meth from their backyard lab. Assaults drop when drug debts gone bad are handled in the courts. Tax bases are instantly multiplied, because dealers get out of the black market and start selling in regulated markets. Drugs become harder for the average teenager to get, because dealers know they have to ask for ID or go to jail.
Most normal people don't smoke crack, snort meth, shoot smack, et cetera. Those who choose to do it will continue to do it, regardless of prohibition...as evident by what I've seen this past week. You can't legislate intelligence. I wouldn't snort coke if it were legal. Would you?
So where does drug legalization and regulation leave us? Less expense, more resources. This allows our law enforcement agencies to go after that crackhead that stole your shit.
I read yesterday about nine people getting busted for a "meth ring". The investigation lasted for more than a year, and tied up resources from several jurisdictions. Before the news was even printed, someone else had already fired up another meth lab, because methheads aren't going anywhere. Seriously, you can cook it up in a 2-liter bottle as you drive down the street. You ain't gonna win that war!
So now, a select nine people have been arrested. Millions of tax dollars were pissed away to do this. These people have lost everything but their lives, if convicted. The charges carry a mandatory ten year sentence, with a maximum of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Their property has been seized. Their families are destroyed.
Did it put any kind of dent in the meth epidemic we're facing in this nation? Hell, no. It didn't even put a dent in the meth problem IN THIS COUNTY. Someone else already had a batch cooking up before the high these people were responsible for had worn off. "Getting meth heads off the street"? Give that bullshit to someone who might buy it, because I know better.
"Injustice" occurs when our laws do more harm than the potential harm they are designed to prevent.
Just like an accidental head injury, you may recover from a meth addiction. You may not. That's the chance you take when you decide to snort meth. You can arrest a dozen people per year (which is far better than our local authorities are doing) for cooking meth, and you'll have ten dozen others who are ready, willing, and able to take their place the next day.
I don't know the people who got busted...their lives may have been salvageable, they may not have been. However, I will say this to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the busts:
A) You did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the meth issues in this county.
B) You have completely destroyed the lives of nine people, as well as the lives of their loved ones.
C) You have cost the taxpayers of this nation, and specifically this county, an immense amount of money with this "intense investigation", and again, you truly accomplished NOTHING.
D) With the mandatory minimum sentencing of the charges, you have saddled this nation with at least five million dollars worth of expenses in nothing more than incarceration for these people. This doesn't cover expenses relating to court costs, appeals, et cetera...and certainly doesn't even get started on the millions of dollars spent on the initial investigation.
The War on Drugs is responsible for a particular incident in my own life that, ironically, was both the biggest reason for my decision to enlist in the United States Marine Corps...as well as being the cause of my getting booted for fraudulent enlistment. The real irony? I had, at that point, never even smoked a cigarette. My "experimentation with drugs", at the time, consisted of taking a single sip of champagne at a wedding when I was twelve.
In the past week, there have been three incidents that severely trouble my heart.
I was made aware of the first incident via a friend of mine working for the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office. I was told of how a classmate and mutual friend of ours had gone down a different route, and had somehow gotten tangled up in methamphetamine.
The second was a major bust involving nine people in Brazoria County (including a girl I didn't personally know, but was known by friends of mine) involving the meth trade.
The third incident is, tonight, a "web-first breaking news" story about 16 high school kids being arrested for drugs at Columbia High School in West Columbia, TX today.
Now, before I go any further, I'll come right out and say that I am "old school". I was born in the latter part of the Carter administration, which means that Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign was coming about in full swing when I entered the first grade.
My mother, a drug abuser, was also a registered nurse...which means I had access to her textbooks when I'd go to visit as a youngster. Me, being the introverted little shit that I was, liked to read a lot....and I learned quite a bit about the effects of drugs. I also went to a public high school, and had health class. I knew drugs were bad for you.
The thing that really taught me what was up, however, was having a father to teach me. I distinctly remember driving through Houston one day with him as a teenager, and we had stopped at a gas station. If memory serves, it was because he needed a beer, but I suppose that's probably not important. Anyhow, there was a toothless bum wearing a ripped t-shirt in the middle of February, begging for change. My father looked at me and said, "See that? That's what drugs do to you." Needless to say, I've got enough problems, I never felt the need to complicate them with a crack pipe.
Obviously, there are all manner of crimes assorted with drugs. You get murder, robbery, and theft when people can't afford their fix, can't pay their drug debts, can't report being ripped off, et cetera.
You can't open a newspaper today without reading a story about this happening last night. Mexico, formerly an impoverished nation that relied upon American tourist dollars, is now even poorer because Americans are afraid to travel there. In Ciudad Juarez, the drug cartels have reportedly completely taken over and now essentially own the city.
Right here in America, people are being arrested in record numbers for drug offenses.
Is it worth it? Not quite.
Drugs are bad, m'kay? Meth, coke, smack, et cetera will KILL YOU. If it doesn't kill you while you're doing it, it's going to kill you slowly over an extended period of time. Everyone with half a brain knows this.
DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THE THREAT OF GOING TO PRISON IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE, IF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEATH DOESN'T? Seriously, grow a fucking brain.
If you're too ignorant to know that snorting anything made out of anti-freeze, rat poison, diesel engine starting fluid, et cetera isn't bad for you, making it against the law won't help.
Does it suck to have some crackhead rip off your shit? Of course it does. Are our drug laws working? Hell, no!
Imagine, if you will, that meth, smack, coke, pot, et cetera are instantly legalized in this nation. What happens?
Instantly, a full 20% of prisoners are no longer the responsibility of the American taxpayer, because they don't stay locked up for the nonviolent offense of merely being in possession of, or selling, drugs.
Then, the majority of our law enforcement resources are freed up, because we don't have years-long investigations into someone selling meth from their backyard lab. Assaults drop when drug debts gone bad are handled in the courts. Tax bases are instantly multiplied, because dealers get out of the black market and start selling in regulated markets. Drugs become harder for the average teenager to get, because dealers know they have to ask for ID or go to jail.
Most normal people don't smoke crack, snort meth, shoot smack, et cetera. Those who choose to do it will continue to do it, regardless of prohibition...as evident by what I've seen this past week. You can't legislate intelligence. I wouldn't snort coke if it were legal. Would you?
So where does drug legalization and regulation leave us? Less expense, more resources. This allows our law enforcement agencies to go after that crackhead that stole your shit.
I read yesterday about nine people getting busted for a "meth ring". The investigation lasted for more than a year, and tied up resources from several jurisdictions. Before the news was even printed, someone else had already fired up another meth lab, because methheads aren't going anywhere. Seriously, you can cook it up in a 2-liter bottle as you drive down the street. You ain't gonna win that war!
So now, a select nine people have been arrested. Millions of tax dollars were pissed away to do this. These people have lost everything but their lives, if convicted. The charges carry a mandatory ten year sentence, with a maximum of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Their property has been seized. Their families are destroyed.
Did it put any kind of dent in the meth epidemic we're facing in this nation? Hell, no. It didn't even put a dent in the meth problem IN THIS COUNTY. Someone else already had a batch cooking up before the high these people were responsible for had worn off. "Getting meth heads off the street"? Give that bullshit to someone who might buy it, because I know better.
"Injustice" occurs when our laws do more harm than the potential harm they are designed to prevent.
Just like an accidental head injury, you may recover from a meth addiction. You may not. That's the chance you take when you decide to snort meth. You can arrest a dozen people per year (which is far better than our local authorities are doing) for cooking meth, and you'll have ten dozen others who are ready, willing, and able to take their place the next day.
I don't know the people who got busted...their lives may have been salvageable, they may not have been. However, I will say this to the law enforcement agencies responsible for the busts:
A) You did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the meth issues in this county.
B) You have completely destroyed the lives of nine people, as well as the lives of their loved ones.
C) You have cost the taxpayers of this nation, and specifically this county, an immense amount of money with this "intense investigation", and again, you truly accomplished NOTHING.
D) With the mandatory minimum sentencing of the charges, you have saddled this nation with at least five million dollars worth of expenses in nothing more than incarceration for these people. This doesn't cover expenses relating to court costs, appeals, et cetera...and certainly doesn't even get started on the millions of dollars spent on the initial investigation.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Why the US will never "win" in Afghanistan...
There are several reasons why the US will never win, but here are the "top three" in my not-so-humble opinion.
A) The Afghan people are, for the most part, unwilling to simply quit.
B) The US military is unwilling to utilize nuclear weapons, or any other strategy that will result in the complete and total annihilation of the Afghan people.
C) The US military has completely failed to define what constitutes "victory".
Now, please allow me to clarify a few things.
The Afghan people, historically, simply refuse to be conquered by anyone. If you doubt this, please see the entire plot of Rambo III. It just ain't gonna happen, they'd rather die than live as a subservient to an outside government. Do they, largely, hate the Taliban? Of course...but they hate the American government even more. Not "American culture", per se, as plenty of them enjoy Big Macs and iPods, but rather, the government that has propped up every major war in that region for the past hundred years. As part of our anti-communist efforts, we essentially created Al Qaeda. As part of our anti-drug efforts, we gave millions upon millions of dollars to the Taliban. As part of our anti-terror efforts, we have killed (knowingly or unknowingly) an untold number of innocent civilians. Teenage boys who happened to know someone that knew someone that made a phone call to a guy who drove a cab for Osama's cousin have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed without any valid justification. Things like these create an intense hatred for the US government, as well as for the armed men who fight under its flag.
While we kill many more men in Afghanistan than we lose, we must keep this in mind: NOT EVERY AFGHAN MAN WITH A RIFLE IS HOLDING THAT RIFLE BECAUSE HE HATES AMERICAN CHRISTIANS WITH FREEDOM. Some simply hate American soldiers who work for the same government that accidentally killed his entire family with a UAV drone attack on a funeral procession. I don't know about you, but that would make me want to pick up a rifle and shoot back. How would you feel? When this war started almost ten years ago, there less than 50k people who identified themselves as "Taliban". That's slightly less than the combined populations of Angleton and Lake Jackson, TX. That's it, and it certainly wasn't concentrated in two cities. In 2008, there were around 11,000 Taliban. In 2009, there were 25,000.
What does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me that our efforts in Afghanistan are helping to actually "build" the Taliban. When we seek out to destroy something that others sympathize with, you will find support amongst these people. When you kill innocents, either knowingly or unknowingly, you will add to the strength of your enemy because the loved ones of that person you killed will likely hate you for it. When the state of Texas executes a man, it often does not simply kill a man...it kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, et cetera, and these relatives are left behind. When our military kills a man in Afghanistan, it also kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, and a nephew...and these relatives are also left behind. When the person you kill is an innocent goat herder that happened to "look like a bad guy" when he got shot, or was part of a wedding party that was mistaken for a terrorist training camp on a satellite photo, you're doing nothing but inspiring vengeance.
When we are unwilling to exterminate the entire population, and the people we leave behind would rather die than surrender, we do nothing but breed enemies...regardless of how righteous our fight may be.
Of course, our biggest problem in Afghanistan is, quite simply, our complete and utter failure to define what constitutes "victory" in Afghanistan. Until we actually know what "winning" consists of, how do we know if/when we've "won"?
A) The Afghan people are, for the most part, unwilling to simply quit.
B) The US military is unwilling to utilize nuclear weapons, or any other strategy that will result in the complete and total annihilation of the Afghan people.
C) The US military has completely failed to define what constitutes "victory".
Now, please allow me to clarify a few things.
The Afghan people, historically, simply refuse to be conquered by anyone. If you doubt this, please see the entire plot of Rambo III. It just ain't gonna happen, they'd rather die than live as a subservient to an outside government. Do they, largely, hate the Taliban? Of course...but they hate the American government even more. Not "American culture", per se, as plenty of them enjoy Big Macs and iPods, but rather, the government that has propped up every major war in that region for the past hundred years. As part of our anti-communist efforts, we essentially created Al Qaeda. As part of our anti-drug efforts, we gave millions upon millions of dollars to the Taliban. As part of our anti-terror efforts, we have killed (knowingly or unknowingly) an untold number of innocent civilians. Teenage boys who happened to know someone that knew someone that made a phone call to a guy who drove a cab for Osama's cousin have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed without any valid justification. Things like these create an intense hatred for the US government, as well as for the armed men who fight under its flag.
While we kill many more men in Afghanistan than we lose, we must keep this in mind: NOT EVERY AFGHAN MAN WITH A RIFLE IS HOLDING THAT RIFLE BECAUSE HE HATES AMERICAN CHRISTIANS WITH FREEDOM. Some simply hate American soldiers who work for the same government that accidentally killed his entire family with a UAV drone attack on a funeral procession. I don't know about you, but that would make me want to pick up a rifle and shoot back. How would you feel? When this war started almost ten years ago, there less than 50k people who identified themselves as "Taliban". That's slightly less than the combined populations of Angleton and Lake Jackson, TX. That's it, and it certainly wasn't concentrated in two cities. In 2008, there were around 11,000 Taliban. In 2009, there were 25,000.
What does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me that our efforts in Afghanistan are helping to actually "build" the Taliban. When we seek out to destroy something that others sympathize with, you will find support amongst these people. When you kill innocents, either knowingly or unknowingly, you will add to the strength of your enemy because the loved ones of that person you killed will likely hate you for it. When the state of Texas executes a man, it often does not simply kill a man...it kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, a nephew, et cetera, and these relatives are left behind. When our military kills a man in Afghanistan, it also kills a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, and a nephew...and these relatives are also left behind. When the person you kill is an innocent goat herder that happened to "look like a bad guy" when he got shot, or was part of a wedding party that was mistaken for a terrorist training camp on a satellite photo, you're doing nothing but inspiring vengeance.
When we are unwilling to exterminate the entire population, and the people we leave behind would rather die than surrender, we do nothing but breed enemies...regardless of how righteous our fight may be.
Of course, our biggest problem in Afghanistan is, quite simply, our complete and utter failure to define what constitutes "victory" in Afghanistan. Until we actually know what "winning" consists of, how do we know if/when we've "won"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
