Perception : It is what you see.


 

To give you an example..  This Blog, as the title says, is “My View of the World by Joe” and as such it is my view of things based on how I perceive them…  I will admit that I am not a journalist.  I do not go racing out to the news so that I can ask people questions, such as “how did you feel when you saw the man murder your daughter/son/husband/wife/brother/sister/whatever”…  What I will do is read up on it and then give my view, based on my perception, of what is reported, and then try to make sense of it, and maybe ask a few questions…

Maybe I will get you to change your perception of things, and maybe I won’t but, either way I hope to get you thinking about it..

Most of my material, as you may have noticed, comes from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at HT.com and my favorite source for thought is from Tom Lyons…  both are rather liberal, though he seems to have more common sense that the average liberal..

So, today I want to talk about the two party system that we have, and how they are perceived…

Since this article is about perception I will not try to convince you that these accusation are anything more than SOMEONES PERCEPTION.

First the Democrats….

Democrats are often seen as trying to make themselves more appealing to the criminal element and illegal immigrants by continually trying to give illegal immigrants rights and privileges reserved for legal immigrants and citizens…   making it easier for people who are not supposed to be here in the first place to get social services, vote and go to our schools..  In some states people with out documents can even get special driver’s licenses.  The Democrats continue to tell us that it is wrong to make someone prove they are themselves, by use of a picture I.D. , when they go to vote in an election…  Think about the number of places you have to show an I.D. to do, or get, such as the Pharmacy, travel through an Air Port, getting money from the bank, or to cash a check at the store.

Some people would go so far as to tell you that since we have Law Enforcement agencies to protect us there is really no need for us to own firearms, and that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division
ASPCA Humane Law Enforcement Division (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

means that the right to bear arms is reserved for the government..  The myth of “to serve and protect” started by the Los Angles Police Department has been busted by a number of Police Chiefs who have said tha the purpose of their departments is NOT to protect us from crime but to response to criminal acts…  They advocate the creation of more Police type organization, armed of course,  that will have heavier and heavier firepower than the citizens..  If you don’t believe me just look up how many organizations have police powers..  I was surprised to find out that is some larger cities the Post Office has uniformed police patrols…  The POST OFFICE?  I was watching the Animal Planet on Comcast one day…  There were armed officers getting in cars clearly marked ASPCA…  They have Police powers?

 

Check out the number of Police Departments in New York City where they seem to have a cop for everything..  Sanitation Police anyone..  Do they shoot the people who litter or don’t recycle?

All of this is really a matter of perception but it does some times seem that the left is trying to give more rights to the people who are not supposed to be here by taking them away from those of us who are here legally…

Now for the Republicans…

They talk about people taking responsibility for their actions and how it is up to the individual to make his way in the world…  not the governments job…  This is often seen as an attack on the poor.  The Republicans are more inclined toward free enterprise with the idea that the government is responsible for helping people create their own wealth and by not giving it to them..  When President Obama talked about the man who had his own business, and how he had done it himself,  he put his foot in his mouth, maybe he just did not say it the way he ment to, by saying that man had not done it by himself as the government had made the roads and all those things that helped him build up that business…  If you watched the video of his speech President Obama seemed to be saying that the Federal Government did all the things that allowed him to build his company..  Like what?  The Roads?  Even the Interstates are not build by the Feds..  Sure the Federal agencies put the roads on a map but they give this map to the states who obtains the needed land, purchase the road beds, and then hire private contractors to build the roads that the people pay for with the federal gas tax, which the Feds had out like it was THEIR MONEY.  It would not be the job of the Federal Government to make his company for him but, they should at least be able to help keep a business landscape that enable him to build up that company..  himself.

When it come to business interest the Republicans are seen as caving in to the interest of BIG BUSINESS, sometime to the detriment of people’s interest.  Down here there is a constant fight between people who want to have controlled growth, so that we do not out build the roads, water, or services, and the people who want to just allow builder to put anything anywhere..

If you listen to some Republicans you will hear about how to current government regulations hinder the various corporations in the conduct of their business..  Take the Deep Horizon disaster, or the recent financial collapse..  Both of these were covered by government regulations but both happened, and that includes the great PONZI scheme of Bernie Madoff, while government was supposed to be watching but wasn’t.  So before was talk about cutting back on the regulations, some of which are there to ensure a safe environment, lets make sure the regulators are doing their jobs with the tools they have…

 

So, yes, this is about perceptions..  There are, as the saying goes, three sides to any story..  Mine, yours, and the truth.  It is up to us to discover what that truth really is and the make sure we elect people who are more interested in our interest than they are at getting re-elected.

 

It is afterall a Government “by, of, and for THE PEOPLE“,  not “by, of, and for THE CORPORATIONS”.

 

Thanks for your interest,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What are Our Needs? is that the same as Our Rights?


Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789
Bill of Rights, 09/25/1789 (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)

 

 

 

As we debate the issue of what the 2nd Amendment really means, and who it really applies to, we are also debating the rights associated with 9 other amendments that also form th Bill of Rights.

 

Here is a nice link to the Bill of Rights Institute, which not only give a text of the Bill of Rights but, some information about the rational for the Bill itself..

 

Here is a portion that has given so many people a lot of confusion…

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Now, this is where some of the confusion came from…  For years the militia part was interpreted to mean the amendment applied to the federal government, and not the individual citizen.  They took the “well regulated militia” to mean the Military, even though most of our founding fathers did not seem to envision a standing army.

 

So, what is a militia?  Look here for a good definition of a Militia.  The courts have held, recently, that the 2nd amendment really did apply to the states, and the people.  It would be kind of hard to explain how one amendment would only apply to the federal government while the other nine applied to the “the people” mentioned in the 2nd…

 

We are really lucky that the Federalist did not get their way.  They were sure that our rights were obvious and that we did not need to delineate them in the Constitution.  We have a Bill of Rights written into the Constitution and we are still arguing about what they mean…  So what do you think would have happened if we did NOT have the Bill of Rights?  The Antifederalist wanted a list of rights, the federalist did not, they compromised and gave us a short list, with the understanding that any close decisions was to be decided on behalf of the Citizen.

 

Ok.. Most people will tell you that we have the right to bear arms, some reluctantly.  Some people will tell you that we do not need high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic weapons (for the liberal news people who might be reading this the semi-automatic means that it only fires one shot each time you pull the trigger, and the name is not interchangeable with automatic weapon), or even the right to carry (again for you liberal news people that means to carry).

 

No, I don’t need a 30 round magazine.  Most of the time I don’t even need a firearm but, needing and having are two different things…  I don’t normally need a fire extinguisher, but sometime I might, so it would be nice to have one on hand.  The question, which so many of the rabbit want to ignore, is not about if we need to bear arms the fact is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

 

in·fringe from reference.com

 

/ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

 

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

 

Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2  + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

 

If you, or anyone, wants to limit our rights to what we need then you will have to see the constitution as just another piece of papers….  which can be ignored at will..

 

Without people who believe in it the U.S. Constitution it is just an old piece of parchment  to be thrown out when it becomes inconvenient. such as when it is no longer NEEDED..

 

We have choices..  We always have choices.  One is that we can abide by the Constitution, another is we can ignore it, kind of like the “gun” control people seem to want, or we can change it..

 

The first two do not seem like viable options, since a number of people are determined to ignore it, so that leaves us with the idea of change..  Yes, the constitution has been changed in the past.  We have added more amendments, and done away with at least one, remember prohibition?

 

Then again, does anyone remember the Articles of Confederation?  It brought the states together but, did not give the central government the power to make the states behave.  So they decided to “revise” the Articles of Confederation to give the central government more power, and to make bills easier to pass.

 

Thus it was, in just a few years” replaced.  Never voted out, the new Constitution was just voted in..  Would we really want to risk that?

 

Lets go back to the idea of NEEDS..  What do we really need..  and if we don’t need something who will decide if we need it..  I know we already have people who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment by saying you can’t have more than a certain number of rounds in a magazine, it is NOT A CLIP,

 

We have been told that you don’t need to tell lies about other people(slander or libel), unless you are a politician, or yell “fire” in a crowed theater unless there really is a fire.

 

Just think of the “Bill of Rights” and consider how many of them you really “NEED” on a given day..  For those of you who don’t get arrested, for example, you won’t “NEED” the right to have a lawyer present, or the “right to remain silent”.  There are a number of “rights” that we have and yet don’t need on a daily basis so, who is going to decide which of the “rights” you “need” and when you need them….  Will there be a secret court, such as the now famous FISA court, where they will decide if you even “need” a trial by your peers, or will they just pronounce you guilty, and the first thing you hear about it is when they take you to serve your sentence?

 

One last thought for the day:  for those of you who say that our founding father’s did not anticipate high capacity magazine, or even weapon that could fire more than one shot, I say, look at how the world has changed, since then and understand that they did not anticipate the internet, the phone system, telegrams, and many other wonders we have.  Wonders that the Supreme Court has been called upon to apply our rights to.  What if it had been decided that, since they had only envisioned the mail, that he telegraph, your phone, your cell phone, or the internet did not come under those items protected by the Constitution.  Any of those things could then be open without probable cause, and you would have no electronic privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Myth Disspelled? “To Serve and To Protect”?


One of the many things that the Angeles Police Department is  famous for is the phrase “To Serve and Protect“.  It was selected as a motto by the LAPD Academy in 1955 and has been used by many Police Departments since then….

So maybe the Emeryville Police Department should get their own motto.  They could use this one “To Force and Intimidate”.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

Attention Contract and Serial Killers….


Seal of the City of Bradenton Beach for fair u...
Seal of the City of Bradenton Beach for fair use to illustrate the article about Bradenton Beach , Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It would appear that the spirit of Barney Fife is alive, well and working for the Bradenton Beach Police Department….

About two years ago Sheena Morris was found hanging in a Bradenton Beach Motel shower, Bradenton Police quickly determined that it was a suicide.  It was, if you listen to the Bradenton Beach Police, a simple case, and that is all there is to it.

Some time later, down in Miami Michael Berkland, a forensic pathologist with over 6,000 cases to his credit, is shown pictures of the crime scene, and determines that it was a staged scene.  He disputes the procedures of the investigators, and the Manatee Country Coroners office changes the cause of death from suicide to undetermined.

When asked about these discrepancies Bradenton Beach Police Chief Speciale says that all of these 36 points, brought up by the experts, were just points of OPINION, and that they were not there.

Detective Diaz, who was brought over from another department due to the lack of experienced investigators at the BBPD, had not worked a solo murder investigation before, and his sole experience was with the Palmetto PD.

There might be a change, depending on a review by the Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement (FDLE) but, that review is to only consist of a presentation, by the BBPD, of gathered information, and unlikely to include anything that might contradict previous finding.

The question is : Who’s opinion would you go with, Barney Fife or someone with over 6,000 cases to their credit?

Lets try to get JUSTICE for Sheena Morris…

Should you be able to legally Defend yourself, or others?


Martin Grave
Martin Grave (Photo credit: Robert of Fairfax)

The Trayvon Martin case prompted a new look at the Stand Your Ground Laws, and specifically the one in Florida..

One of the questions that come up is this : Should Neighborhood Watch people be armed?  Are they Law Enforcement?  No. They are observers, and therefore they should “observe and report” only..  This means that they should NOT CONFRONT suspects who might be committing crimes.  Does this mean that, as a Neighborhood Watch member they give up their rights as a citizen?  NO!  For seven years I was in Air Force Security Police where we were taught that while the Posse Comitatus act barred Federal Troops from enforcing Civil law we still retained our right as Citizens..  What did this mean?  Lets say I was at a base that conducted town patrols.  While I could not be dispatched to a robbery, as that would be construed as Enforcing Civil Law, I could act if I just happened to be out front when the bad guys came out.  I still had my rights of citizens Arrest.  Does this mean that the people who wish to make their neighborhoods safe have to give up that same right just because the joined a Neighborhood Watch?  I don’t think that should be a question.  IF they were to see a Felony taking place they should be able to act.  Of course, since they are not Law Enforcement, and therefore they are not protected by the same laws as REAL LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, they have to be correct, or they could be charged, for arresting  someone who turns out to not be a real felon.  I used to tell some of the people I worked with, in the private security field, that if they want to play cop they have to know more about the law than the cops do, as they can be arrested for false arrest, or imprisonment, so the best thing for them to do is “observe and report”.  As an A.F.S.P. we were told that the first things we were to do was 1 Detect, 2. Report, and then 3. neutralize the threat.  The first two were the most important, as someone other then you must know about the threat, and be able to respond.

So, while they might still have the rights of a private citizen, to arrest for a felony, the best action for them is to “observe and report”, and let the people with the express authority make the arrest.  If Mr. Zimmerman had seen an actual felony, or had a probable cause to believe he had seen a felony act being committed, it might be different.  Still the best thing would be to stay our of the way, and let Law Enforcement handle the situation, not go charging in.

There is just as much evidence to show that Trayvon Martin was defending himself, and if that is true then Zimmerman is the aggressor as there has so far been not proof of a felony action on Martin’s part.

The Sanford Police would have been with in their rights to arrest Zimmerman.  We might never know what really happened but, I do not believe the “Stand Your Ground” law applied to him.

Maybe the law needs to be clarified.  What we don’t need is to take away a citizen’s right to defend themselves, or others, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime.  What we do need is for the law to clearly explain under what circumstances you are allowed to not be the victim.

If we wind up going back to the days when you were required to retreat from a threat, we might face the possibility that a citizen who is forced to protect himself would become the criminal, and that would be a real crime.