If I stood on a milk crate at Fourth and Main in downtown Royal Oak and made a speech about the up coming election, I would be arrested for disturbing the peace. If a group of friends planned a gathering in the park near by to protest the war in Afghanistan, we would be ticketed if we hadn’t received a permit from the city.
Both are part of our rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. Communities can place limited and reasonable restrictions on those rights. But, people who want to carry guns think they should have rights that are not limited.
No right is absolute. The right of free speech, assembly, to bear arms and many other rights are listed in the Constitution. There are many other rights that are not detailed but are reserved by the people. But, the community has the right and responsibility to place reasonable limits on those rights. Of course, there must be a balance between the right and the community’s need for safety and order. No right can be limited without just cause.
In this case, the open carry laws, the community should have the right to limit the possession of a weapon. Royal Oak is requesting the state make a minor change in the laws to allow it. Currently, the open carry laws state that individuals can not carry a weapon in any theater with over 2,500 people and other places. The city would like it to read “venue” instead of “theater” so that Arts, Eats and Beats can ban open carry guns.
The law would not ban guns absolutely. Individuals will still be able to own guns. The change in the law would allow local communities to place reasonable limits on the possession of a weapon at events that are as large as the festival in Royal Oak.
Festivals like the Arts, Eats and Beats festival doesn’t create civil unrest where people may need to protect themselves. The media has reported that no one was arrested during the four day event. The government isn’t strong arming the public where guns may be needed for a revolution. The festival is just an entertainment venue of art, food and music. There simply is no need to openly carry guns strapped to the hip.
The request that Royal Oak is making of the state is a reasonable limit on the right to bear arms.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
End drug use and end the violence in Mexico
The drug violence in Mexico can be stopped if we focus on the problem not the symptom.
The United States is arguably the biggest consumer of illicit drugs in the world. Exporters of anything, including drugs, would not have a market if it wasn’t for people buying their products. Because there is such a big market here in the United States for drugs, competing cartels are killing each other along with innocent by standers in an effort to dominating the lucrative market. This violence will soon spill over across the border. We will only have ourselves to blame.
It isn’t just Mexico, it is also in Afghanistan. The history of Afghanistan over the last 100 years is filled with drugs. The farmers in the country could not make enough money by raising food crops. They turned to poppies, the plant that heroin is produced from, because the profit is so enormously high. The Taliban, looking for easy income to fuel their war against the world, took control of the distribution.
Where does the money go? To purchase weapons that enable groups in both countries and others around the world, to continue their violence.
What are we doing about it? A lot of nothing. The war on drugs is a failure in this country. We fiddle around the edges treating symptoms and irrelevant issues while drug use continues to grow out of control. Nationally, the debate has been side tracked by focusing on illegal immigrants that were here before and will be here after the war is “won”. (The war will never be won. No politician will be able to declare victory or even an end to conflict. The community must be for ever vigilant about drug abuse.) Politicians tell us of beheadings in the southwest desert from the drug traffic, yet, no evidence of a beheading from the drug traffic can be found.
Here in Oakland County it is worse. Michael Bouchard, a normally very able public servant, and his sheriff department raided drug dens around the county arresting pushers and abusers. Little or none of the marijuana that was seized came from a foreign source. The abusers were people that have a demonstrated need for the drug to ease the pain or discomfort of their illness. (Don’t be naive you say, there are those that are using it for recreation. I am not. I am aware of that. But, the drug is legal in the state and that isn’t where the problem is.)
Resources where diverted from the real drug problem at the same time the sheriff department is cutting an already thin budget. Legislatively, there are lots of politicians now that will be planning adjustments in the current litany of laws to define a problem that is small compared to the abuse of other drugs.
There are plenty of laws to control this problem. Law enforcement agencies need to have enough money to investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Drug courts need to both deal harshly with the “pushers” at the same time they punish and treat the abuser.
The loss of life in Afghanistan of our own young men and women is high. The damage to our foreign policy from this war is punishing. The war will soon be coming to a country even closer, Mexico, if we don’t get our drug problem under control.
-----
The United States is arguably the biggest consumer of illicit drugs in the world. Exporters of anything, including drugs, would not have a market if it wasn’t for people buying their products. Because there is such a big market here in the United States for drugs, competing cartels are killing each other along with innocent by standers in an effort to dominating the lucrative market. This violence will soon spill over across the border. We will only have ourselves to blame.
It isn’t just Mexico, it is also in Afghanistan. The history of Afghanistan over the last 100 years is filled with drugs. The farmers in the country could not make enough money by raising food crops. They turned to poppies, the plant that heroin is produced from, because the profit is so enormously high. The Taliban, looking for easy income to fuel their war against the world, took control of the distribution.
Where does the money go? To purchase weapons that enable groups in both countries and others around the world, to continue their violence.
What are we doing about it? A lot of nothing. The war on drugs is a failure in this country. We fiddle around the edges treating symptoms and irrelevant issues while drug use continues to grow out of control. Nationally, the debate has been side tracked by focusing on illegal immigrants that were here before and will be here after the war is “won”. (The war will never be won. No politician will be able to declare victory or even an end to conflict. The community must be for ever vigilant about drug abuse.) Politicians tell us of beheadings in the southwest desert from the drug traffic, yet, no evidence of a beheading from the drug traffic can be found.
Here in Oakland County it is worse. Michael Bouchard, a normally very able public servant, and his sheriff department raided drug dens around the county arresting pushers and abusers. Little or none of the marijuana that was seized came from a foreign source. The abusers were people that have a demonstrated need for the drug to ease the pain or discomfort of their illness. (Don’t be naive you say, there are those that are using it for recreation. I am not. I am aware of that. But, the drug is legal in the state and that isn’t where the problem is.)
Resources where diverted from the real drug problem at the same time the sheriff department is cutting an already thin budget. Legislatively, there are lots of politicians now that will be planning adjustments in the current litany of laws to define a problem that is small compared to the abuse of other drugs.
There are plenty of laws to control this problem. Law enforcement agencies need to have enough money to investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Drug courts need to both deal harshly with the “pushers” at the same time they punish and treat the abuser.
The loss of life in Afghanistan of our own young men and women is high. The damage to our foreign policy from this war is punishing. The war will soon be coming to a country even closer, Mexico, if we don’t get our drug problem under control.
-----
Monday, September 13, 2010
What every kids knows
Kids playing ball in the street know when a ball is hit into your yard, they should walk lightly in retrieving it because it is on private property. People walking down the sidewalk know that the yard around each house is private property. If someone pulls their car into your driveway they can expect to be challenged if they are uninvited.
So why does the Ninth District Court of Appeals in California think that it is okay for police to not know what everyone else knows? In a case that is expected to reach the Supreme Court in Washington, the court ruled that police can walk on to your property in the dead of night, place a gps device on your car and then track your moves for as long as the device works. In this particular case, Juan Pindeda-Moreno (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN PINEDA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant - No. 08-30385) is suspect of growing marijuana. His Jeep was parked in his driveway next to a trailer, his home, while he slept in the middle of the night. Police tryed to catch him in the act of visiting his little farm decide to attach the gps to the car in the middle of the night.
The court ruled, with only one dissent and two appeals to the same court, that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their car is parked in the driveway. Since the court doesn’t know what everyone else knows, that your driveway is your private property, it stated that police could then attach the device to carry out their mission.
Courts must take an overview and often wax philosophically in crafting a ruling. Application of law is not always as straight forward as it seems. But, in this case, the court applied a ruling that doesn’t resonate with real life in the community. If we can’t have an expectation of privacy around our home, then where can the line be drawn? The court said that fences, no trespassing signs, borders or other things must be built before our privacy can be guaranteed. That may be reasonably true when we approach a farmer’s field where the line from on piece of property to another may be blurred. But, any reasonable individual walking or driving down a street would have a very good idea where the yard of a house is and that motor vehicles in that yard are on private property. Before police can approach a car in that position, they must have a search warrant.
This is an erosion of our rights to the community and off sets that balance between individuals and the community. By the way, this ruling happen in the middle of August and here we are in September before we hear about it in the media. It took the media much too long to mention this case. When asked, the Supreme Court should over turn this ruling and push back the line to a place of reasonable balance.
A balance that even kids playing in the street of any neighborhood knows.
-----
So why does the Ninth District Court of Appeals in California think that it is okay for police to not know what everyone else knows? In a case that is expected to reach the Supreme Court in Washington, the court ruled that police can walk on to your property in the dead of night, place a gps device on your car and then track your moves for as long as the device works. In this particular case, Juan Pindeda-Moreno (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN PINEDA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant - No. 08-30385) is suspect of growing marijuana. His Jeep was parked in his driveway next to a trailer, his home, while he slept in the middle of the night. Police tryed to catch him in the act of visiting his little farm decide to attach the gps to the car in the middle of the night.
The court ruled, with only one dissent and two appeals to the same court, that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their car is parked in the driveway. Since the court doesn’t know what everyone else knows, that your driveway is your private property, it stated that police could then attach the device to carry out their mission.
Courts must take an overview and often wax philosophically in crafting a ruling. Application of law is not always as straight forward as it seems. But, in this case, the court applied a ruling that doesn’t resonate with real life in the community. If we can’t have an expectation of privacy around our home, then where can the line be drawn? The court said that fences, no trespassing signs, borders or other things must be built before our privacy can be guaranteed. That may be reasonably true when we approach a farmer’s field where the line from on piece of property to another may be blurred. But, any reasonable individual walking or driving down a street would have a very good idea where the yard of a house is and that motor vehicles in that yard are on private property. Before police can approach a car in that position, they must have a search warrant.
This is an erosion of our rights to the community and off sets that balance between individuals and the community. By the way, this ruling happen in the middle of August and here we are in September before we hear about it in the media. It took the media much too long to mention this case. When asked, the Supreme Court should over turn this ruling and push back the line to a place of reasonable balance.
A balance that even kids playing in the street of any neighborhood knows.
-----
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Freedom of Speech and Religion
Do you fully support the freedom of religion and expression in the community? The events of the last few months and the next couple of weeks are testing that resolve.
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida is planning on burning copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010. The pastor has chosen that day because it is the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pastor Jones and the congregation of his church believe that Islam is, in their words, “the devil.”
The pastor of the church and members of his congregation do have the right to freedom of expression. If they feel that this is the best way to present their case about Islam, then they do have the right to make that statement. A few years ago a Dutch newspaper ran an editorial cartoon that Muslim’s considered offensive. Part of the reason the newspaper ran the cartoon was to exercise their right of expression. It was rightfully supported by communities in the West and newspapers across Europe ran the same cartoon in support.
The church also has freedom of religion. A community’s primary foundation must include members having the right to express their religious beliefs in any peaceful manner that best suits them. This includes using church property, personal or real, to fulfill what they consider their mission. An example of this comes directly out of the headlines of the last few months, the mosque that is planned for New York City. The members of the mosque would like to use their property to fully express their religious beliefs just like Pastor Jones, no matter how disrespectful it may seem to other members of the community. The community needs to support both decisions; the building of the mosque and the burning of the Koran; no matter how disrespectful it may seem to others.
There are those that have threaten violence against the pastor, the church and the community if the church does burn the Koran. Some people may carry out the threaten violence. The community must stand against individuals that promote and execute violence, seek them out and bring them to trial.
The church’s true underlying motives should not go unchallenged. The pastor says that he believes Islam is the devil and, “The world is in bondage to the massive grip of the lies of Islam.” Pastor Terry Jones says that he wants to warn of the world of the dangers of Islam and states on the Dove World Outreach website that, “To warn of danger and harm is a loving act.” But it is difficult to see how the burning of the Koran is a loving act or that it will convert anyone to Christianity. It is simply a hateful act that is being done just to get attention. If it will not save anyone from Islam, than the act is a “falsehood” that should be rejected.
But, even though burning the Koran is a disrespectful and outrages act that will not help Pastor Terry Jones’ cause or bring greater understanding to the cause of peace in the community, it is both an exercise of the freedom of expression and of the freedom of religion. The Responsible Community must support those rights. It is the same reasoning that is used in support of the building of the Mosque in New York.
A free community is one that allows each individual, no matter how disrespectful it may seem, to fully express their own religious beliefs in a peaceful manner.
-----
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida is planning on burning copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010. The pastor has chosen that day because it is the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pastor Jones and the congregation of his church believe that Islam is, in their words, “the devil.”
The pastor of the church and members of his congregation do have the right to freedom of expression. If they feel that this is the best way to present their case about Islam, then they do have the right to make that statement. A few years ago a Dutch newspaper ran an editorial cartoon that Muslim’s considered offensive. Part of the reason the newspaper ran the cartoon was to exercise their right of expression. It was rightfully supported by communities in the West and newspapers across Europe ran the same cartoon in support.
The church also has freedom of religion. A community’s primary foundation must include members having the right to express their religious beliefs in any peaceful manner that best suits them. This includes using church property, personal or real, to fulfill what they consider their mission. An example of this comes directly out of the headlines of the last few months, the mosque that is planned for New York City. The members of the mosque would like to use their property to fully express their religious beliefs just like Pastor Jones, no matter how disrespectful it may seem to other members of the community. The community needs to support both decisions; the building of the mosque and the burning of the Koran; no matter how disrespectful it may seem to others.
There are those that have threaten violence against the pastor, the church and the community if the church does burn the Koran. Some people may carry out the threaten violence. The community must stand against individuals that promote and execute violence, seek them out and bring them to trial.
The church’s true underlying motives should not go unchallenged. The pastor says that he believes Islam is the devil and, “The world is in bondage to the massive grip of the lies of Islam.” Pastor Terry Jones says that he wants to warn of the world of the dangers of Islam and states on the Dove World Outreach website that, “To warn of danger and harm is a loving act.” But it is difficult to see how the burning of the Koran is a loving act or that it will convert anyone to Christianity. It is simply a hateful act that is being done just to get attention. If it will not save anyone from Islam, than the act is a “falsehood” that should be rejected.
But, even though burning the Koran is a disrespectful and outrages act that will not help Pastor Terry Jones’ cause or bring greater understanding to the cause of peace in the community, it is both an exercise of the freedom of expression and of the freedom of religion. The Responsible Community must support those rights. It is the same reasoning that is used in support of the building of the Mosque in New York.
A free community is one that allows each individual, no matter how disrespectful it may seem, to fully express their own religious beliefs in a peaceful manner.
-----
Friday, September 3, 2010
Keep an open mind when on a jury
Hadley Jons of Warren was removed from jury duty because she declared in a Facebook post that the defendant was guilty before the trial was over.
This blog isn’t about what we should all know, but apparently some of us don’t know. Even if we never attended a government class in high school or college we should all have seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know what jurors should or shouldn’t do. Of all the things, don’t talk about what is going on till after the trial.
This post is about how the Macomb County Circuit Judge Diane Druzinski is punishing Hadley Jons. She has to write a five page essay on the 6th amendment. It would be easy enough to fine Hadley the $250 and remove her from the jury as the judge did. The Judge Druzinski would have rid herself of the trouble of seeing Hadley again and perhaps save the case. (The remaining jurors and the replacement found the accused guilty.) By making part of the punishment the writing of a five page essay, the judge insures herself and the community that Jons will have a deeper understanding of the crime she committed beyond just that she shouldn’t have done it. The essay should be posted on Facebook and made required reading for every juror in the future.
It is of course important that people living in a community know what is wrong. It is also important to understand why things are as they are. This will enable all of us to not only obey the letter of the law but also the spirit. In this situation, the foundation of any fair and equitable system of justice is a trial by jury. This removes the system of prosecution from the hands of law makers, police, lawyers and judges. It places it squarely in the hands of every day people that live in the community. When called on to be part of a jury, the people on trial are owed your open minded consideration. Even if you come to an opinion before the end of the trial, by allowing the evidence that is presented to challenge your opinion, you can feel certain of the correct decision.
The community then can have confidence in the justice system.
-----
This blog isn’t about what we should all know, but apparently some of us don’t know. Even if we never attended a government class in high school or college we should all have seen enough cop and lawyer shows to know what jurors should or shouldn’t do. Of all the things, don’t talk about what is going on till after the trial.
This post is about how the Macomb County Circuit Judge Diane Druzinski is punishing Hadley Jons. She has to write a five page essay on the 6th amendment. It would be easy enough to fine Hadley the $250 and remove her from the jury as the judge did. The Judge Druzinski would have rid herself of the trouble of seeing Hadley again and perhaps save the case. (The remaining jurors and the replacement found the accused guilty.) By making part of the punishment the writing of a five page essay, the judge insures herself and the community that Jons will have a deeper understanding of the crime she committed beyond just that she shouldn’t have done it. The essay should be posted on Facebook and made required reading for every juror in the future.
It is of course important that people living in a community know what is wrong. It is also important to understand why things are as they are. This will enable all of us to not only obey the letter of the law but also the spirit. In this situation, the foundation of any fair and equitable system of justice is a trial by jury. This removes the system of prosecution from the hands of law makers, police, lawyers and judges. It places it squarely in the hands of every day people that live in the community. When called on to be part of a jury, the people on trial are owed your open minded consideration. Even if you come to an opinion before the end of the trial, by allowing the evidence that is presented to challenge your opinion, you can feel certain of the correct decision.
The community then can have confidence in the justice system.
-----
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Is he Muslim?
We shouldn’t care if President Obama is a Christian, Muslim or any other religion. It doesn’t matter as long as his decisions are in the best interest of the country and of religious freedom. In the Constitution it states that no religious test should be given so the country can’t even make that part of the requirements for office.
President Obama’s religion continues to come to the top of the news stories. This latest reason is a survey taken recently of Americans asking, among other things, if they think the President is a Muslim. 20% of the average Americans believe he is and 31% of Republicans believe he is. High profile personalities have either said he is a Muslim or profess doubts about the President’s claims that he is a Christian. Many think that because his father was a Muslim that he must be also.
If he is a Muslim, no proof has ever been offered that can be cited from a reliable source. (Fox “News” doesn’t count). There are no hidden videos of him attending a mosque or pictures of him praying while facing east. Even if there were pictures of him reading the Qur’an it doesn’t mean he was Muslim. If it did, President Thomas Jefferson would also be Muslim. Jefferson openly admitted he read the Qur’an to further his education of religions.
President Obama has openly said that he is a Christian. He has repeatedly said that he believes in Jesus Christ. Until proven that the statements are not true, we should take him at his word.
The thing that all of us should be concerned about is our fear of Islam. In the early years of our country and even as late as the Kennedy administration, we feared Catholics. The popular belief was that the Pope was coming to America and would take over the government. Just as they did in England during the time of Queen Mary (Bloody Mary she was called) the Catholics would then purge Protestants from the government and establish just one religion in the country. During the election of Kennedy in 1960, it was rumored that the President had a secret agreement with the Pope to move the Vatican to the states.
Does all of that sound familiar? Urban legends now have it that President Obama will hasten the establishment of Sharia Law here in America. That Muslim Imams will take up residence in the White House and “guide” the president’s decisions. Any day now, we will all have to stop what we are doing and pray five times a day while facing east.
The courts of this country have stood firm in removing all religions from government. That is why we must continue to support rulings that keep government and religion separate. If we allow one religion to be part of the operation of government because it happens to be the most favored or majority religion at the time, then the community risks a change when another religion becomes more popular.
It shouldn’t matter to anyone what one man’s religion is, even if that one man happens to be the President.
-----
Monday, August 23, 2010
Show the proof
The latest is Mike Bosnic, a Republican running against current Oakland County Commissioner Tim Burns, a Democrat. (1) But the state’s Republican party also made the claim when the party filed with the state. Even Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, who has denounced the Michigan Tea Party as a front for the Democrats, said, “That Tea Party is Democrats who have gone out and pretended to be tea party activists to create their own party…”
It may be so. It is often hard to tell what is going on in politics. Dirty tricks have been part of the profession for a long time, perhaps from the very beginning. (Don’t you just wonder if this stuff happen when the Greek’s started to vote about 2,500 years ago?) Every party has done things that if given the light of day would be embarrassing at best.
But, there is a question about this one. Where’s the proof? If indeed this is a front for the Democrats as Republicans say, then show the proof. Making accusations that can’t be supported is irresponsible. If the Tea Party isn’t “real” and someone has the documents, then come forward. Otherwise, the accusations are merely another dirty trick.
In a survey a few years ago, people were asked who they trusted more, fast food restaurants or politicians. It isn’t surprising that fast food restaurants came out on top. Set aside politicians don’t always vote the way we want on important things in our lives. That can be expected. It is the accusations they make that can’t be supported or are just outright lies that upset people.
Not that anyone should support a candidate just because they tell the truth. Voting for the liberal candidate because he is honest when your values are much more conservative doesn’t make sense. What should be done is that we all call out the candidate to support their statements (and positions as well, it would be nice to know the reasoning behind the politician’s positions also.) Voters should ask when they meet the candidate. Media should demand an answer to the direct questions as opposed to accepting a change the subject answer that politicians are trained to give.
Fast food restaurants know something very clearly, if they promise food that is better than it is, few will return. They need you back every day for many years to come to be successful. It seems that politicians only need to get through the first Tuesday in November. After that, voters don’t get a chance to vote again the next day.
With all of that said, here is the question: Can you prove that the Tea Party of Michigan is a front for the Democratic party? If not, move on.
(1) GOP: Fake tea party candidates targeting local races, The Oakland Press, Charles Crumm, August 19, 2010
(2) Patterson denounces Tea Party Group, The Oakland Press, Charles Crumm, July 16, 2010, http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/07/16/news/local_news/doc4c3f919d38664752153283.txt
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)