As Mark Scott so often said, “A is A”. That is, if you don’t tell the truth, it is a lie. Pure and simple. So, tell me the community doesn’t have the right to expect that if you say you have won the The Congressional Medal of Honor that you really have.
The federal appeals court in California and a federal district court in Denver don’t think so. They have both ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The act states that if you claim an honor from the military that you don’t have, you can be prosecuted. The courts ruled that it is a free speech issue and the individual can’t be convicted.
Without the law there are many ways to prosecute someone that tells such a lie. On written documents or in court it is perjury. If you say so on an employment application and get the job because of it, or if you are given money based on the lie, you have committed fraud. If in all of the above situations you stated a political opinion, something that is squarely protected, you would not be held accountable legal. So why can’t you be held accountable for making the claim when it is clearly a lie.
Many are suggesting that this case will make its way to the Supreme Court because of the importance of free speech. But, no right is absolute. Saying you are a war hero is not an opinion or a complaint that demands redress from the government. It is an outright lie that can’t be defended.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Responsibilities of the individual and the community during umemployment
In the real world, every community has a problem with unemployment and job creation. But, the recent Nobel prize winners for economics may provide a view that helps us understand the scope of the problem. Some of what they say supports action that a Responsible Community should take with those that are unemployed.
Three men, Peter Diamond, Dale Mortenson and Chris Pissarides, were awarded the 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Their work was on why buyers and sellers in various markets have trouble finding each other.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist and have not read the full breadth of their work. On the practical side, what has been read makes sense.
According to theory, unemployment should always be at zero. But, in reality, even in an economy that is humming, unemployment can be as higher as 5 % and be considered full employment. This reason for this is that a percent of people are always leaving one job to take another. This activity is the continuous adjustment in the market place of the mix of jobs, wages, training and the employment pool. (And, yes, there are those individuals that find difficulty in find a permanent job, often because of their own personal issues.)
But the real problem is when the unemployment levels are higher. That means, on the community level, individuals can’t find jobs that they are qualified for or business wont hire individuals at the pay scale that the individual needs or wants.
The trio suggest that unemployment insurance provided by the community makes it more difficult for the market to work. If workers are getting enough from unemployment insurance to maintain, they will be reluctant to take any job. On the other side, business will need to increase the pay scale or benefits to make the job more enticing to people that are on unemployment.
Keeping the paragraph above in mind, it is difficult for the community to encourage an electrician to take the first job offered, which may be at McDonalds cooking fast food. It would make it more difficult for him to get a job that he is trained for and not provide the income necessary to maintain a lifestyle built on higher wages. From the community’s point of view, it is a waste of resources for the training and experience invested in the electrician to cook fast food.
Part of the answer is the expectations the community has on the return on investment from the unemployment insurance provided. As stated in a blog earlier this year, “Require a return on investment from unemployment”, in the short run, a community should provide enough income to allow an individual to maintain a portion of the lifestyle they have. This allows time for him to find a job in the field that he is trained to do without taking the first job offered. For that investment, the community needs to make it clear there are expectations of return. If after a short period of time the individual is not employed, the system needs to hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. In return for the community’s investment, the unemployed individual needs to do also help themselves by cooperating with the community on all of the above and more. If not, they should be dropped from the program.
We formed communities to help each other in times of crisis. The community needs to help individuals through times of unemployment. No one in the community benefits when individuals and families lose their savings and even their homes when unemployed. But, to continuously keep supporting individuals that are not fully engage in their future is against the rules of success of the individual, the community and as the winners of the Nobel prize point out, the markets.
-----
Three men, Peter Diamond, Dale Mortenson and Chris Pissarides, were awarded the 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Their work was on why buyers and sellers in various markets have trouble finding each other.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist and have not read the full breadth of their work. On the practical side, what has been read makes sense.
According to theory, unemployment should always be at zero. But, in reality, even in an economy that is humming, unemployment can be as higher as 5 % and be considered full employment. This reason for this is that a percent of people are always leaving one job to take another. This activity is the continuous adjustment in the market place of the mix of jobs, wages, training and the employment pool. (And, yes, there are those individuals that find difficulty in find a permanent job, often because of their own personal issues.)
But the real problem is when the unemployment levels are higher. That means, on the community level, individuals can’t find jobs that they are qualified for or business wont hire individuals at the pay scale that the individual needs or wants.
The trio suggest that unemployment insurance provided by the community makes it more difficult for the market to work. If workers are getting enough from unemployment insurance to maintain, they will be reluctant to take any job. On the other side, business will need to increase the pay scale or benefits to make the job more enticing to people that are on unemployment.
Keeping the paragraph above in mind, it is difficult for the community to encourage an electrician to take the first job offered, which may be at McDonalds cooking fast food. It would make it more difficult for him to get a job that he is trained for and not provide the income necessary to maintain a lifestyle built on higher wages. From the community’s point of view, it is a waste of resources for the training and experience invested in the electrician to cook fast food.
Part of the answer is the expectations the community has on the return on investment from the unemployment insurance provided. As stated in a blog earlier this year, “Require a return on investment from unemployment”, in the short run, a community should provide enough income to allow an individual to maintain a portion of the lifestyle they have. This allows time for him to find a job in the field that he is trained to do without taking the first job offered. For that investment, the community needs to make it clear there are expectations of return. If after a short period of time the individual is not employed, the system needs to hold them accountable. Make an evaluation of their life and skills. Find markets that can employ them. Train them for their new jobs. Help them move if necessary to those markets. In return for the community’s investment, the unemployed individual needs to do also help themselves by cooperating with the community on all of the above and more. If not, they should be dropped from the program.
We formed communities to help each other in times of crisis. The community needs to help individuals through times of unemployment. No one in the community benefits when individuals and families lose their savings and even their homes when unemployed. But, to continuously keep supporting individuals that are not fully engage in their future is against the rules of success of the individual, the community and as the winners of the Nobel prize point out, the markets.
-----
Monday, October 11, 2010
The community can place reasonable limits on rights
In a September 17 post, it was stated that “If I was on a milk create at Fourth and Main in downtown Royal Oak and made a speech about the upcoming election, I would be arrested for disturbing the peace”. It is also stated that, “If a group of friends planned a gathering in a park nearby to protest the war in Afghanistan, we would be ticketed if we hadn’t received a permit from the city.” Mike Stollenwerk committed that the right to do both are “basic black letter law” rights protect by the First and Fourth amendments of the Constitution.
It is agreed that the right to free speech and assembly would be protected under the Constitution. The arrest or ticket would not be for making the speech or for assembling with my friends. (Of course, both would have to be for political purposes, commercial speech in not protect to the same degree as political.)
The reason that the statements above were made was to illustrate that no right is absolute, including strapping a gun to the waist and walking around in public. In the first case, the Royal Oak police state that if I was standing on the corner impeding pedestrian traffic flow, I would at first be asked “to move along.” That request would having nothing to do with the right of free speech or with the content of the speech. It would be that I was blocking pedestrians. If I refused to “move along” by using the shield of freedom of speech, in the end, I would be arrested.
The gathering in the park to protest the war in Afghanistan has some of the same issues and a few more. It I gathered with a group of friends without checking with the city, there are a number of issues that come up. First, if the little league team from the city was on the schedule to play a game in the park, they would have the first right. By claiming the right to assemble and refusing to move, the police would issue a ticket. Second, if I sat up a stage and used amplified sound to speak to the throng, I would have had to clear it with the city first. Another ticket if I didn’t request a permit from the city and used the right to assemble as a shield.
It was not the intent of the examples about speech and assemble to say we don’t have those rights. It was to illustrate that those rights can’t be used as a shield against all action by the community when its goal is safety and order. I could have used more extreme examples with long standing precedence. Such as yelling fire in a theater or hosting the assembly in the middle of the street. As long as it is not about the content of the speech and the community can demonstrate that people may be harmed or that order is compromised, the community can take action.
The original post was to support Royal Oak’s request to limit the right to open carry of guns. It is a simply request that people not carry their weapons at the Arts, Eats and Beats “assemble”. An assemble, that by many rulings in the courts, the applicant can request control of the people and their action that attend.
As stated at the end of the post, “The request that Royal Oak is making of the state is a reasonable limit on the right to bear arms.”
-----
It is agreed that the right to free speech and assembly would be protected under the Constitution. The arrest or ticket would not be for making the speech or for assembling with my friends. (Of course, both would have to be for political purposes, commercial speech in not protect to the same degree as political.)
The reason that the statements above were made was to illustrate that no right is absolute, including strapping a gun to the waist and walking around in public. In the first case, the Royal Oak police state that if I was standing on the corner impeding pedestrian traffic flow, I would at first be asked “to move along.” That request would having nothing to do with the right of free speech or with the content of the speech. It would be that I was blocking pedestrians. If I refused to “move along” by using the shield of freedom of speech, in the end, I would be arrested.
The gathering in the park to protest the war in Afghanistan has some of the same issues and a few more. It I gathered with a group of friends without checking with the city, there are a number of issues that come up. First, if the little league team from the city was on the schedule to play a game in the park, they would have the first right. By claiming the right to assemble and refusing to move, the police would issue a ticket. Second, if I sat up a stage and used amplified sound to speak to the throng, I would have had to clear it with the city first. Another ticket if I didn’t request a permit from the city and used the right to assemble as a shield.
It was not the intent of the examples about speech and assemble to say we don’t have those rights. It was to illustrate that those rights can’t be used as a shield against all action by the community when its goal is safety and order. I could have used more extreme examples with long standing precedence. Such as yelling fire in a theater or hosting the assembly in the middle of the street. As long as it is not about the content of the speech and the community can demonstrate that people may be harmed or that order is compromised, the community can take action.
The original post was to support Royal Oak’s request to limit the right to open carry of guns. It is a simply request that people not carry their weapons at the Arts, Eats and Beats “assemble”. An assemble, that by many rulings in the courts, the applicant can request control of the people and their action that attend.
As stated at the end of the post, “The request that Royal Oak is making of the state is a reasonable limit on the right to bear arms.”
-----
Friday, October 8, 2010
Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support
Pastor Fred W. Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong.
Young men that are fighting in foreign wars are not dying because the country allowed “fags” into the military. They are dying because that is what happens in war. Catholics are not “satanic”, its past has a straight line connection to Jesus Christ. (I am Catholic and it is my chosen religion). Divorced parents do not teach their children by their action to “defy [their] creator.” There can be no love for Hitler or breast cancer even though Pastor Phelps and his followers have said so verbally and in writing.
But, Evelyn Beatrice Hall has it right (or Votaire, or Paine or who ever else you may attribute it to). To paraphrase her, I disagree to the point of disgust with what Phelps says, but he does have the right to say it.
Albert Snyder, on the other side of the argument, believes that Phelps should not be able to say what he does because it caused him emotional distress.
He is the father of Lance Cpl. Mathew A. Snyder, 20, who died in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, a funeral mass was held for him at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas protested the funeral with signs that said all the things listed above and more. It was a cruel and obscene way for the congregation to express its political and religious beliefs. Later, an essay was posted on line by Phelps’ daughter continuing the cruel expression of their beliefs, mostly against Lance Cpl. Snyder.
Albert Snyder admits that he didn’t see the protesters at the church or at the grave site where his son was buried. It wasn’t until much later that he was on line and discovered the essay about his son. He then sued the pastor and the church for the distress that they caused. A lower court ruled in Snyder’s favor, but an appeals court reversed. Snyder took the case to the Supreme Court. The court heard the oral arguments this week.
The protestors obeyed all the laws of Maryland. They kept their distance from the church and the grave site as outline by law. (They did this, because there are limits on free speech, as with any right. The grave site was a public sitting and could be argued that they had a right to be on site during the funeral, but stayed off the property. But, please do not take this as being understanding of the protesters.)
Snyder didn’t see the protesters at any time. There was no physical or financial harm done to Snyder. His oral argument in court was focused on the emotional harm that was done by reading the things the church sponsored. After reading much of the material, it is not difficult to understand Snyder’s pain.
As truly whacky and indefensible as Pastor Fred W. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are, they do have the right to express their political and religious beliefs. They didn’t cause any practical damage to Snyder and by obeying the laws of Maryland on protests they didn’t interfere with the safety and order of the community.
To return to Hall’s quote, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.
-----
Young men that are fighting in foreign wars are not dying because the country allowed “fags” into the military. They are dying because that is what happens in war. Catholics are not “satanic”, its past has a straight line connection to Jesus Christ. (I am Catholic and it is my chosen religion). Divorced parents do not teach their children by their action to “defy [their] creator.” There can be no love for Hitler or breast cancer even though Pastor Phelps and his followers have said so verbally and in writing.
But, Evelyn Beatrice Hall has it right (or Votaire, or Paine or who ever else you may attribute it to). To paraphrase her, I disagree to the point of disgust with what Phelps says, but he does have the right to say it.
Albert Snyder, on the other side of the argument, believes that Phelps should not be able to say what he does because it caused him emotional distress.
He is the father of Lance Cpl. Mathew A. Snyder, 20, who died in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, a funeral mass was held for him at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas protested the funeral with signs that said all the things listed above and more. It was a cruel and obscene way for the congregation to express its political and religious beliefs. Later, an essay was posted on line by Phelps’ daughter continuing the cruel expression of their beliefs, mostly against Lance Cpl. Snyder.
Albert Snyder admits that he didn’t see the protesters at the church or at the grave site where his son was buried. It wasn’t until much later that he was on line and discovered the essay about his son. He then sued the pastor and the church for the distress that they caused. A lower court ruled in Snyder’s favor, but an appeals court reversed. Snyder took the case to the Supreme Court. The court heard the oral arguments this week.
The protestors obeyed all the laws of Maryland. They kept their distance from the church and the grave site as outline by law. (They did this, because there are limits on free speech, as with any right. The grave site was a public sitting and could be argued that they had a right to be on site during the funeral, but stayed off the property. But, please do not take this as being understanding of the protesters.)
Snyder didn’t see the protesters at any time. There was no physical or financial harm done to Snyder. His oral argument in court was focused on the emotional harm that was done by reading the things the church sponsored. After reading much of the material, it is not difficult to understand Snyder’s pain.
As truly whacky and indefensible as Pastor Fred W. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are, they do have the right to express their political and religious beliefs. They didn’t cause any practical damage to Snyder and by obeying the laws of Maryland on protests they didn’t interfere with the safety and order of the community.
To return to Hall’s quote, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.
-----
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Let's seek justice in our need for closure
It is being proposed by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy that new evidence that may free a convicted criminal in Michigan be presented before the one year anniversary of the conviction. After that, a claim can not be filed if the exculpatory evidence would have been discovered if the convict’s lawyer had done a good job.
Ask Dwayne Provience what this would have meant to him. He was convicted in 2001 of killing Rene Hunter on a crowded intersection in northwest Detroit. There where plenty of witnesses at the time of the shooting. One of the witnesses was an off duty police officer. None of the witnesses were called by Provience’s lawyer, who has since been disbarred. A memo in police files that pointed to a drug gang as the likely killers wasn’t discovered until 8 years later, then only by accident.
It is an arguable point that even if the new rules were in place a court would still consider the new evidence. But, for some people who trust their lawyers but find they do a terrible job, the rule changes would cancel all hope.
Worthy’s argument is that our system of justice needs finality. When someone is convicted, the public needs to have closure on the issue. She also argues that by allowing appeals to extend into the future endlessly, it pulls resources away from current cases.
Worthy is right about the need for finality. If the appeals are based on procedure instead of evidence, a one year cut off could be appropriate. After examining the proceedings of any case for a year, we should be certain about the conviction. This would save valuable resources for current cases, especially when budgets are stressed because of an economic down turn.
New exculpatory evidence should be treated differently, even after many years. If the evidence is minor and doesn’t challenge any of the other evidence or circumstances, a quick examination would dispense with it. In the case of Provience, when the witnesses and evidence never came to light in court because of a bad lawyer, to continue to hold him without a close look would be a crime in itself.
Yes, the community needs finality about specific convictions. The closure that a conviction brings provides relief to the grieving and security to the rest of us. But, by allowing a case to be challenged with new evidence also gives us the certainty that if we as a community do happen to make a mistake we can correct it.
This is justice.
-----
Ask Dwayne Provience what this would have meant to him. He was convicted in 2001 of killing Rene Hunter on a crowded intersection in northwest Detroit. There where plenty of witnesses at the time of the shooting. One of the witnesses was an off duty police officer. None of the witnesses were called by Provience’s lawyer, who has since been disbarred. A memo in police files that pointed to a drug gang as the likely killers wasn’t discovered until 8 years later, then only by accident.
It is an arguable point that even if the new rules were in place a court would still consider the new evidence. But, for some people who trust their lawyers but find they do a terrible job, the rule changes would cancel all hope.
Worthy’s argument is that our system of justice needs finality. When someone is convicted, the public needs to have closure on the issue. She also argues that by allowing appeals to extend into the future endlessly, it pulls resources away from current cases.
Worthy is right about the need for finality. If the appeals are based on procedure instead of evidence, a one year cut off could be appropriate. After examining the proceedings of any case for a year, we should be certain about the conviction. This would save valuable resources for current cases, especially when budgets are stressed because of an economic down turn.
New exculpatory evidence should be treated differently, even after many years. If the evidence is minor and doesn’t challenge any of the other evidence or circumstances, a quick examination would dispense with it. In the case of Provience, when the witnesses and evidence never came to light in court because of a bad lawyer, to continue to hold him without a close look would be a crime in itself.
Yes, the community needs finality about specific convictions. The closure that a conviction brings provides relief to the grieving and security to the rest of us. But, by allowing a case to be challenged with new evidence also gives us the certainty that if we as a community do happen to make a mistake we can correct it.
This is justice.
-----
Monday, October 4, 2010
The community must accept people for what they are
Last week, New York policed pulled the body of Tyler Clementi out of the water. A few days before, he had committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Clementi was a student at Rutgers University. His roommate secretly taped an intimate encounter Clementi had with another male. His roommate then posted the tape on YouTube for the world to see. Clementi had been outed without his consent.
Tyler Clementi was someone who had a lot to contribute to the community. He was accepted in one of the toughest academic schools in the country. He was an accomplished violin player that held a lot of promise for the future.
The discussion on line and in the media has been about the violation of Clementi’s privacy. He had asked his roommate, Dharun Ravi, if he could be alone in the dorm room one evening until midnight. Ravi agreed, but didn’t tell Clementi that he had left his camera on in the room to tape the activity that took place. Ravi went to his friend’s room, Molly Wei, and started taping. After, the pair tweeted about the video and posted it on line. This is clearly a violation of Clementi’s privacy because he had requested the time alone and Ravi agreed.
But, that there something more fundamental about this story that is being over looked.
In the United States we vilify gays politically, socially and culturally. We leave little room for those that are gay to find any peace with their nature. Even the strongest and most confident gay individual who is out can find difficulty in many situations.
Straight individuals rarely find their sexual preference an issue. When they do, sexual harassment laws protect them in their job, housing and in other situations they may find themselves in. Gay’s do not receive the same universal protection.
Culturally and socially, where attitudes are out of the reach of laws, gays find themselves as close to evil as can be. They are harassed and bullied into submission, to the point that they stay closeted. Many stay in the closet for years if not a life time for fear of being shunned by the world around them.
It is no wonder that Clementi found himself in a trap that he could find no way out. Not knowing enough about him and the environment he lived in it is difficult to place blame. He was, though, an individual that only needed a little push to fall off the edge. Perhaps, family, friends, roommates and others in the world around him failed him in varying degrees.
But, culturally, we must also accept some of the blame. We must treat all people with respect and accept them based on their contribution to the community. If not, there will be more Clementi’s.
-----
Tyler Clementi was someone who had a lot to contribute to the community. He was accepted in one of the toughest academic schools in the country. He was an accomplished violin player that held a lot of promise for the future.
The discussion on line and in the media has been about the violation of Clementi’s privacy. He had asked his roommate, Dharun Ravi, if he could be alone in the dorm room one evening until midnight. Ravi agreed, but didn’t tell Clementi that he had left his camera on in the room to tape the activity that took place. Ravi went to his friend’s room, Molly Wei, and started taping. After, the pair tweeted about the video and posted it on line. This is clearly a violation of Clementi’s privacy because he had requested the time alone and Ravi agreed.
But, that there something more fundamental about this story that is being over looked.
In the United States we vilify gays politically, socially and culturally. We leave little room for those that are gay to find any peace with their nature. Even the strongest and most confident gay individual who is out can find difficulty in many situations.
Straight individuals rarely find their sexual preference an issue. When they do, sexual harassment laws protect them in their job, housing and in other situations they may find themselves in. Gay’s do not receive the same universal protection.
Culturally and socially, where attitudes are out of the reach of laws, gays find themselves as close to evil as can be. They are harassed and bullied into submission, to the point that they stay closeted. Many stay in the closet for years if not a life time for fear of being shunned by the world around them.
It is no wonder that Clementi found himself in a trap that he could find no way out. Not knowing enough about him and the environment he lived in it is difficult to place blame. He was, though, an individual that only needed a little push to fall off the edge. Perhaps, family, friends, roommates and others in the world around him failed him in varying degrees.
But, culturally, we must also accept some of the blame. We must treat all people with respect and accept them based on their contribution to the community. If not, there will be more Clementi’s.
-----
Friday, October 1, 2010
A Big Good can turn a life around
One to overcome anger and a bad circumstance is to do a “big good” in the community.
A former Black Panther leader in Kansas City, Pete O’Neal, is living in exile in Tanzania. He was arrested 38 years ago in the United States for carrying a gun across state borders. Using a fake passport, O’Neal and his wife jumped bail and went to Sweden, eventually settling in a small town in Tanzania. He was allowed to stay if he kept out of trouble.
Over the years O’Neal not only stayed out of trouble, he did some good. He built a community in his exiled land and became a local “elder” or Mzee, a position of honor. Arriving with nothing, O’Neal has built a community center, teaches children, assists disadvantaged children and has adopted children that would have no place else to go.
All of this has made him a peaceful man. He has shed his belligerent fervor in exchange for a devotion to the community.
There is little doubt that if O’Neal hadn’t turned his life around, life would have been much different. The members of the Black Panther Party considered themselves at war with the United States. Many of the activities they sponsored were criminal. Although O’Neal’s crime of carry guns across state lines would be legal if the Republican’s and the NRA had their way in congress (and supported by the Responsible Community), there is a good chance that violence would eventually have put him in jail for a long time, or O’Neal would have been killed at a young age.
Mzee Pete O’Neal though, has found a secret to the improvement of life in the community without looking for it. It is, if you see wrong, fix it without hurting anyone. In a reverse turn of a phrase that is thought of as a popular African saying, “To support a community it takes an individual.”
Communities depend on the support of individuals. It is responsible people doing what is best for themselves, their families and their communities. O’Neal, now a responsible individual, has healed his belligerent soul by doing a big good in his new found community.
Everyone benefits from such action.
-----
A former Black Panther leader in Kansas City, Pete O’Neal, is living in exile in Tanzania. He was arrested 38 years ago in the United States for carrying a gun across state borders. Using a fake passport, O’Neal and his wife jumped bail and went to Sweden, eventually settling in a small town in Tanzania. He was allowed to stay if he kept out of trouble.
Over the years O’Neal not only stayed out of trouble, he did some good. He built a community in his exiled land and became a local “elder” or Mzee, a position of honor. Arriving with nothing, O’Neal has built a community center, teaches children, assists disadvantaged children and has adopted children that would have no place else to go.
All of this has made him a peaceful man. He has shed his belligerent fervor in exchange for a devotion to the community.
There is little doubt that if O’Neal hadn’t turned his life around, life would have been much different. The members of the Black Panther Party considered themselves at war with the United States. Many of the activities they sponsored were criminal. Although O’Neal’s crime of carry guns across state lines would be legal if the Republican’s and the NRA had their way in congress (and supported by the Responsible Community), there is a good chance that violence would eventually have put him in jail for a long time, or O’Neal would have been killed at a young age.
Mzee Pete O’Neal though, has found a secret to the improvement of life in the community without looking for it. It is, if you see wrong, fix it without hurting anyone. In a reverse turn of a phrase that is thought of as a popular African saying, “To support a community it takes an individual.”
Communities depend on the support of individuals. It is responsible people doing what is best for themselves, their families and their communities. O’Neal, now a responsible individual, has healed his belligerent soul by doing a big good in his new found community.
Everyone benefits from such action.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)