Good Cop, Bad Cop, Black, and Blue

Black lives matter.

Blue lives matter.

All lives matter.

Really?

Blue lives are voluntary.

Black lives aren’t.

In light of the blue lives,

in light of the Dallas disaster,

(and future tragedies)

black lives still matter more.

Why?

Without access to recourse, redemption, and justice,

black lives continue to endure

the historic, systematic oppression

by a few bigoted, lawless, blue lives,

injuring all lives.

Although it feels like the country is coming unhinged, facts do not support the idea of an increasingly violent world. The statistical aggregate illustrates how black and blue lives have never matter more to each other than now. Fewer cops die violently on our streets than in past decades. Brown people of all lineages are better off in contemporary Western Culture. But it doesn’t feel this way and it shouldn’t.

Cellphone cameras have changed our point of view. Never before have we been able to witness the brutality perpetrated by ugly blue lives upon innocent black lives. The scene is not new, only the witness has changed. Imagine the images a Jim Crow era camera might’ve captured. What would a Ken Burns, in-depth documentary on a day in the life of a typical slave-catcher in the antebellum South look like? We are at the crossroads of their history and our future.

Through social-media and ready-access to recording devices, we are simply peering under the carpet at the buried secrets, constituting that infested, dusty, mess of fibrous complexity; what every Southern, black family of the 1800’s knew firsthand, now everyone understands to one degree or another. There is no doubt that the horror-show we see today is but the tip of a very old iceberg. White America is waking up to the digital images black America has endured for centuries. We can thank technology these memories no longer die with the victims.

One chooses to become a cop, a blue life. One can always remove the badge, hang up the gun, walk away, and no longer be a blue life. One cannot choose to walk away from a black life. One cannot say they’ve had enough and simply change their culture, their family, their skin, their history. The Dallas shooting is a metric, a point of measurement. After forty-eight hours where the President repeatedly stepped away from international business to comment on yet another unarmed black man killed by a cop, he again consoled the Nation as five officers were gunned-down. Testifying to just how little specific black lives matter to some blue lives, the repetitive images of these past few months became so unbearable as to radicalize a home-grown terrorist. The only difference between the act of this contemporary, semi-organize fanatic and the campaigns of the KKK (during Jim Crow) was instead of supporting the terrorism, blue lives became its target.

Justice is long overdue. The barbarity visited upon black lives by blue lives is a deep, festering, open wound only made worse by the incident in Dallas. One would be hard-pressed to pick a worse target for vigilante justice than the Dallas Police Department. Of all the police forces across this country, few work longer or harder to mend this wound than the DPD. Before it was “the right thing to do,” deescalation programs had been instituted with great effect. Officer involved shootings are down; they’re moving in the right direction, an example to be followed, not ambushed. When blue lives hold themselves to the highest standards of accountability, peace, and justice, they become valuable to black lives, all lives. Dallas is a dark irony, a cruel setback.

As long as all black lives do not matter to even a handful of blue lives, Dallas may not remain the most deadly end of blue lives in America any more than Orlando will keep its top spot. Authorities often say they have to be right one-hundred percent of the time while criminals only have to be right once. To understand the solution, let’s flip this. It only takes one bad cop to hurt ten-thousand good ones. As long as any department remains indifferent to a culture of silence, racism, and prejudice, bad cops will feel free to be themselves.

Why do so few lives smoke cigarettes in 2016 when so many smoked in 1966? Culture. We can try to profile and weed-out the outliers, the bad-apples, and play Wac-A-Mole. In that case, nothing really changes; somewhere in the country another black life will be taken by a blue life (increasingly caught on camera). The only way to fix this is to change the blue culture. Embrace the camera. Embrace deescalation. Embrace C.O.P. (Community Oriented Policing). Until blue culture changes and proudly joins the chant, “black lives matter!” the onerous remains with the blue lives, those with tacit immunity, those with options, those with legal authority, those with weapons, helicopters, robot-bombs, and tanks (do they really need tanks?).

The term ‘blue lives’ is misnomer. There’s no such thing. Blue is a job, a career. No one is born blue, well maybe in a blue family but that’s not the point. Just as with green lives, blue lives are the creation of society, something we deem necessary for peace and prosperity. Unless we discover a better alternative to law and order as a political concept, We the People can find a better way to do business. And again, thanks to science we are learning more and more about how to change and improve culture. With the will of the People, holding law-enforcement to “best practices” through continued protest and legislation, we can change our blue lives so drastically that it might become as likely for a smoker to book a non-smoking cruise as a bigot to join the force; without it being about ending the addition, it would simply be unbearable. And let us hope enough lives demand this before the next bad cop leaves all those good cops black and blue,

yet again.

Unconstitutional Action Vs Justice Garland

“The Senate shall advise and consent…”

Elections create change. When we change something, it’s not the same. The Senate has a Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent when the President fulfills the duty of the Executive Office by proposing a Supreme Court Justice Nominee. There’s no mention of when they must act, only that they must act (that pesky legal term ‘shall’). The President nominates and the Senate votes. The coming election changes the Senate. Without a timely hearing and vote, Mitch sets precedent by intentionally violating his Constitutional directive to advise and consent. Mitch’s power over the Senate (his ability to violate the Constitution, AKA a high crime– in the vernacular, a crime from on-high) is a direct result of the very election (2014) he invalidates by requiring another (2016) before the Constitutional duty of the Senate is preformed, a duty he may not be privileged to oversee in his current capacity.

Why is hypocrisy not among the seven deadly sins? Remember Mitch, Karma’s a bitch.

The GOP’s in a self-destructive spiral. Their chaotic Presidential field illuminates their prejudice, stemming from a single, specific, point of view. Women, atheists, climate change, the LGBT community, minorities, inequality, immigrants, and everyone not like them are not only the “other” but the enemy. This narrow-minded, grossly inefficient, horribly costly, and ultimately unsustainable methodology holds on for dear life. This limbic, reptilian, devout culture faces extinction. The GOP is in denial over the death of a renowned standard-bearer, their late Supreme Court Justice.

After the elections, it’ll be no different. They’ll be angry. Then they’ll bargain. But depression and acceptance? Come on, this is the GOP. Not gonna’ happen. Their pathology is their inflexibility. They burrow like a tick, sucking the blood of the fat American– now infected with Rocky Mountain Fever. Replacing this Justice is about the future, about change and growth, adaptation and evolution– fundamental concepts they refuse to face. The GOP shatters because it will not budge– something it’s quite proud of.

“There are no atheists in foxholes.”

They love to say things like this. Elections illuminate the truth of how things work; we’re moving forward with or without them. When reason and humanity prevail, ignorance and bigotry loose value. They will find themselves in that foxhole and have yet another “coming to Jesus moment.” After Hillary’s elected, they’ll come-a-running because Obama stands by his nominee.

Will this Senate act Unconstitutionally?

Not likely.

So, I’ll warm to the idea of

Supreme Court Justice Garland.

Second Ammendment Myth: Busting the Line

Ultimately, what is the NRA peddling? Fear of the other. There is no ration reason anyone should have a weapon capable of mass-murder; there aren’t that many ‘others.’ Why a semi-automatic with tens of rounds per clip and not a small bomb? Does the method really mater? Where’s the line? The maverick, the self-contained, self-made man lies at the root of America's grotesque fascination with its past. No one is an island. What did you eat today? Did you slaughter that pig and collect those chicken's eggs? Society is about interactions. It’s human nature. Think about it. By definition, the purely independent man’s story is never heard, never known and therefore wasted. To function as a whole, individuals must care sufficiently for one another, at least on average.

We must consider the question of the line between that R in the NRA and the AK of this modern-day. What weapon is appropriate for anyone to wield? Is a taser sufficient? Should we treat this like drivers licenses with classifications? Just because there is no Constitutional Right for an individual to keep and bear arms doesn't mean guns should be removed from homes. Assault rifles, large caliber sniper rifles, explosive devices, etc. are examples of overkill. Creating well-regulated militias will allow passionate people to not only safely experience the dream of firing some of the most powerful weapons on Earth, currently beyond the reach of the common man, but will also support the common defense in a real way.

Is it the guns or the sick individuals responsible for all this tragedy? Fact: healthy people do not commit mass-murder. Fact: societies without guns do not suffer these events. It's both. Maybe the solution is both. Maybe we must allow the Citizenry to embrace weaponry to their liking but in a “well-regulated” manner. By opening up the concept of a militia, we can mix the satisfaction of blowing stuff up with the dream of being a hero, all while supporting the real heroes. By limiting the supply of deadly weapons like the AR15 and the AK47 to the military and these Constitutional militias, we drain the pool of deadly weapons, thereby forever limiting access to criminals. Eventually, remaining models will be far too expensive for casual use. Seriously, handguns and shotguns are more than enough to protect the average home; and pepper-spray is a sensible precaution for any outing. Fact: the Second Amendment is not about a well-armed populace.

That's what this is all about: arms are for armies and well-regulated militias. It's not about the government taking away one's ability to defend their property. It's about taking away that crazy couple's ability to kill a bunch of people, no matter what that phone might contain.

Tim, thanks for holding the line.

Second Amendment Myth: Constitutional Compromise

The NRA is the most successful lobby in history. But what's it all for? Moreover, is it possible to curve popular support for this radically unregulated industry by creating a new governmental program, capable of not only satisfying the populace but also exceeding their expectations? What changes might affect the breaking-news? In so many words, how can we slow things down? How can we compromise with honor?

Why do some Americans believe it's okay to live in the twenty-first century while sporting twentieth century equipment designed to kill people? One cannot own a SAW but it's okay that everyone can have the civilian-equivalent of the M16. Both are serious infantry weapons of war: arms. For now, the NRA's core issue is maintaining the sale of firearms, aka guns. But even they will not dispute the logic of denying an F-22 Raptor or a M60 to just anyone who can afford one.

For those who wish to fire a fully-automatic BAR, why not an M4 or an Abrams Tank? Here's a radical idea: let's simply give the crazies what they want; let's arm these 'freedom-fighters' with real weapons of war. How does that even make sense? A Constitutional compromise, aka well-regulated militias for everyone!

What if states create real militias with real guys and gals who are passionate about all this stuff? Imagine blasting a round from a real tank, triggering a battleship cannon, or even initiating the detonation of a large, remote bomb? Of course, only with government approval– background checked, tested proficient, and clearly labeled competent without mental compromise; like halfway joining the military (all the benefits, none of the commitment, but at a real cost).

Allowing the population formal training and regulated access to the toys of war fulfills the Founders' intent. Originally, the Second Amendment was established to create a defensive, engaged, capable, impenetrable, and vetted force of the People. Imagine if every Tom, Deshaun, Hernandez, and Fahad where invited to be trained, qualified, and allowed limited access to the experience of firing these fun-canons.

Real-life, down-to-earth, well-regulated militias help in two ways.

One: providing an outlet for all that pent-up, animal rage, stemming from the modern-day, sedentary lifestyle. Imagine the typical, human, engaged in a semi-productive, community/governmental-based activity while simultaneously venting accumulated, civilian stress via literal explosions and vigorous exercise. This will not only relieve America's waistline but focus and filter many volatile components of America's character. Think war-camps for adults; or, amazing weekends playing games with the coolest gear. All those 'enthusiasts' will explore their fantasies in new ways while sharpening their skills, experiencing discipline, mastering team communication, and feeling a sense of ownership for their freedom; in short, becoming better citizens.

Two: support for the real troops via pay to play. Want to shoot the big gun? Want to be a part-time hero? Want to bond with actual heroes? Instead of a years-long commitment to the National Guard, a minimum donation or fee to support the military assures these less-than-weekend warriors' fun not only pays for itself but also funds our Nation's defense directly, financially. Furthermore, participants will treasure their many memories of enjoying all the greatest guns America has to offer. Plus, they will have a deep and abiding knowledge that if their country every needs them to fire these weapons towards the invaders, they might actually do a good job– because after all, this won't be their first rodeo.

The Second Amendment Myth: But You Didn't Say I Couldn't

The question remains: what rights do we have when it comes to firearms?

Just because the Second Amendment doesn't implicitly protect an individual's right to posses a slingshot, does that mean we can't have a revolver or even an M60?

My father fought for justice and truth his whole life. He is the greatest example of a libertarian I know. He sacrificed his family, life, career, and spiritual future for what he felt was right. He believed in the rights of the individual. He believed that we didn't need a right to bear Arms. He was of the mindset that if the Constitution didn't expressly prohibit it, it was fair-game. To say he hated the Bill of Rights was an understatement. The very problem with the Bill of Rights is that by expressing them in writing, you limit them to what is written. He felt that all of us had every single right not expressly prohibited by the Constitution and to express any right was to limit that right to a convoluted definition. So according to my old man, unless legal decree or precedence limits the rights of an individual to possess an Abrams tank, one has the right to said vehicle, of course only in light of one being able to lawfully obtain one. And that's the rub.

Even in this current malaise of a Second-Amendment miscue, one does not have the right to an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) but one does have the right to an assault-rifle, endless ammo, body armor, and plenty of chemicals to make many bombs of many types. The threat isn't about the instrument but the degree. What level of access to what kinds of weaponry do we, as the People, want to prohibit and permit to whom and why? Do we want to live in a society like Australia where only the police are entrusted with weapons more deadly than a rifles? Are we ready to end this horrific violence and get real? Listen to Australia; they are a wonderful example of getting it right, right after the tragedy. They didn't wait for another. Of course, they didn't have the NRA to deal with either.

Why does the NRA fight this? Why else? Cash. It's pathetic. There is no Constitutional reason why hunters and sportsman cannot enjoy their tiny hand-cannons but the NRA makes their mint pretending the myth is under threat. Laws exist to regulate dangerous situations. Not everyone can simply build a skyscraper. There are permits and certifications required to erect a structure that might collapse on people. And as we regulate the privilege of driving a metal box at speeds and forces capable of creating significant destruction, guns will eventual be regulated to the point they no longer pose this crippling threat. Why? It's Constitutional. My old man constantly reiterated the language's clarity: Militias are a body of the State, not the definition of an individual. 

Second Amendment Myth: The Made Myth

No one hunts with a Ruger or a MAC-10. So what changed the NRA into this toxic advocate for increasing availability of the killing-wand? Manufacturing invaded this loose network of enthusiasts. Today, they insure access by the unwashed-masses to the weapons of mass-murder remains at an insane level. They have become a serious domestic threat to the US by reinforcing this common, Constitutional misconception. Their myth kills people, many suicidal. There is nothing wrong with the idea that not everyone can be entrusted to operate a car, let alone a Desert Eagle.

The Second Amendment is very short and difficult to understand. I had the privilege of a lawyer for a father who argued before a state supreme court. He helped me understand that the phrase, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,' means States have the sovereign right to defend their land by creating a fighting-force, forged from the populace without interference from the Federal Government. So far, it doesn't appear any State's right to create said Militia has been infringed upon in any way, shape, or form. The National Guard expresses the State's right to a well-regulated Militia. As far as I can see, that particular institution is under no Constitutional threat.

My father taught me: the idea that the Founders intended access to military-style weapons by the Citizenry is ridiculous. Unless you're an active member of (let me say this again) the State's well-regulated Militia, the only thing the Founders had in mind was the basic idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally property, as in the right to own what you create). If you needed to hunt in order to eat and make a living, by all means, use the tool of the rifle. If you feel threatened, there are many measures short of a semi-automatic. One has the right to privacy and protection but one has no Constitutional Right to a Glock-19.

On the other hand, no on has a Constitutional Right to a Ferrari either but some of us have one because some of us can. So get over it. You, mister or lady American, have no Constitutional Right to a device, capable of launching a projectile beyond the speed of sound into any unsuspecting, darling, little girl anymore than anyone has the right to rip rubber in a fine machine. The Supreme Court has often got the big issues wrong before it gets them right. My father's words are clear: the myth of an individual’s Constitutional Right to bear Arms will fade with passing generations.

Second Amendment Myth: The Myth Maker

The individual right of the Second Amendment Myth spawns from a single, deadly, resourceful, political source: the river of funding that is the NRA. It has misconstrued the meaning by chopping off the first thirteen words, leaving the final fourteen,

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Originally, the NRA (National Rifle Association) existed to raise awareness of gun safety and general sportsmanship among the common folk. It's not the NGA (Gun) or the NWA (Weapon) for a reason. We're talking rifles. It started with a bunch of concerned hunters. They'd teach some basic skills to the uneducated masses, tramping a noisy, messy path through their prized, pristine forests. The seed of their intention was the simple notion of not getting shot by some idiot, recklessly sporting their first rifle. The NRA was a grassroots, educational program sponsored by real people. Why was the NRA created? Because rifles are deadly in the hands of the ignorant.

They were once safety advocates; but now?

The most powerful industry lobby in the world;

they own the GOP;

they're a cooperation

with the proverbial finger on the trigger.

And they keep pulling it.

Ironically the hero of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, was a victim of this very instrument, lying at the base of this party's foundation. A member of the GOP cannot hold office without a favorable NRA rating. This lobby has twisted the fundamental right of self-preservation into the Constitutional Right of a Militia. People don't have the right to carry a gun because the NRA or the Second Amendment says so. People have the right to carry a gun because the States decide they will allow the Citizenry to arm themselves with guns because guns are an effective tool. But are they always useful? Statistically, they do more harm than good. It's hypocritical that pro-life people so often support death with such fervor. Fact: no Citizen has the right to bear Arms; Arms are for armies.

There is no Constitutional prohibition of acquiring the implements to protect one's family. The government's not coming for your guns. No one's saying you can't have an alarm-system or even a shotgun. The sacrosanct boarder of the household is a Constitutional Right. This amendment addresses the sacrosanct boarder of the State. But neither the NRA nor the individual has the right to decide AK-47s are on the list of approved weaponry; only States do. Why not a claymore or a sound-cannon? There's a line. As a society, we must face the limits of access. Surly, no one believes I have a the right to an Apache helicopter. We must answer the question: what is reasonable? Do we the People set terms or will we still stomach NRA profits leading our way? If the GOP cannot take the initiative to return the NRA to it's roots, eventually the rising death-toll will.

We will change.

The only remaining question:

How many of us must die to make it so?