How would you prefer people to protest?

It's football season again, and once again my social media feed is full of postings that put NFL players that take a knee during the national anthem in the same category as people that spit on returning 'Nam vets.

Not trying to speak for 'Nam veterans, but as a veteran of Desert Storm I personally think that comparison is disrespectful to them.  Reason being?  Because there's a huge difference between someone yelling "Hell no, we won't go, we won't fight for Texaco!" and someone personally assaulting me.

Also, as a veteran, I'm sick and tired of being used as a propaganda tool.  Nothing pisses me off as much as seeing a huge sign in a restaurant that says "Thank you for your service!  Veteran's discount!" and then finding out that the discount only applies on the 5th Sunday of the month, and only for my meal.  Look, I don't expect a business to give me any special consideration, just don't use my bothers in arms and me as free advertising.  If you're going to present yourself to the other 93% of the population as "Supporting Veterans" then actually do it.

I mention the perceived "disrespect for the troops" because it, and "the flag code" seem to be the only argument that people have against the "Taking a knee" protest.

Just in case you're thinking "this guy's a pacifist" dear reader, allow me to assure you that I'm not.  If I'm in a crowd at a sporting event and the national anthem is playing it takes me back to my days of Drill and Ceremony when I was in the Army, I'll automatically go to "Attention", and "Present Arms", if I happen to be standing behind someone that chooses to play with their phone, I'll spend the whole time trying to get heat vision to activate and burn holes in the back of their head.  On more than one occasion I've confronted the individual after it's over, gently communicating to them that it took a lot of self control for me not to throw their phone onto the playing field and slap them on the back of the head.

Yes, I am a patriot, no I'm not a nationalist.  I love my country, part of that means questioning the policy of a government that can do horrific things (and does with alarming frequency).

You see, I don't just think it's a right to protest injustice, I feel it's a responsibility.  Even if I don't agree with someone's viewpoint, I still want them to have the right to say it.  When it comes to "take a knee" I see a lot of police departments that have policies (written or unwritten) that are oppressive.  I look at the Furguson riots and I see a repeat of the L.A. "Rodney King" riots.

If you read about the L.A. Riots (and more importantly the investigation into police tactics afterward) Chief of Police Daryl Gates had either instituted, or allowed policies to continue that were unconscionable and unconstitutional.  A change was needed.

The years leading up to the incident with Rodney King had cost the LAPD a lot of credibility, and when a man, High on PCP led the police on a high speed pursuit, then was drug from his car and beaten savagely on camera, followed up by the four officers being exonerated in court a whole demographic of citizens collectively snapped.

Rightfully so, I'm all in favor of putting down a rabid dog, I'm not in favor of stoning it, lighting it on fire, or tying it to a tree and starving it to death.  In other words, if someone decides to lead police on a 150mph chase down the freeway, endangering innocent bystanders... I'm in favor of snipers in helicopters fast-roping on to the next available overpass and taking them out.  I'll betcha high speed chases end completely within a year.

A lot of my friends that are opposed to "take a knee" have simply no idea how much power an arresting officer actually wields.  It's basically unlimited.  There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in law enforcement, that is for the court system, police work is based on intuition, "probable cause", and when a person puts on the uniform there's a shift in mentality that's necessary for self preservation.  Life decisions are typically made in a blink of an eye and seldom with the luxury of the whole story that comes out later in the courtroom.

If you have an officer that is burned out, angry, going through personal problems, having an "off" day, he shouldn't be out interacting with the public, because that attitude will come through in those interactions and it will make it hard on the rest of the police force.  In corporate America it's called a "mental health day", and that's for people who sit at desks and stress out when someone takes the last cup of coffee and don't make a fresh pot.

See the psychology of a typical police stop isn't simple, or linear.  When you're driving along and you see flashing lights in your rear view mirror the typical person will feel a shot of "fight or flight" adrenaline.  "What did I do?", "Am I going to get a ticket?", you look down at the speedometer and wonder how fast you were going.  Like it or not, you get nervous and feel (and act) guilty.

Now consider a scenario where your interactions with police in the past has been unpleasant.  Maybe you because you actually did have problems in the past (and paid debt to society, are trying to turn your life around) or you just look like the people that the police officer typically has problems with.

What's the saying?  "Looks like a duck, walks like a duck..." but not a duck.  I've watched body cam video of a police stop that went well.  In all actuality the person being stopped should have been ticketed or arrested, the officer showed grace.  At the same time, the officer's attitude was aggravating the situation.  If I empathize more with law enforcement, my opinion of the stop would be "the kid got off lucky, he broke at least three laws and was a danger to society" (driving under the influence).  If I empathize more with the person being stopped, if I imagine an officer goading me like that... I would be in a position where it would take a lot of self control to not lash out, and I would probably file a complaint, but then, to my knowledge there's never been pot in my car, I don't drink and drive, and I never have an open container in my car.

With power comes responsibility.  I'm licensed to carry a firearm, part of that is the assumption that I'm able to and committed to it's safe and appropriate use.  If I'm carrying a firearm I'm less prone to get into confrontational situations... because I know the awesome responsibility, and hope I never have to take a human life.

Society has a tendency to run around like a bunch of spoiled toddlers punching authority figures in the balls.  Do that enough and eventually you're going to run across someone that will whip your ass.  I'm sorry, but if someone is driving drunk, I want Law enforcement there to stop it, because I'd hate to kill some kid.  Would I like them to be professional?  Absolutely, but some drunks can be real assholes and I'm all in favor of them eating some asphalt.

Law Enforcement does provide a necessary service, if you don't believe me, quit avoiding "that" part of town... you know the one where you're afraid you'll get carjacked at a stoplight?  The reason you feel that way, the reason you lock the doors when you go there is because you don't feel the presence of the rule of law.  You instinctively feel that there are people around that would kill you if they knew how much cash you have on you.

Where the problem comes in is when Law Enforcement gets the "get them before they get you" mentality (that's a quote from "Hill Street Blues").  America shouldn't be a combat zone, but in many cities like Detroit it has become one.  Rules of engagement are different in a combat zone, it's a subjugated population, not a free population.  If we want America to remain free we have to stop making laws that normal people routinely don't see the need for.

...and police need to remain the professionals that they are, even when someone is guilty.  "Guilty until proven innocent".  This puts them at a disadvantage, it's not fair to them, that's why policies that get the wrong mentality off the job are so important.  Police work is a calling, if someone does it for any other reason than the desire to help people they're doing it for the wrong reason.

A tale of two Texas cities

This last week I've been watching two related stories unfold.  I live just South of Fort Worth, TX, close to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world.  It's not uncommon for me to drive to nearby Dallas.

This week two stories are making headlines, two lives lost, law enforcement involved in both.

The first story is about heroism.  Three men, I'm sorry to say African American, who found a lucrative way to generating extra spending cash through armed robbery of local Hispanic bars and nightclubs.  Prior to Friday's incident Dacion Steptoe, Samuel Mayfield and Timothy Huff had shot three other people in seventeen armed robberies.  Friday night when they tried again at Los Vaqueros Sports Bar.  Fort Worth PD's officer Garrett Hull was there undercover.

Officer Hull purposely waited until the murderers left the bar to avoid innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire, and when confronting the the murders outside, he made the ultimate sacrifice for his community.  He was shot in the head and died a few hours later.


The second story is one that underlines the need for policy change in America.  The official story as I understand it is that (white) Officer Amber Guyger came home after a 12 hour shift got off at the wrong floor, and shot and killed her 26 year old (black) upstairs neighbor, believing him to be an intruder in her home.

Only time will tell if that story is the truth, there are many other possible scenarios that make more sense in my mind, but for the moment I'm going to take the story at face value and assume that Officer Guyger is "cut from the same cloth" as Officer Hull.  If that is the case, if on a normal day Officer Guyger is willing to give her own life to protect another's, then DPD faces a dilemma... they're putting their officers at risk by working them past their capability of making good decisions in life-at-stake situations.

We require truck drivers and pilots to get enough rest to be able to make decisions that effect the lives of others.  At very least the one of their officers made a grossly unacceptable error in judgement.  Is it because she was fatigued past the point of being able to make a decision?

In Texas, and a lot of other states "Castle law" is in effect.  Basic principle is that citizens have the right to protect themselves and their property.  Example: if you walk out of the store and find someone breaking into your car, it's within your rights to kill them.

Now taking a life is not something to be taken lightly.  That's not something that the action movies go into.  The psychological after effects of taking a life, even if it's justified.  I've guessing that the people who have given that any thought at all will come to the conclusion that unless life depends on it, let the bad guys have the damn car.

Which leads me to my next point, if DPD doesn't have a policy of checking the mentality of it's officers, then it's a matter of time before Dallas has riots.

There's a saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.". You see being a Police officer is a calling, not a profession.  If an officer is there for any other reason than to "serve and protect", if they have the mentality of "Do you feel lucky punk?", or "Get them before they get you.", the results are catastrophic.  American cities aren't war zones, it's citizens aren't to be subjugated.

Part of the problem is the "fish stinks from the head" Dallas City counsel has a habit of making policy that makes things difficult on law enforcement, the anti-panhandling policy is a good example.  I don't like 'em either, but I'll be damned if I'm going to call 911 and tie up the system because I'm uncomfortable saying "No".  Police have better things to do with their time, like tracking down the guy that walked into a local convenience store and shot two people as a decoy so he could go steal the ATM machines from two other convenience stores.  That story probably didn't even make the news, but I'm sure that police are still working on it.

I guess that's my point of this.  I'm reminded of returning Vietnam Veterans.  No, not everyone who went to the war was a hero, the My Lai Massacre was a horrible thing, the troops still deserved our support, the politicians that set the policy that resulted in the massacre should have also been held accountable.

Los Angeles PD changed it's policy after the '92 riots, the city is now safer.  The police are now safer, that same standard should be nationwide.  We owe it to the men and women who form the thin blue line between criminals and victims.

Now is the time for "Common sense gun legislation".

Yes, I said it.  I like a lot of law abiding gun owners cringe whenever I hear a Democrat say "gun control"... it's a little bit like my Rottweiler "just having a nibble" of my sandwich.. I suspect that they'll take more than "just a nibble".

Hey, even the NRA and Ted Nugent is in favor of keeping guns out of the hands to convicted felons and the mentally ill.

Now is the time.  The Democrats have a point, any criminal can walk into a gun show, or from a private seller, buy an AR-15 without a background check.  Nobody wants that (except maybe the criminal).  The problem isn't the AR-15, the problem is the criminal.

Lets make it tough for them.  Lets pass a law to establish a national database that will house the identities of everyone that we all agree should not have the right to buy weapons and ammunition.  My list would include:

1. Convicted Felons
2. Sex Offenders
3. Non-Citizens 
4. Mentally ill with violent tendencies.

Notice that I did not include Veterans with PTSD (unless of course they fall into the 4th category), I would also include anyone who plea bargains to points 1 or 2 (not sure if that counts as a "conviction" or not.

There needs to be due process associated with the list, no "Oh he said he wanted to kill that guy who cut him off, and he's on Xanax".

The list should also be accessible to the general public, I'm a legal gun owner, should I decide to sell or trade a firearm, I would like to be able to do some due diligence that the guy that I'm trading my AR-15 to for a table saw can legally own an AR-15.  Currently there is no such mechanism.

I would also like to see training included in commercial sales of firearms.  For example, if I go down to my local gun store and buy a Glock... I've never shot a Glock, so I'm not familiar with the safety features of that particular firearm.  Let training be included in the price.  Will the price of a new Glock go up?  I suspect it will, but it will also stimulate the growth of small business (trainers, ranges), and even if I AM familiar with the workings of my shiny new Glock (If I bought a new 1911, I certainly would be) I can always use some prepaid range time.

Politically this is a good move as well, politicians always talk about "working with the other side", this is a chance to prove it.  The D's can go back to their constituants and say "I worked with the R's to get common sense gun legislation passed" and the R's will be able to say "We protected the 2nd Amendment, the next time a D says gun control, you know that what they're really talking about is disarming law abiding citizens."

Legalize it, tax the hell out of it.

Today is March 22.  "On this day in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Beer and Wine Revenue Act. This law levies a federal tax on all alcoholic beverages to raise revenue for the federal government and gives individual states the option to further regulate the sale and distribution of beer and wine." ~History.com

For the past few months newly elected President Trump has been trying to cut government spending... with an ax.  Some of these cuts I'm in favor of, some I'm not, and I suspect that all American citizens feel the same.  I'm a Libertarian that leans Conservative.  What that means is that I'm not in favor of government funding for Planned Parenthood (should be private donations), and I'm also not in favor of building the border wall (we need immigration reform first, the Berlin wall didn't work either).

Today, 84 years ago was the end of prohibition.

This got me thinking, it would be a good way to end the war on drugs against marijuana.

It would be easy... the president could step up to the microphone and say:

"Just like Prohibition, we're spending a ton of money on the DEA trying to keep people from smoking a plant that they can grow in a closet, a plant that has been shown to actually have health benefits in certain situations. Instead of spending money ineffectively trying to stop people, we're going to Tax it's legal sale and turn it into an income stream that will help pay for Healthcare, rehabilitation, and fighting the war against organized crime, specifically the Drug cartels."

When you put it that way it makes sense.  I think everyone knows someone who has destroyed their life with alcohol... we all know smoking tobacco is bad for you too... pot isn't any worse than them.  Heck, we would probably end up with less automobile accidents... there's a saying "Drunks run stop signs, pot heads wait for the sign to change to green."

I'm not saying that everyone should go light up, I personally don't care for pot (yes I inhaled), it sends my ADD into overdrive, and I get hit with a billion ideas at once that I can't process.  I also don't care to get drunk, but I have had a 5th of whiskey with one drink taken out of it on my kitchen counter for about six months.

Now I'm sure someone reading this is thinking "But pot is a gateway drug!!!!" yes, it is... because we force people to buy it from drug dealers, and drug dealers I suspect don't draw an ethical line at just selling pot.  So by making pot illegal we're forcing people who choose to smoke pot to go to people who may try and sell them some other drug ("Hey, this one is an even better high!").  You just don't see that from the guys that sell you a 5th of bourbon at the liquor store.

Anyway Back to the mechanics of legalization. 

- In terms of sale, (federally) any place that sells 100 proof liquor can sell pot.  This excludes the corner gas station. 

- In terms of manufacturing, same oversight as the people who manufacture 100 proof liquor.  I'm surmising that would be the USDA, maybe it's the ATF.

- In terms of legal enforcement, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) becomes the ATM Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Marijuana... firearms never really go well with alcohol anyway.

- Firearms get spun off into a completely new agency, one that would maintain a database easily accessible to EVERYONE of "Do not sell firearms or ammunition to this person".  I think everyone can agree that there are people who shouldn't have guns, convicted felons, non-citizens, the mentally ill... Sure they can't buy a gun at a gun store, but what if I want to sell my shotgun?  How do *I* as a responsible gun owner do a "due diligence" background check?

Federal tax on cigarettes is $1.01 per pack, on alcohol it's "$13.50 per proof gallon" and "$18 per barrel of beer" I don't know how that gets calculated at the cash register, but it came to $9.7 Billion in 2012 for drinking and $15.5 billion in 2010 for cigarettes.  As someone who occasionally drinks, and smokes, I'm totally OK with increasing both, now earmark that money for Rehabilitation, Healthcare, and Fighting organized crime, specifically the drug cartels.  Then add in a hefty tax on marijuana.  Colorado collected just shy of $100 million at a 15% tax rate on Marijuana in 2016... and it's not even one of the "Big three" states (CA, TX, NY). 

We're talking about billions in lost tax revenue that we can't collect because "it's illegal" and we can't regulate it's sale (it's easier for High school kids to get pot than it is for them to get beer because Drug dealers don't check their ID like the Liquor store does).

Just freaking legalize it.  Stop spending money trying to enforce the law (ineffectively), storing the people that DO get caught in prisons, and then supporting them when they get out because it's hard for someone to find a job if they have a criminal record.

My "wet finger in the air" calculation is that this is a Multi-Billion dollar swing in the federal budget.  Most of the law enforcement and tax collection infrastructure already exists, capitalism will figure out the marketing and distribution pretty quickly all on it's own I suspect (just a tiny bit of sarcasm there).

There, I just killed a bunch of birds with one stone.  People for personal rights are happy because the government is out of their personal business (people against personal freedom can piss up a rope and quit reading my blog, I'm not interested in enabling the nosy neighborhood busybody that wants the right to tell you what color you can paint your house).  People in favor of healthcare reform just got a boost in funds to actually pay for it.  People in favor of common sense gun legislation just got a little bit of that.  I reduced the drug problem in schools, and maybe a few people that get all worked up by the news media can roll a joint and chillax a little bit.

Immigration "King of America" Solution

On immigration: Since it's impossible to shut down the border, we have to try and separate the "good" (people who will come in and contribute like our ancestors did) from the "bad" (gangsters and separatists). That means that we need a legitimate way for the "good" to come to America.

 Step 1. Set up immigration centers in the border towns, fingerprint, DNA sample, pictures, a physical, and vaccinations. Issue a tax ID. Direct them toward people who will help them, give them jobs, etc. Create a situation where people who legitimately want to work and feed their families have the best opportunity to contribute to society and succeed personally. Legitimate immigrants will naturally gravitate to these centers. 

Step 2. With the Checkpoints in place we can assume someone trying to cross without going to an immigration center has nefarious intent. This makes it much easier to write rules of engagement... most likely these are the thugs that their government has a warrant for already.

 Step 3. Encourage success and assimilation within our borders, no tolerance for the bad. Irish, Chinese, and Jews are quick examples of cultures that have "melted" and enhanced the American culture (but weren't welcomed in the beginning, and in some cases still experience racism). By allowing legitimate immigration (e.g. Ellis Island) we encourage different cultures to enhance our own culture (Who doesn't enjoy a St. Patrick's day celebration or great Chinese takeout from time to time). Not to mention the tax boone on income that's already being made! By that same token, we don't want to support the bad with our crazy legal system. One felony strike and you're deported and put on the "not welcome" list... no appeal, no incarceration, no drawn out trial to make lawyers rich.

Immigration Preface

For decades now the Democrats and Republicans have been debating "immigration reform" and gotten nothing done, or made stupid policies that have actually made the problem worse.

 I guess I need to preface what I'm about to say with an explanation of where I'm coming from. Living in Texas, and having worked around the construction industry I know illegal immigrants.

 - I know illegals who left their country after their husband/father was killed in civil war, and the family separated and came here illegally to keep from starving.
 - I know people who (after coming here illegally) joined the military and have done multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were injured in service of their country.
 - I know illegals who show up on time, and sober to back breaking, hot, construction jobs.
 - I know owners of construction companies that would rather hire an American citizen, but can't find one that will show up on time and sober to put in an honest day's work for a competitive wage.
 - I know (personally, off the top of my head) at least five U.S. citizens (not retired) that have various excuses why they can't work (none fit the stereotypical profile of an inner city druggie with 7 "welfare kids"). - I don't know any illegals who are receiving "government handouts".
 - I have seen "MS13" (a Central American gang) "tagging" in vacant houses not a mile from where I live... the bad ones are here too, I guess they just aren't inclined to introduce themselves to someone like me. So I write from that perspective.

 Republican stance on immigration (as I understand it): "Build a wall and keep them out, no compromise!" My issue with that idea:
 - Korea has been divided by a DMZ (demilitarized zone) since 1953, it is 160 miles long and 2.5 miles wide, and guarded by the best technology $Billions$ can buy... people cross it, routinely.
 - Berlin wall was 12 feet high, 4 feet thick, and about 100 miles long... it had dogs, 116 watchtowers, and 20 bunkers manned with guards with orders to shoot to kill. Over 5,000 people successfully defected to West Berlin (documented).
 - The U.S. / Mexican border is 1,954 miles long, and we have a free trade agreement with Mexico (NAFTA signed into law by George H.W. Bush 41), as opposed to the "nothing gets in/out of the other examples. Even if we spent trillions and built one long Army post along the border, we undoubtedly would write "rules of engagement" (like we do in war zones) that would make the expense completely impotent. 

Democrat ?ideas? on immigration - I have to admit ignorance to an extent, they aren't as noisy on the subject. (my comments in **) - "Let everyone in, citizenship and amnesty for all" - *Even the drug dealers and gang bangers? You must be joking.*

 So what is my "King of America" idea on this one?

What I hate about Healthcare reform.

Call it ObamaCare, Medicare, CHIP, FHP, whatever. There's a huge amount of debate, and the "government shutdown" was at the center of it. So after 13+ years in the Health insurance industry, here's my take on why it's a bad idea and misconceptions about what it is. Misconception #1 It helps people get healthcare that can't afford it. Well no. What it really does is enable people who are irresponsible to continue to be irresponsible. For example, a few years ago I got laid off after being employed by Aetna for 10 years. Two months later my wife was laid off. We went six months with no employer group insurance plan available. The previous year my daughter had gotten sick... "15 surgeries or she looses her left leg" sick. The bills (about 1/2 million dollars) would have bankrupted us if we didn't have insurance, so we knew firsthand the importance of having health insurance, so we paid $500 a month for an individual plan through Blue Cross Blue Shield (ironically a health insurance company that I've never worked for). Now $500 a month seems like a lot, but lets put it in perspective: - $500 is 71 packs of cigarettes @ $7 a pack (a little more than 2 people smoking a pack a day for a month) - $500 is 10 times eating at a restaurant @ $50 a meal (That's cheap, McDonald's for a family of 4) - $500 is 2 car payments @ $250 (again cheap cars) So I guess I'm OK with people who have sold their cars to get rid of the payment, quit smoking, aren't drinking, only goes to restaurants for a part time job, have no cable TV, and carry a thermos of home brewed coffee to their other part time job staying on welfare healthcare. Misconception #2 It stops those "Greedy insurance giants" from making money from sick people. Woah, WAY wrong. Medicaid is THE new profit center for the insurance Giants. We just added another couple of payers of bureaucracy. See the federal government doesn't pay the hospitals directly. When someone signs up for Medicare they choose a "Plan" that is run by an insurance company, who bills the state, who bills the federal government. Meanwhile each layer has to pay people to process each step along the way. Oh and each state does things a little bit differently, so it's not like there's one system that runs smoothly. Misconception #3 It forces employers ("the man") to provide health insurance for their employees. Kind of. IF a company has 50 or more full time employees, and IF the average salary of those employees is more than $250,000. I'm not sure what happens if the average salary is say $40K (the national average), but Small businesses with fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees with average annual wages below $50,000 can get tax credits to help pay for employee premiums. I'm not sure if that means it's still mandatory, but OK. Caviet, I'm not much of an expert on this part of the law but here's my "common sense" opinion: -If you have a company that is successful enough to have people with an average salary over $250,000 you have a smart, talented bunch of people, and I'll bet they're smart enough and talented enough to find a job else ware if you don't treat them well, so you probably have a really great insurance plan in the interest of retaining talent (or you're quickly out of business) OR you have a bunch of employees that say "I don't CARE about insurance, I have fat stacks of cash and am happy to get it for myself!". -If you have a company that hires a lot of people really cheap (say food service or retail) and you're suddenly required by law to provide health insurance to them at $500 per employee that is a significant expense. One that will either be passed along to your customer, reflected in the "cash" wages of your employees (lower wages, less employees), or result in not being in business anymore (your employees no longer have a job). Either way, sounds like companies would run better without government interference.