It's NOT just another shooting

Submitted as a Letter to the Editor of the Coalfield Progress, here in Wise, VA, on 21 June 2015.                                                                                     

It’s NOT just another shooting.

A 'lone wolf gunman' entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Charleston, SC on Wednesday June 10^th, then proceeded to shoot and kill 9 of our fellow citizens.

The Criminal Justice system will determine the facts and apply the prescribed punishment in the months and years to come. It will answer whether this was a premeditated act, or a random, opportunistic act; did the killer understand right from wrong; was the killer in charge of their faculties at the time of the heinous act, and finally are they able to participate in their defense, as the case is presented and prosecuted.

The Criminal Justice system will determine all of that; however, what they can't determine is the 'why'? They can not, and will not be able to tell us why this happened. They can't tell us how this person was raised or how they formed into the killer they became, in this society that seemingly is so accepting of all peoples. This nation of immigrants, a beacon of freedom for all, which time and again turns and kills its own. How does this happen? Why do we do this to each other? What can I do? How can I help change this?

Those are the questions we need to be asking ourselves. These questions belong on the national stage. Very smart folks in the social sciences, others in mental health, and more in the forensics fields will turn this case, this individual, the community - micro and macro - inside out as they search for answers and causes to this seemingly planned act. The answer to why this person pulled that trigger involves the question of how did their environment define them and shape their thinking; thinking that led to this ability to walk into a building and target 9 of our citizen's. Nine people who he had never seen before, never met. Nine people who took nothing from him. Nine people who were not alone in this world. Their loss is felt deeply and irrevocably changes the lives of innumerable others - of the entire racial, color, gender, and socioeconomic spectrum.

Jon Stewart, on his Daily Show, opened with a somber monologue that began, "I honestly have nothing other than sadness that once again we have to peer into the abyss of the depraved violence that we do to each other and the nexus of a just gaping racial wound that will not heal yet we pretend doesn’t exist." He went on to remind us that, once again, we will actually do nothing about this while we continue to spend money protecting our Citizen's from untold threats abroad - which we can't be told about. He's on to something here - 'this shining city on a hill' that all people around the world aspire to; that dreams are made of and struggles are fought and won - with blood and sweat and yes, death. We ask people around the world to give up their lives in pursuit of this thing called 'Freedom' and yet....is this what we are asking them to fight for?

These shootings affect me on a much different scale than terrorist acts like 9/11 do. Not meant as disrespectful, or as an inflammatory statement - simply I understand more why terrorists meant, and continue to mean us harm. We are a big, convenient target that makes a mark - good and bad - throughout the world. The picture of our existence, which we project to the rest of the world, is exactly what paints a target upon us for terrorists and others. But what about what we do to each other? There is that question again. How can we continue to be successful, on the world stage, if we can't achieve success in this struggle at home? It is a struggle too: A struggle for existence.

If we accept that this continues to be a struggle for existence, then perhaps defining aspects of that existence is also needed. We need people who can explore and expand the question - or the definition of the question and broaden it to include a 360 degree viewpoint. Certainly we know that this racial divide exists. Whether we understand it completely or not, we must still accept its existence.

My view of this struggle for existence in the United States involves the following:
            People of all colors or skin tones (exclusive of race)
            People of all races - indigenous or not (exclusive of color or skin tone)
            People of all socioeconomic classes
            People of either or any gender

If you haven't already figured it out, read through that list again. The struggle for existence covers the entire spectrum, in my view. This is the United States of America, yet everyone struggles to exist in his or her own way; both black and white, including those of asian, hispanic, indian, middle eastern, european, or native descent. We struggle to achieve, we struggle to belong, we struggle to grow, and we struggle to exist.

We struggle to understand. When we cease this struggle to understand; when we believe we have it all figured out; when we think our problems have been solved, that they no longer exist; when we cease to question and simply accept what is...that is the day our struggles are over, that is the dawn of the beginning of the end of our existence.

While I can't answer why another shooting happens, I can continue to move forward, continue to question us, we the people must always question We The People - or we won't be those People anymore. I haven't heard from the National Rifle Association (NRA) yet, on this crime, but this crime is not the NRA's fault. The NRA is simply made up of fellow citizens who believe that they have a right to own guns. Sometimes the NRA's statements seem a little inflammatory, likewise the anti-NRA statements can similarly be inflammatory. A 360 degree view. Examine and study it from all angles. Seek consensus - the NRA, to my knowledge, does not advocate killing people. There is common ground. Find it, claim it for all sides, and then work from there to build a relationship. That has always been our countries strength, our framework of success has always been compromise - compromise that resulted from finding common ground and working towards a solution to achieve the greatest benefit for all.

Here's what I believe, what I feel without offering any proof. I feel that gridlock in our politics has contributed to this problem. I think that unrestricted money in political campaigns creates and fosters a socioeconomic environment that amplifies the distinct separations between classes and places barriers to movement between those classes. I think that continuing to pass on term-limits only makes this problem worse - that our ability to choose how to vote is becoming so shaped by the 'message' that we no longer allow ourselves to think clearly and rationally. The message gets us so emotionally charged that we enter the voting booth and vote from anger or fear; we don't vote from logic or reason; we aren't voting for the long-term health of our country, instead we are voting for the here and now. We believe that we must have gratification first and work for it later; we've allowed the media, corporations, and yes, politicians and the message to drive our wants and desires to the point that we are trapped in this cycle. We are no longer so willing to compromise our desires; we've conflicted our wants and needs in response to the message that is sent, viewed, and heard every day.

A repeated message that I have seen is that consumers must spend to ensure the stability and growth of the economy. What does this have to do with Dylann Roof? Perhaps he didn't have the resources to keep our economy afloat and he felt that he should have those resources and someone must have taken them or kept them away from him. Someone needed to be blamed. This is part of Merton's goal-means gap, it is part anomie, but it is not the sole reason this person entered that church and killed 9 of our fellow citizens. Altogether these things contribute to and impact the environment that we live and grow in – the environment that helps to shape and define us, the environment that is part of what makes our society.

We don't have to change our society or our system - we have to change us. We start that by asking - What can I do differently? What can I do daily? What can I do now?

The impact of watching American Sniper....a few weeks on.

Went to see the movie American Sniper some weeks ago (maybe 3 weeks). I have no complaints about the movie, but I'm done with Iraq War movies.  Have you ever felt like your body was so internally hot that you might spontaneously com-bust ? - that is how I felt during that entire movie, but again, I think it was a well presented movie.

A few days prior to seeing this movie, during a discussion in class, American Sniper was brought up - basically concerning it's possible impact on the trial that was then in session for the accused (now convicted) murderer of the two men. "American Sniper" was tossed around a few times before I made the comment - and no offense intended, to anyone, and not to take away from the accomplishments of one that is recognized as the best sniper ever - but I commented that there are many snipers in the military and that they are all American; this particular American sniper's name was Chris Kyle, and that is then who we should be talking of. I'm pretty sure that the military students were in a majority of consensus with my opinion.

Anyways, we talked a bit (just a small bit) about the impact and timing of the movie, and some of the 'seeming facts' that were coming out of the trial (taking someone who is known to be drunk/stoned to the firing range) - I was not there and therefore do not question or judge the processes used to assist those veterans who were mentally in need.

I have noted though, since viewing the movie, that I have seemed a little off-balance; a slight sense of just not myself. I told Melissa, after leaving the theater, that I was done with Iraq War movies. I kind of allowed myself to be drug to this movie, in a fashion, because she really wanted to see it and I felt that I needed to take her in order to be the kind and supportive person that I'm supposed to be. I'm not going to anymore though.

I'm not anti-war, by any means, but I think that there has rarely been a good reason to send our son's and daughter's off to fight in foreign countries, for interests that are not entirely clear - and this really seems to be one of those to me. As we send US Troops back to Iraq to deal with ISIS or ISIL or the Al Qaeda affiliate that is not affiliated with Al Qaeda - I'm just left wondering about the expenditure of life and resources that were committed to a cause that I never fully understood - because the U.S. does not involve itself in 'nation building'....so why did we go?

I do know that Uday and Qusay, by all accounts, were of an evil that the lack of presence of makes our world a better place. But we, as a Nation, do not selectively assassinate foreign leaders or their families- we do not interfere in sovereign nations affairs.

I felt that I needed to express this post, because it is a conundrum that I'm sure many other Veterans live with each day. It's just that some days it seems to come to the forefront more than others - and watching American Sniper sure did bring it back to the forefront for me.

Now I'm off to the gym, to sweat out the anger and frustration and sadness and restore my soul, somewhat, because that is basically all that one can do. It's called the 'new normal'; it's like the old normal - and it is normal, just not the same normal that we were once used too; and sometimes that takes a bit more time getting used to.

21 Mar: I was thinking at the gym, and on the way home about what upsets me- really upsets me, about this movie subject. Chris Kyle had to find a place, within himself, in order to live with himself; he determined that by doing his job he was saving the lives of countless Soldiers and Marines, and that is how he was able to face himself. Chris earned the right to NOT have to continue to make decisions and choices - that he had to make in Iraq, when he returned. I feel sorry for his wife and children, but I really feel sorry for Chris - who had the life, that he had Earned, taken away from him. Reminds me of the moment in 'Saving Private Ryan', when the Captain says, "Earn this". Chris did, and then it was taken from him.

Okay, I'm done with this subject. Sorry for being so long-winded on it. Had to work it out of my system.

He who hesitates....

Back in 2009, I was driving up to my buddy's place in North Texas. The sun was shining brightly and I had my smartphone/gps device plugged into the cigarette/power outlet. It worked fine, but there were these wires hanging about, constantly getting in the way and that got me thinking of why not produce a replacement back for cell phones that are embedded with a flexible solar cell technology and plug directly into the battery interface contacts. This leaves the mini (or micro) USB port available still (does anyone really know the difference ? and if we do, haven't we pretty much quit caring what the heck it's called!)

Anyways, I used a piece of napkin to sketch out my plans, but then had to train up a Army unit for deployment to Iraq and put this idea on the back burner. My buddy thought it was a heck of a good idea....I mean, when your not using your phone, turn it upside down and it charges. A little heat-sink grease and there should be no issues with overheating batteries etc.  Well, I found a similar item while I was in Iraq, so that idea was mute forever more. I did buy stock in Ascent Solar Technologies (ASTI) who produces quite a few items using a flexible solar cell technology. Smart stuff. Kudos for them, if they can ever get out of the cellar and into the mainstream.

After returning from Iraq in 2011, I started thinking about another 'spectacular' idea, this one involving Bluetooth technology. Assuming that many folks now own smartphones (or other devices enabled with Bluetooth) I decided that there must be a way to automatically recognize and join devices (I think BT 3.0 and 4.0 allows this)- so here's this idea: When walking into a big-box store (think Lowes, Home Depot, Sam's Club, or Costco) where locations of all items in the store are tracked using software - why can't they have a connected Bluetooth system that welcomes you, as you walk into the store, and then becomes interactive, asking you what you are shopping for today, and then directing you towards the proper aisle. Since BT technology is generally limited to about 30 feet, an additional antenna device could welcome the consumer to 'housewares' and then offer both the location and alternative ideas - the automated supply and stockage systems make this possible. The beauty of this entire idea is that it does not get rid of folks on the floor - you will always need human interface with some level of expertise in that section.

I'm working on my next idea....not sure what it is going to be though. I think I'd like to get away from automation stuff and work on building something.

Oh what goes through ones mind while driving across country.

Legalize Marijuana? 3 Jan 2015

     While enjoying my coffee (with French Vanilla creamer) this morning, and 'flipping' through the news (actually 'clicking' through now) I came across a headline in the Daily Beast titled, "Feds Still Think Pot is Dangerous". I found the short article rather boring; basically a rehash of the same old storyline that marijuana has no medicinal value and is highly addictive, which means it remains a Schedule One drug (the worst of the worst). I did like two of the comments that were posted, oddly enough, in a section titled, "Comments." The fact that the comments were posted in the correct area allows me to arrive at the conclusion that 'stoners' could not have made these postings and thus the validity of the content is unquestioned.

Comment 1:

A month before my sentencing in my federal pot felony case back in 1994, I sent the Chief U.S. District Court Judge a 3-page footnoted report I wrote, "A Brief History of the Criminalization of Marijuana in America." It worked to my benefit (reduced sentence) that I approached the problem by examining the corporate machinations and manipulations of Congress by Hearst Newspapers and the DuPont Corporation that made pot illegal here, rather than expounding on the benefits of legalization.
In the early 1930's machines had been invented that made hemp paper, which lasts 10x longer than acidic wood pulp paper, economically competitive. Hearst and DuPont were hugely invested in wood pulp paper and eliminated competition from hemp paper by bribing Congress to make hemp illegal and demonizing it in Hearst newspapers. Every American knew what hemp was, but Hearst injected the Mexican name 'marijuana' into the press, making folks think it was a new 'demon drug from Mexico.'
Perhaps if our Justice department would examine the roots of the problem,  they would be far less clueless and could justify their actions in legalizing it.

Note 1: Hemp and Marijuana, while both the same plant, are different breeds and grown differently for their respective purposes.
Note 2: A federal pot felony case is more likely to be possession or distribution, not use - so this person does not warrant classification as a 'stoner', meaning the content of his post remains valid, for my purposes. ;-)

Comment 2:

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was primarily the unholy creation of Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962. Anslinger had made his career enforcing alcohol prohibition, but when that was repealed in 1933, Anslinger needed a new illegal substance to secure his job.
“Marihuana” was a perfect target: It was used primarily by minorities who were feared by the public due to newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst’s nationwide “Reefer Madness” campaign to demonize cannabis and hemp. Hearst was a racist who used the little-known term “marihuana” to describe what had always been commonly known as cannabis or hemp. Hearst ran a very effective scare campaign to convince the public that “Mexicans and Negroes” were smoking a new drug called “marihuana” that was causing them to rape and murder white people.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 used a unique legal theory. Since Congress did not have the power to ban substances directly because of the 10th Amendment, they needed an indirect method of prohibition. They were inspired by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which effectively outlawed machine guns through the requirement of a “prohibitive” tax.
The Marihuana Tax Act adopted the “prohibition through taxation” scheme. Rather than making marijuana possession illegal directly, the law required you to purchase a tax stamp in order to possess marijuana legally. Because the taxes were set prohibitively high, it discouraged compliance, creating de facto prohibition.

Note 3: having read through the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, I was able to locate that the tax on an ounce of marijuana was $1, if you had the annual tax stamp that varied between $1 and $24 - depending on where you sat on the totem pole. Engaging in trade without the stamp would, however, result in a $100 per ounce assessment.

     Located in the preamble to the 1937 Act were the following two subsections, that I found particularly interesting: (a) is the place where Mitt Romney determined that "corporations are people too" - we gave him a lot of flack on that, but he was only repeating what the government had already determined to be true. Perhaps one of his 'people' are raising hemp for him? I don't know, but a $1 tax on a $3-500 an ounce product seems pretty enticing. I think we owe him an apology, on this point, there are other points, like "the middle class makes about $250,000 a year" that we do not need to apologize for.

(a) The term "person" means an individual, a partnership, trust, association, company, or corporation and includes an officer or employee of a trust, association, company, or corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee, or member, is under a duty to perform any act in respect of which any violation of this Act occurs.

 

     The next part of the preamble (b) did confuse me, just a bit. As comment 1 (above) appears to make the case that marihuana was demonized to facilitate profitmaking by Hearst and DuPont, the below part (b) seems to exclude that which is needed to make the hemp paper, namely the stalks and fibers coming from the plant. If the stalks and fibers are not illegal, then it would seem that cultivating hemp to produce paper is legal, and thus the argument involving Hearst and DuPont does not bear weight. I have deduced, upon further contemplation, that the original argument can remain valid as only the 'sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination' is allowed. That means, effectively, that only those plants in existence, on the day that this became law, could be harvested for their stalks and fibers. Thereafter, all seeds, capable of germination, would be subject to the "Tax", and under part (b) those seeds, capable of germination, are illegal to possess. This is the best case of 'government double-speak' that I have ever seen - I think it states, in plain language that, "that which is illegal to possess, is legally allowed to be possessed, except when that legality is illegal", which it is.

 

(b) The term "marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin- but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

     The legalization of marijuana has warranted increasing news and media coverage. A result of this is that our politicians are starting to position themselves on the fence, ready to jump to either side, depending upon public opinion (or so it would seem to me). Quite a few politicians are treading - ever so gently - by failing to publically comment at all. I actually can understand that position, as failure to completely, and adequately, understand the complexities involved could result in a politician's railroading out of town, at the next election. No politician, today, willingly takes a position that could result in losing the next election. This is indicative of the larger problem we have of 'politics as a career job' vice politics as a responsibility of a informed citizenry. A politician that puts down their hoe and takes up the pen, in the statehouse for one or two terms, and then returns to their previous job, is the basis upon what our form of government was founded. We have horribly twisted that model.

     The 'wait and see' approach, that states that we'll see what happens in Colorado and Washington is a 'non-approach'. We don't send politicians to the statehouse to avoid the issues. We send them to take a stand, even when that stand may seem to run counter to popular opinion. We trust our government to make the laws that allow our society to flourish and prosper, while maintaining that solid base from which we understand 'rule of law' and respect the 'rights of the people, and the separate States' where those rights do not infringe upon the rights of the Citizens of the United States, and adjoining States citizenry.

     So, what exactly is the point of my blog today? Well, I'm against the legalization of marijuana as a social drug. I do believe that marijuana is incorrectly classified, by the federal government, as a Schedule 1 drug. Labeling marijuana as a schedule 1 drug creates insurmountable obstacles to scientific research - the vary same research likely to determine that marijuana is not an 'addictive substance', which is what places it on the Schedule 1 list, as highly addictive and a gateway drug to harder substances. I do believe marijuana to have medicinal qualities, but smoking marijuana is not the delivery method of choice (smoking causes cancer dumbass). Reclassifying marijuana would allow for scientific studies, analyzing through accepted approaches, the benefits and drawbacks of medical marijuana and the delivery methods preferred. Alleviating the known bad impacts of drawing the smoke from burning substances into the human body, through the lungs. This would also free up the remainder of the plant, which, when grown as hemp, has very little of the cannaboid THC, and therefore is not generally used as a method of 'getting high', or using the publically accepted term of 'self-medicating with an all-natural substance'.

     Why am I against this as a social drug? 'Tune-in by tuning out', a popular theme of the 60s, a time before the internet, social media, instant on-demand, all the time, everywhere you are-news, movies, and games. I spent some time, under the influence of marijuana in my youth. I can certainly say that it allowed me total relaxation; life without responsibilities - that's what it's all about. Tune-out. As more and more folks do this, at what point do the scales tip. Vote a stoner into Congress ! We'll get more for less, or nothing for anything. We'll get a tax rebate for the purchase of pizza, because the purchase of pizza stimulates the economy and creates growth and jobs - hey, it doesn't matter of you're Democrat or Republican, you can't argue with that position. If more people order pizza, on a regular basis, more jobs will, of necessity, be created and as a result the economy will grow. Is this the growth that we desire though? Of course, I am just joking about a tax rebate for pizza purchasers, but all you have to do is simply change the product to arrive at realism. Scary - that is.

     Maybe the Stoners in Congress couldn't really screw it up any worse than it is - and that is a scary thought also. As for me, I'm a firm believer in individual responsibility; personal and community values that respect self and others. I believe that government is about 'service above self', and that self-serving people detract from our society, when they are elected to serve. In this respect, Stoners in Congress makes perfect sense. Stoners are not a 'what's in it for me' crowd. They are more likely to be concerned that everyone has a good time, even if it means that they don't get exactly what they wanted, because, once their stoned, they can't remember what it is that they wanted in the first place, and without responsibility, everyone can have a good time.

     Marijuana as a prescribed course of treatment does not scare me; as a social drug though, it worries me greatly.