Demand to know who is speaking

The next time you go to the doctor, don’t worry about who he is or what his credentials are.  It doesn’t matter and he shouldn’t have to tell you.  Or, when you go to your financial advisor, if he keeps hidden that he is an employee of the fund he suggests when he leads you to believe he isn’t, he has a right to privacy.  Oh, and your baby sitter – not to worry that you are not able to find out who she is and anything about her past. 

If you think those are really dumb statements, I would agree with you.  But, when a clandestine organization goes on television with information about one of the constitutional proposals or a candidate; you don’t have the right to know who they are.  If you wouldn’t accept advice or trust people in your personal life that you don’t know, why would you trust a group that you know nothing about in your political decisions?

That is what has happen during the last election more than any other time in United States history.  Claims, accusations and downright lies filed the advertising of the political ads.  It should make honest, good people ill.  (Yes, everyone, before you get excited, both sides have committed this sin.)  But, we didn’t have the chance to evaluate their point of view because we don’t know who provided the financial support for the advertising. 

Additionally, people and organizations called “bundlers” skirted campaign laws and used them to hide the source of money for candidates and parties.  Many of us were upset when we found out that Romney said things in private that were difficult to support in public.  Romney himself even said that it could have been said better.  But, did any of us find out who was in the room that night (other than the host, a bundler)?

Is there anyone that thinks that the “smoked filled rooms” of yore where secret deals were made was the proper way to govern?  Well, of course not.  If your local politician takes money from an oil company then votes in support of their petition to drill in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you want to know?  Do black hooded people stand on the floor of the United States Senate and make a speech about policy?  No, because we all demand to know who is speaking.

Yet, we put up with Super PAC's and bundlers that raise, over the last election in this case, literally billions of dollars.  This money flows to candidate’s campaigns and their parties like water down a hill, filling the lowest ground.  In this case, the money fills the coffers of candidates that are willing to accept every last cent.  There are candidates that don’t accept the money blindly, demanding to know where the money came from.  But, many of them, I feel confident, feel great pressure to accept the money so they can compete against a foe that does take the money. 

Don’t be fooled.  When people go to the store to buy a stove, they want certain features and they want it to work.  No one, let me repeat, no one, gives a dime to any campaign if they don’t think they will get the results they want.  Give enough, your voice will be heard.  A little more, your plan will be enacted. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech.  It is an amplifier to your own voice.  This is true.  Also, people do have the right to assemble to combine their resources so that their voice will be louder – and delivered with force.  But, the voters, as the ultimate decision maker in any policy decision, should have all the information available to make an educated decision. 

Let's all cry, "Enough of this lunacy!"  In a Responsible Community, when someone exercises their right, they are to take responsibility for their action.  It is not a violation of someone’s freedom of speech to ask that they take the responsibility to say who they are.  

If it takes a new ruling from the Supreme Court to change the current situation, then let’s find a case to carry to their doorstep.  If it takes more than that, then let’s change the Constitution.

Don't follow the leader

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

It is obvious Representative Anthony Weiner needs to leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Personal responsiblity in the news this week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

No rights to marry for prisoners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Governor Synder, please consider this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----