On Civic Responsibility

     Either you are entirely comfortable with the current political and economic situation we find in our country or you are not. One is infinitely entitled to be of either opinion. It is the right of every American to hold whatever political, social and/or economic opinions they see fit to hold. Disagreement is part of the deal, it is worked into the fabric of the our liberty. However, to quote Stan Lee, "With great power come great responsibility". Americans enjoy the rights to have and state opinions openly because it is assumed that we will zealously guard those rights. That is the responsibility that comes and in inherent and inseparable from the rights themselves. In order to enjoy the rights afforded, a citizen must undertake to fulfill the responsibilities included with those rights.

    Part of the responsibility of having, expressing and persuading other people to your opinion is listening to theirs. How can you move anything to a predefined place if you don't know where you are starting from? The way to power is through consensus, not force. Convince someone that your opinion holds more rational and desirable outcomes for them than the one they currently hold. Almost 100% of the time, this cannot not be done by simply telling someone "You're wrong". Persuade, do not browbeat, your friends, colleagues, neighbors, classmates and the guy standing on the corner holding a sign with a slogan that you disagree with.

    This requires three things from the persuader; 1) Active listening, 2) Logical and persuasive model building and 3)Reasoned and reasonable discourse. Let us reason together what these three things mean, at least to the writer. You may, of course, disagree.

    Active listening is truly hearing and grasping what the other person is saying to the extent that you can rephrase and state it back to them and obtain their agreement that you understand. It is listening to where they are starting. This must continue throughout the conversation if persuasion is to happen. If you can't grasp their opinions and why the have them, you cannot offer alternatives that will make sense to them. We are simply back to the "You're wrong" statement. Listen to what they say and give it value. They do. You don't have to agree, but you do have to hear.

    Model building is a lot like a building project timeline, except its hypothetical. You place a hypothetical law or policy in place and mentally build outward to project its positive and negative effects. Example: If the "Save the Monkeys" Act passes, then monkeys globally will enjoy better nutrition, more sanctuaries, and better health, but it will cost you in higher taxes, diminished relationships in countries A, B and C and will contribute to faster developing, human crossover diseases. You have laid out your opinion of the effects of the Save the Monkeys Act as factually as you know how, with little or no embellishments. Simply the facts as you understand them. You have built a mental model and projected its effects based on what you know.

    Reasoned discourse is the way Congress is supposed to work, but never really has. It is the reasoned and reasonable discussion of mental models from different viewpoints. It requires listening and evaluating different viewpoints against your mental models and the outcomes you want to have happen.

 Reasoned discourse examples:

    'The purpose of the act is to save primates in various locations that are being starved due to shrinking environmental factors and habitats. The expansion of people is encroaching on their native habitats and shrinking their available food supply. This act seeks to set aside habitat globally and insure primates can thrive.'

    'While the purpose of the act is noble, however there are no safeguards to insure that the intent of the act is carried out. Indeed, there is no way to safeguard intent. We give $Xmillion dollars to the Dendarii to set aside land. What keeps them from buying weapons and just shooting the primates? And if they do, what can we do about it? Let us discuss other alternatives to this act, maybe importing primates to our country and building preserves here? Have other options besides just throwing taxpayer money at the problem been studied?'

    'I must object to this use of taxpayer money in this manner at this time. While the primate situation is awful, we must address the growing poverty and hunger in our own country before we worry about primates in other countries. Why are we not using diplomatic and economic pressures on these countries to persuade them to save their own primates? Let us solve the issues that real people in our own country have before we worry about monkeys on the Veldt.'

    Here's the hard part. Each of these opinions require that new mental models be built based on the stated or learned facts. Each carries its own pros and cons that must be logically carried out to their hypothetical conclusions in a very broad way. In each argument against the proposed act, an alternative was offered. What are the effects of those alternatives? Will they produce the desired outcome? What are the other effects these alternatives might have?

    While this is an absurd example, it illustrates what the responsibilities are tied to the rights we enjoy. Now apply these rules to elections where voting is the most primary and most important responsibility of a citizen. Look at the candidates with what Jefferson called "enlightened self-interest" and build you mental models based on what you know. Apply the first Hippocratic oath "First, do no harm" and then whether  the candidate will improve your life in some basic ways. Which candidate does this best? Which policies the candidate proposes are best for you, your neighbors and your community -in that order.

    

    Then carry out your responsibility - Vote for the candidate of your choice.

UNUM

A True Story

 Before relating this, let the author explain that he is relating an actual event, personally witnessed and related to the reader as it came to him. In the story, there is no embellishment, no poetic license. This is what happened.

    I am retired, but continue to work part-time for a variety of reasons that are incredibly unimportant. I work with other folks and, at my job, part of our staff delivers parts to our customers. They get in a company provided vehicle and take various items to various locations within our assigned area of service. One of these people is Hispanic. He is very nice, very conscientious and polite. He has a family, two kids and a wife. They drive two cars because they both work. They own their home. An all-American suburban family.

    But one day, a few days ago, while on a delivery, this man is pulled over for not having a license plate on the front of the vehicle (in Texas, state law requires one in the front and one in the back). He was pulled over by a municipal police officer who patrols the small town where he had a delivery. 

    This man I work with was eventually issued a warning and returned to the shop.

    Once there, he admitted to me that the incident had really frightened him. He had also left his driver's license in his own car and the officer evidently got a little short with him about that. That's not what frightened him. He as afraid that this officer would contact ICE (as law enforcement is required to do in Texas, if they suspect someone is here illegally) and he would be detained. He was really shook. Incredibly frightened.

    One fact I have not mentioned until now, this man is from Puerto Rico. He is and always has been an American citizen. He is as American as baseball and apple pie. And yet he was genuinely afraid.

    And that's the story.

    But, just for a second, imagine yourself in that position. You are an American citizen, your ancestors were American citizens for generations. But you might be detained because you look different, have a different accent and/or you don't say exactly the right thing in exactly the right way in a similar situation. And detained means transported 100 miles away and locked up without recourse to a phone call, a lawyer or any of your Constitutional rights. You know, the Constitution, that collection of rules that define what IS America.

    Please, just for a second.

UNUM

On Senatobia and Kenoh Wiley

 This is a story so remarkably sad that it is extremely difficult for this essayist to approach. A one year old child is dead at the hands of those given the use of the most resources to protect him. I was not there, I will probably never know exactly the circumstances or events that took place. In  the end, to me, they are irrelevant. A one year old boy with all the promise that entails, is gone in the results of an entirely avoidable and unforgivable situation.

Forget blame, although accountability must follow if this tragedy is to become less possible in the future, forget anger for the moment. I am personally grieving this death, this senseless, almost overwhelmingly tragic and hope-stealing death.

I will address several issues in the days to come; use of force, police accountability, racism and the need for community in our lives. But for now, I am simply and deeply grieving this loss. Its simply the saddest thing I have heard in years.

My support and condolences to the Wiley family and Senatobia-at-large (although I fear that means almost nothing beyond the space it took up in  this writing). If its any consolation, I share your pain.

May God keep watch over you and yours. Amen.

"My country is the world and my religion is to do good."

-Thomas Paine

             I have just recently discovered this Paine quote, and though it is over 250 years old, it is a timeless and universal ideal that bears revisiting. I find myself in profound and deeply convicted agreement with this simple passage. It is simple in its statement, but incredible complicated in its effects.

        Let us examine it and understand what it means to live by the simplicity of such a statement. For convenience, I will break it down into two parts; the former and the latter.

        The first part claims a global citizenship. That would mean the child in sub-Saharan Africa is as much your neighbor and equal as the child that truly lives next door. The mother in East Timor struggling to feed her children is an much of a concern as the woman in your town that just had her SNAP benefits canceled. Not that you don't care about those people in your immediate vicinity, but that you care about the child and woman on the other side of the world just as much. It requires that being your brothers keeper does not stop when you cross an imaginary line on a constantly changing map full of them. It requires that your concern be universal instead of limited by any political, social, cultural or religious belief.

        The second part is almost deceitful in its simplicity, but there is nothing simple about it. If the core belief system is to do good, no matter the circumstances, then there is an almost overwhelming necessity to do three things; 1) know the truth or learn it, 2) a vast understanding of consequences and the ability to see how a process or action has effects in the long term, and 3) the courage to see harm, even potential harm, and repudiate it. 

        When put together as Paine has done, the statement becomes almost an universal Hippocratic oath. It requires thought, deliberation, community, commitment and work. Very hard, thankless, drudging work. It is hard to discern the truth, it take patience, study and an open mind (at its core, it requires the belief that, despite what you think, you could be wrong). No decision is incorruptible without some basis in truth. No policy, no belief, no action should be devoid of truth, otherwise, and I can guarantee this, there will be someone, somewhere harmed. But that truth should be almost as incorruptible as 2+2=4. The more incontrovertible the truth, the better the decisions that stem from that truth. Is there a perfect truth in most situations? Not if it involves any form of humanity. If a human being is involved, then the truth becomes colored by politics, belief systems, bigotry and greed. It is not that I am kicking the dog here, its that that is the way the human mind works, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is swayed by experiences, upbringing, social and cultural pressures, etc. So finding the truth is, ultimately, extremely, almost impossibly, difficult. But through pati3nce, asking questions, study and dogged perseverance one may come damned close.

        I also believe that in today's world, to do good, an individual must prioritize. There is simply too much "ungood" for an individual to be able to change all of it. So, "first, do no harm", then select the harm you are prepared to commit your study, your resources, your thought and your commitment to correct. Then do it. Find others committed to correct the same harm. Use every aspect of who you are to correct it, while causing no harm in any other arena. Believe that good will prevail. Bet on it, even if you lose in the short term. I can only quote one of King Solomon's wise men to assist you in your endeavor- "This, too, shall pass."

        I find that my commitments along these lines clarify a lot of confusion, chaos and rhetoric. Its is very hard to lie to someone who has put in the time and effort to know the truth. It is equally hard to dissuade some one from doing good when they have a moral commitment to know what that is and act on it. Be that person.

UNUM

I would like to acknowledge Robert Arnold for exposing me to this Paine quote and explaining it better than I will ever be able. He has a YouTube channel that I hardily endorse. Please visit it if you have the chance.

On The Strait of Hormuz and The Price of Oil

 Let's begin with the basics and an explanation of global commodities. A global commodity is a product or substance so universally consumed across the globe that more or less consumption of that product or substance in any market anywhere on the planet economically effects the demand, and therefore the price of that product or substance across all markets, globally. Its simply the laws of supply and demand on a global scale.

Petroleum is a global commodity.

Literally, every single economy and market in the world, at some level or another, relies on the consumption of petroleum. Oil, to this day in spite of all the alternative energy sources being utilized, is what the world runs on. Oil supplies 34% of all the world's energy. It is the largest single source of energy in the world. Of all the electricity, heat, and motive energy produced across the globe, oil supplies more than a third. 

And here's the problem:

If your local power plant fires its generators with oil, and the people that work there drive cars that run on gas, then they must compete with the people in Mogadishu that do the same thing to obtain them. If Mogadishu is willing to pay more and adjust for economies of scale, then they get first dibs. The entities that produce the oil and gasoline, from pumping out of the ground to putting it in your tank, all have a profit-based motivation to sell as high as the market will allow. This is capitalism at its finest. And its worked, for the most part, for about 150 years. Sure, there have been fluctuations and inflation, but energy prices have been way steadier than the stock market ever was. For the most part, as George Will would say, markets work.

But now take away 20% of that oil supply in literally a day. 20% of the substance that provides 34% of all the world's energy. It introduces scarcity into the market. You still need fuel in your car to get to work, but less of that fuel is available in the market. So, in order for you to get that gas for your car, you have to pay what literally everybody else in the world is willing to pay, or more depending on variable costs; transportation, storage, labor, etc. And they want to get to work as badly as you do.

Now some little known US-based oil facts. The United States is the largest single country oil producer in the world. We pump and process more petroleum than any other country. And what we don't produce for ourselves, we buy from...ready for it?....Canada. There is not now, nor has there ever been an "oil shortage." Production levels are carefully controlled to keep the market steady. This is the sole reason OPEC exists. There is more oil than we can use in 100 years still in the ground. 

The problem is, its not universally distributed and refineries are not (totally) globally situated. Most Middle Eastern countries export their petroleum and import its products. Nor are the reserves universally situated. The Unites States produces more oil than any other country, but the State's reserves pale in comparison to those of Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar.

So while we could, conceivably, replace the oil that is NOT coming through the Straits of Hormuz, we would still need to be able to transport it to where it can be used. And...we didn't have a plan for that. Saudi Arabia alone can produce most of the shortfall almost instantaneously. But their oil, for the most part, goes through the Straits of Hormuz. The US can increase production to lighten the blow, and with West Texas crude at $96/barrel, you can bet that's happening. But again, we do not have the infrastructure to transport and refine that much oil.  And building that would take decades.

And if you're thinking that we could produce and refine all the oil the U.S needs domestically, you're right, we could. But remember, oil is a global commodity. The same companies that sell it to you sell it in Mogadishu. Exxon/Mobil isn't going to limit its profits by selling at less than market. And its probably a good thing, unless you like $12/gal gasoline.

So my money is on the war with Iran ending soon with an international diplomatic core telling the US to get out and stay out, as long as the Straits reopen. 

But we'll see...

UNUM

On The Use of Administrative Subpoenas

 We are hearing a lot these days about the use of administrative subpoenas. While in very specific and very limited cases defined by Congressional statutes, they are legal and binding, the uses they are being put to are unconstitutional and an illegal attempt to by-pass probable cause - the legal standard for issuing a judicial subpoena. This is the most authoritarian and frightening use of executive power I have seen to date. It allows, unchecked by due process, the seizing of private information, the detention of persons protected by 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights (which apply to everyone occupying American space, not just citizens), and the subsequent "fruit of the poisonous tree" prosecutions using information obtained without probable cause.

Google released private information they had collected on a Cornell student journalist to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the basis of an administrative warrant. Let me first say that ICE is not one of the agencies defined by statute to be able to issue administrative warrants. Administrative warrants can be used in controlled substances situation (which are carefully defined in the statutes), child protection, Presidential protection by the U.S. Marshall's Service and Inspectors General gathering information for an internal investigation. That's it. Now I am no lawyer, but that's all my investigations into administrative warrants uncovered. So Google released information they promised was private to the government on the basis of an illegal subpoena. They didn't even demand an judicial subpoena, the basis of which is probable cause. So Google (or Alphabet) joins the long list of tech megacorps to cave to the government...surprise.

Here's the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please note the very specific reference to probable cause. Precedence in the U.S. has further required that the determination of probable cause is suited only to the judicial branch. A judge must hear the reasonable, specific evidence that supplies probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Then and only then will the judge sign a subpoena in furtherance of gathering proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is constitutional law in America. There is no place in the 4th amendment that allows any other process. Any other process, by Constitutional definition, is unreasonable and illegal.

So why is Google obeying administrative subpoenas? Why are administrative warrants being issued by ICE? Why, oh why, is the executive branch trying to end around the Constitution? And why the hell isn't Congress doing anything about it? Yet another point to remember come November. 

Let me assure my readers that should I fall victim to an administrative warrant or subpoena, if any of my family does, then I will exhaust every resource I can gather to not only fight it, but to hold the issuing party or parties accountable to Constitutional law. If Congress won't take care of the American people, we're gonna have to do it ourselves.

These are scary times. It is reasonable to be scared. It is also reasonable to be very, very angry. Our politicians and institutions have failed us. Our government seeks to whitewash our population and control our behavior, if not our thoughts. Doesn't that sound more like Afghanistan than America? The difference is, in America, we can still change it. Use your voice, your vote, your money and your time to insure that the Constitution isn't just an old piece of paper, that the ideals and protections guaranteed by the Constitution are real and meaningful to everyone.

I may not agree with you, hell, I probably don't, but I will fight for your right to disagree with me. Disagreement and contemplative discussion breeds understanding and compromise for a better society. An inclusive and multi-cultural society. And trust me, America has ALWAYS been a multi-cultural society. We need dissent and viewpoints that have different histories and cultures in order to improve the great nation we already have. We need different opinions and ideas that come from a diverse group of background and experiences. We need the ivory towers and the farm workers, the masons and the technicians, the physicist and the steel worker, the immigrant and the native-born. We need all of us, working together to form a more perfect union. And we do not need or want a government that seeks to limit that potential.

UNUM

On Islam and American Democracy

 I keep reading and seeing in mainstream media that Islamic beliefs are antithetical to American democracy, coming from people who should know better. I have heard it from people I work with, from people I'm sharing a beer with, from Congresspersons and Senators on both state and federal levels. Why? What is the basis for this claim? I do not understand how any rational person who has put in the effort can legitimately defend such a statement. Here's why:

Starting at the beginning, the first white people in what is now the United States came here for two reasons. The first was prima geniture, the inheritance of the first born son of all assets in an aristocratic family that was basically the law in Europe at the time. Subsequent sons came to America looking for land and wealth, but mostly in the southern half of what became the colonies; Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc. The pilgrims of American historical fame were religious radicals in their home countries; mostly staunch religious conservatives that the main religious institutions of the time found too extreme. They came to the northern colonies seeking freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit. They were religious outcasts from a religious and political system that was historically intertwined in Europe. Now, in all honesty, they chose to be outcasts and to seek religious freedom in the New World, but seek it here they did. And they found it.

The pilgrims were a conservative off-shoot of the English Puritans who faced persecution in England for their radical beliefs. They believed that the Church Of England was irreparably corrupt and sought to establish what they believed was "the true faith". They first went to Holland where freedom of religion was an established precedence, but Holland wasn't "English" enough, so they came to the New World.

The Pilgrims were religious zealots who repressed other beliefs, suppressed women and cast out anybody who didn't conform. They were a tiny minority of the mainstream Protestant movement in Europe.

This history bears remarkable similiarities to modern-day Islam. Both have mainstream, world-spanning traditions and cultures. Both have experienced schisms and survived divisions and upheavals. And for the most part, both espouse a doctrine on peace and uplifting of "the other". (I will admit, freely, that the Qu'ran dictates the killing of the infidel, but only after every attempt has been made to bring the infidel into the "true faith". The verses in the Old Testament and Psalms that are much worse are too numerous to cite here.) Both have radical, and sometimes dangerous, off-shoots.  

What makes radical Islam different from radical Christianity is that they were more successful at getting our attention. 9-11 was a incredible tragedy and sad, hopeless gesture carried out by a radical off-shoot of Islam. (I would argue that it was more politically motivated than religious, but that's another discussion.) In point of historical fact, Muslims and Christians have been killing each other for millennia. What makes it different today? Nothing. It is exactly the same rationale that has been used by both sides since the Crusades. U.S. Senators openly and publicly stating Islam has no place in America. Ayatollahs dictating "Death to America". Why? Because the other side is an easy target and deflects from internal issues that those in power do not want to have the attention of their populous. Exactly the reasons behind the reasons the Catholic church sanctioned the Crusades. 

Your Muslim neighbors are here for exactly the same reasons that the first colonists came to America; hopes of financial betterment and the ability to enjoy freedoms they could not get in their homes. They have no desire to threaten or destroy America. Hell, they love this country in more demonstrable ways than most native Americans do. They invest and start businesses, they spend their money in local communities and support them through their efforts, their time and their money. They raise their children with the incredible hope that their children's lives will be better than their own. And here's the kicker - their God is the same God as the Christian God. I'll say that again. The God of Islam is the same God that the Christians worship. They enjoy the same history and traditions up until Mohammed and Ali brought Islam to the world. Islam even recognizes Christ as a prophet. 

So why are radical Islamist so different from Jim Jordan or Timothy McVeigh? The Branch Davidians? The Uni-bomber?  The Army of God? The Tulsa Massacre? On and on...

To my Christian brethren: Matthew 7:5, John 8:7

Would you cast out or demonize Methodists because they are not Southern Baptists? Or Jewish? Or Catholic?

As-salamu-alaykum. Shalom. Peace be with you.

UNUM