“Houston, We Have A Problem”

The troubling events witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri are all part and parcel of a malady that has been festering for decades in American. 

The entire nation witnessed the March 3, 1991, beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers.  That was followed by a jury verdict that refused to hold these lowlifes and thugs accountable for their vicious behavior.  The frustration and anger from this injustice consequently rocked Los Angeles with awful rioting and violent protests. 

We might have rationally assumed that in light of these developments, there would be a concerted effort to end police brutality.   Certainly, police departments would step up and improve their methods in determining and qualifying applicants who wear badges and carry guns and batons.  They would provide more thorough psychological and emotional stability testing for both their current and future peace keepers to weed out the violent and racists elements.  One might also assume they would have implemented more effective training methods emphasizing that force is always and forever the last resort.  Common sense would also lead us to believe that more rigid forms of discipline and penalties would be established.   Such assumptions are clearly rational and reasonable.  So, how many of these common-sense assumptions are strongly favored and moving forward?  Answer: NONE!!!   So, what’s being discussed and considered as remedies as the epidemic of police beatings and murders continue??? 

Between 2006 and 2012, 439 complaints were filed charging misconduct by Minneapolis police officers.  Ninety-five (95) of these ultimately cost the city $14 million in damages.  Only eight (8) disciplinary actions resulted from these 439 complaints. 

In the wake of this most distressing reality, we now learn that the primary concern by both the Minneapolis and St. Paul Police Departments is hiring larger numbers of minorities as peacekeepers.  This befuddled thinking stems from a desire to engage in social experimentation.  Both police departments are suggesting that real positive change can occur from employing officers that better mirror the communities they serve.  What evidence is there of this??  Answer: NONE!!!!!  Baffling indeed and most alarming to say the least.  We are being told that police misconduct and violence will be curbed and maybe eliminated if the primary qualification for employment is ethnicity.  In other words, these geniuses believe that the general population within the Twin Cities of Minneapolis / St. Paul are morons.   How does this insanity validate who is a proficient individual to perform duties in a profession where thinking and behavior can result in life-or-death outcomes?  

Let us not be shocked or horrified by all the ugliness as it unfolds in Ferguson, Missouri - for it is nothing more than yet another residual of racism, callousness, apathy and ignorance that has plagued our law enforcement communities for decades.  The ugliness will only continue and intensify with lamebrain thinking and solutions. 

Which brings us to the ugliest of remedies if common-sense is abandoned and the above realities and recommendation continue to be ignored.  As a longtime grassroots organizer and activist within the civil rights movement once said; "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."  Are we really willing to allow our businesses to be burned and our streets to run red with blood to stop the brutality???  Are we comfortable with the callous disregard and ignorance in inane solutions such as trial-and-error social experimentation?  If so, then we best prepare ourselves for the day President John F. Kennedy cautioned will come; “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. 

So, what did we learn from the Rodney King fiasco?  Answer: NOTHING!!!!!

Video - Rodney King

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baNVXcSmZZU 

Quadriplegic Brian Sterner 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wElEXyuBLfs 

Video - Alfonso Limon Jr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRF3RwrmdxU 

Video - Brandie Redell 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mvK-DIXOaw 

Video - Victor Hernandez Beaten By Roseville, Minnesota Police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVt6TTFakNc 

$14 Million in damages paid by the city Of Minneapolis - Article

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/209811991.html 

Video - KSTP TV News Report – Recruiting More Minorities

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3533228.shtml?cat=1

Note: The Somali candidate referenced in the report secured employment within

               the St. Paul Police Department by virtue of his ethnic background alone.

 

Hobby Lobby Dilemma

NOTE: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) employers were required to offer contraceptives that could destroy fertilized eggs.   

 In 2012 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. sued the federal government.  Hobby Lobby was already offering a health care plan to their employees that included compensation and coverage for contraceptives.  The new mandate by the ACA was opposed by Hobby Lobby on moral and thus religious grounds.  Hobby Lobby viewed the additional mandate as abortive in nature by destroying fertilized eggs and not just preventive in nature.

 The lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court.  In 2014 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s refusal to expand their insurance to include pregnancy ending coverage.

As the old saying goes; “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy” and we are about to hear from mama on the Supreme Court’s most recent Hobby Lobby ruling.

 As the same old tried arguments are being screamed from the highest hills and as the heart of the issue continues to be ignored, it may be wise for us to consider the following.

Let’s begin with the inevitable battle cry that this is a female issue and thus the demand that all men shut-up on the subject.  This will be followed by an insistence that the ruling is bogus because the five Supreme Court justices who supported the law are all males.

 It’s ironic that women who once bristled over, and were furious with those who advanced the argument that women couldn’t hold high level positions of responsibility because their thinking would be clouded or irrational during ovulation, are now using the same sexist type logic and arguments regarding this issue as well as the abortion issue. 

 Yet no one needs to be a woman to understand that child birth is painful or that the demands of a primary care giver and motherhood and are incredibly demanding – or - to know the difference between right and wrong.  Any guy who lies down with a woman believing she should bear the sole responsibility for her pregnancy – so he can continue to get his jollies – is a slob and any woman who sleeps with him is an idiot.  That certainly is not a female issue and is at the very heart of this dispute. 

This will of course brings us to the altogether familiar attacks on religion.  

 Religion or no religion, immorality and irresponsibility are the cornerstones of this issue and where it becomes contentious.  This topic and its discussion present the same dilemmas and challenges we face with abortion.  Common sense dictates that abortion should be legal so the procedure is safe for those who may have a legitimate medical need.  Yet the law is badly abused.  Abortion on demand supports and promotes selfish and irresponsible behavior.  The very same threat exists with regards birth control in that its abuses will further fuel irresponsible sexual activity and cultivate our cultural decay.

 We next will be bombarded with the premise that this law jeopardizes any and all forms of birth control, rather than distinguishing between preventative and non- preventative measures.  This is where we need to be mindful that the Supreme Court has frowned upon just two IUD's and two “Morning After” pills. 

 To be certain, we are dealing with somewhat of a dilemma here.  Common sense, once again, dictates that any form of birth control deemed a medical necessity for the health of the patient should clearly be made available.  The “Morning After” pill could be necessary for a victim of rape or incest and an IUD may be necessary for women who, for whatever medical reason, may not be able to consume birth control pills or could not withstand a hysterectomy.  Yet the irrational and false claims that these minor Supreme Court restrictions support ending ALLL forms of birth control will undoubtedly and loudly be bandied about.    

 There are no easy answers as to how to protect those engaged in responsible behavior without supporting the ugly, self-centered and careless behavior surrounding casual sexual activity.  However, those pursuing the answers need to be encouraged to continue, while the rest of us demand an end to the unreasonable and harsh criticisms and misconceptions on both sides of the argument.   

 It is clearly a very difficult dilemma which requires the attention of those who possess a rational thought process.

What Do We Tell Him?

He recently attended a funeral in which his deceased uncle was laid to rest in the Fort Snelling veterans cemetery in Minneapolis.

 As he gazed at what appeared to be the endless head stones in this beautiful and peaceful setting he couldn’t help but conjure up thoughts of the all the lives violently lost in the service to our country.  All the son’s, all the brothers, all the uncles, all the fathers and couldn’t help but reflect upon what should be said to those survivors in the wake of our continual involvement in Afghanistan and the dreadful debacle in Iraq.  How does someone explain to this young boy why his father is dead?  What do we say to him?

The Middle East is an awful quagmire.

Our presence there is dictated by four considerations.  They are oil; to encourage, establish and protect democracy; to ferret out and stop our sworn enemies from plotting to kill us; and support for Israel, Jordan and the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Common sense strongly encourages us to disengage from this forever volatile region of the world.  This is Vietnam times ten.  The cost in terms of dollars and other precious American resources is far exceeded by the agonizing loss of American lives – all of which appears to be unending. 

For sure, we can end our oil dependency.  For sure, we can fight our enemies without military involvement.  For sure, we can engage in image building through diplomacy, and for sure, we can arm and, if necessary, train our allies to protect themselves from vicious aggression.   

So, what do we tell him?  What will he learn as he matures?  Will he learn that his dad died for oil, to stop terrorism and to safeguard democracy? - all of which could have been accomplished through other means?

As taps was played for his uncle he thought; How ‘bout we tell this young man that America so deeply grieved the loss of his father, that we now have an unyielding commitment to never engage again in the senseless carnage that killed him.  How ‘bout we tell the boy that he will never be compelled, as his father was, into believing that he has an obligation to be sacrificed?  How ‘bout we tell him that?