The NRA Is Right

                                                                 

I hate to say it. It's against my nature. But I have to admit it. The NRA is right. I agree with them.

In particular, they're right in their contention – that stricter controls on gun ownership will primarily affect those who follow the rules and are honest citizens – but after that shared starting point we part company; we take different paths in the conclusions we draw and in our ideas about what to do.

It's true that tighter gun controls will have an impact on those who obey the law, but may have no significant effect on the criminals in our society.ⁱ That, however, isn't the point. It's the guns of law-abiding citizens that are responsible for the mass killings.ⁱⁱ And that can only lead to the conclusion that limiting access to “legal” guns will decrease the number of gun deaths.

That doesn't mean that guns should be outlawed. The Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment to the Constitution permits the [regulated] ownership of fire arms, so until an additional amendment is passed reversing what is already there, that argument is over. Indeed, police and the military, who have been trained in the proper use of guns and who are protecting the rest of us, are enforcing the constitutional mandate of “provid[ing] for the common defence [sic].” It can be argued that they are the “well regulated Militia … necessary to the security of a free State” to which the Second Amendment alludes.ⁱⁱⁱ

While that is not the interpretation currently in force, the idea that states and localities may and should implement rules relating to gun ownership is also a well-established fact. Most citizens would permit the use of fire arms for hunting,^iv but would set some controls on decisions relating to who would qualify for such a category. They would certainly not outlaw guns entirely, but would place some restrictions on their use and on their storage.^v They would also be willing to make exceptions for certain groups of people who could demonstrate a specific need to be armed. As a matter of fact, they do so now, and increased regulation might lessen the risks to the general public.

Some of the justifications for gun ownership, in addition to hunting, would include work in a profession frequently subject to robbery or violence^vi or someone who is involved in a security-related profession (including peace officers) such as a bank guard. And there are others who might be similarly at risk.

But those desiring the privilege of owning a gun would be required to show that they provide little risk to the public. After proving their need for a weapon, they could apply for the privilege by demonstrating their proficiency in its use, and a comprehensive understanding of how to use and to store it safely. Prior to the purchase – and these steps would be required before all purchases – there would be a background check and a determination^vii of the psychological health of the purchaser.^viii While such legislation would not completely remove all the risk of such weapons, it would reduce the possibility of misuse – especially by limiting the number of guns that could be misused.

That number's reduction should be accompanied by the limitation of the types of weapons and ordnance available to the public. I cannot help but agree with those who contend that the use of military weapons should be limited to military personnel.^ix If a gun collector believes he is entitled to, and “needs” such a weapon for his collection, it should only be available in a disabled form. Its repair, putting it in working condition, should be considered a criminal act and punished severely, since it would represent the criminal ownership of a weapon.

The NRA also fears that the registration is a prelude to confiscation, though this has not been the case with automobiles – another cause of numerous deaths. Some also fear the loss of privacy that might accompany the inspection of residences that contain guns, with the aim of determining if proper security procedures are in place. That's similar to the inspections that we all expect of the restaurants in which we eat and the health facilities on which we rely when we are ill.

My path, however, re-converges with that of the NRA in respect to punishing violations of the law. There are many laws against the illegal use of fire arms – laws that are insufficiently enforced by the courts – and they should be implemented vigorously, and with harsh penalties. Clearly the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York^x were too severe for many of those convicted. In fact, to a significant degree, they were aimed at the wrong people. But the idea of mandatory sentencing for illegal trafficking in, and the illegal possession of firearms,^xi or the misuse or failure to secure legally owned firearms, should be considered seriously. If, as the NRA contends, legal gun owners are honest people who obey the law, they won't be punished for their proper use and care of their weapons. Indeed, stricter laws will focus their attention on gun safety, which will be a benefit to their own families.

And the individual killings and mass-murders by children and unstable adults may decrease.

i      Actually I think they will, but that's not my primary argument.

ii     Whether because the owners have periods of instability, whether they make mistakes, or whether they don't secure their weapons properly allowing use by others who are not authorized.

iii    But, as we have learned from the Middle East, an armed militia is not always a good thing.

iv    Most, but not all. There are some who oppose all hunting and fishing, whether with guns, bows and arrows, fishing gear, or bare hands.

v      Not all NRA members would agree on this point.

vi     The delivery of jewelry, for example.

vii   By some reasonable and objective criteria which don't impose an excessive burden on the applicants or on the public.

viii  There would also have to be severe, mandatory penalties for anyone purchasing a gun legally and transferring it to someone who wouldn't be able to purchase one himself, or who does not wish to be on record as having done so.

ix     Of course we've also learned from the Middle-East and Africa that the military, and approved or self-appointed militias, cannot always be trusted to use their weapons properly.

x      And, to a degree, imitated in Michigan.

xi    Even though criminals aren't the primary cause of the kinds of incidents that have been appearing in the media increasingly – the St. Valentine's Day Massacre occurred in 1929, nearly eighty-five years ago – stricter enforcement of current laws, and harsher penalties for their violation, may have a beneficial effect on criminal activity if only by leading to the incarceration of those who have weapons.

Fiscal Cliff Notes

                                                                                         

Well, we're still here. We dealt with a little of the taxing issue, but there's still a lot to do. We finessed on some of the major problems, leaving their solution to the new Congress, although it's not clear that they won't delay a decision and kick the can even further down the temporal road. As for the taxes, the President got nearly all he wanted even though he raised the threshold for increasesⁱ a little. But the “one percent”ⁱⁱ won't be able to pay off the National Debt.ⁱⁱⁱ Unfortunately that debt is increasing all the time, and one of the upcoming debates will center on it – its size, the need to increase it, how much, and how will we ever pay it back. And the President has vowed not to compromise on that issue.

So I've decided, in a series of essays,^iv to oversimplify^v the situation we're in and to suggest some solutions for consideration. It doesn't seem likely that any of them will be attempted since no one will read this, and I'm not going offer my brilliant ideas to politicians who have already shown their inability to do anything other than to make the hole in which we find ourselves even deeper. It's their problem and they have to solve it.^vi

In today's offering I'd like to summarize the factors that have contributed to our current dilemma – to try to figure out how we got this way. It doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner in Economics to determine that we have a problem.^vii We spend more than we have or take in. That leaves us with a debt.^viii That's not complicated. If we handled our personal finances this way the banks would have foreclosed on us long ago. It would be Chapter 11 writ large.

CHAPTER 11

Like that. There. I feel better.

But the government's credit rating is better than ours. They^ix can borrow whatever they see fit, as long as they stay within the credit limit. And if there is a threat of needing more, they can simply raise that limit or print money to pay it down. Of course the latter solution means that the value of our savings will go down since, with more money in circulation backed by the same assets, that's the inevitable result. But we won't have to do that if we raise the debt limit. That, however, means that we taxpayers will owe more. Heads you lose, tails you lose. And because raising the debt limit can go on for a long time, your losses will continue to increase.

But that can't go on forever. Greece has shown us what can happen. If you were dealing with your own assets, your creditors would have taken them from you. And that would be disastrous, but it would stop you from continuing your profligacy. You'd have to work out a way to make the balance sheet balance. The government may not have to do that^x but you do. Fortunately there are some bankruptcy laws that will help you start over, but with your credit rating damaged.

So that's the problem we must solve. And I'll offer some proposals beginning next week. They won't be in any logical order (except the first couple – sort of) – not by feasibility, not by the amount of money concerned, and certainly not by popular appeal. But the hole is deep and getting deeper, and no possibility should be overlooked.

See you around the quad.

Next episode: “Paper And People” – A start at lowering costs.

i      Actually it's the expiration of a “temporary” lowering of taxes rather than a rise from preexisting levels. Either way, it was a clear victory over the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Raising the number may have given the Republicans a way to save face, but they were clearly the losers in this fight.

ii     Full disclosure: I'm not in the one percent. Even so, I know that they can't handle our bills.

iii    Even if the number wouldn't have been changed the problem wouldn't have been solved, but this was a face-saving solution for the Republicans and, when the debt keeps increasing as it surely will, the President can blame the opposition for not giving him all he had demanded. In fact he'll be better off with a scapegoat remaining.

   

iv    I have no idea how long the series will be, or whether the essays will be consecutive. (Probably not.) I'll continue as long as I can come up with hare-brained (apologies to the Easter bunny and all his kin) ideas for dealing with our economic problems.

v     This is a version of Cliff Notes after all.

vi     In reality it's my problem. And that of every other taxpayer. We, or our descendants, will eventually have to foot the bill for our government's folly. We'll also have to pay the salaries and support the benefits packages of those who have created this situation.

vii    Nor newspaper and other political spin artists and the public who tell us that it's all the fault of the one percent (and most of them have bought lottery tickets so they can be in that group) or the rich (who only care about themselves) or the Republicans (who only care about the rich and the NRA). And everyone knows that President Bush got us into this mess.

viii   In order to have some perspective on the size of the debt, look at http://www.usdebtclock.org/ It's complex, but you'll be able to get an idea of where we are.

ix      Whoever “they” are. I usually think of the government as kind of anonymous and faceless plural. It's big enough and seemingly not answerable to anyone.

x      For the present.

Morons And Oxymorons

                                                                                                 

Every family has its story. Not its saga; not an endless history of many generations and many continents, but a story that makes those in the know smile. Actually, most families have several, but I recall a single one that seems more and more pertinent with the passage of time. Even if it doesn't seem especially interesting of amusing to an “outsider,” we got a kick out of it.

It concerns an aunt of mine in the 1930s or 1940s. As I remember the story, she was taking an examination for a license to teach in the New York City Public School system. Part of the ordeal involved speech and her speaking voice, and she was declaiming before her inquisitor. She was telling about something that had two parts and she described it as “half [rhyming with 'laugh'] and (remembering the situation in which she was at the time) hahf.”ⁱ Having rescued herself from the lapse, she passed the examination, got a license, and spent her working life as a teacher.

Perhaps I have some of the details wrong. It's been a long time and I only heard the story second-hand, but I enjoy it. It reminds me of a time when what you saidⁱⁱ and how you said itⁱⁱⁱ were considered important criteria for deciding on your personal qualities and upon your ability to transmit a message. So clear and understandable speech were among the requirements for teaching.

It was also a time when radio news broadcasters were expected to speak clearly and without any speech patterns that differed from the “national” sound that the networks preferred, and the broadcaster was familiar with his station's style and pronunciation manual. And reporting then was the act of an individual, not a team; it was unaccompanied by the badinage we now have to endure between the “anchor” and the other reporters. News came straight and without comment – using standard speech, not jargon. And it was a time when the host of a music program could pronounce the names of the composers correctly, and he knew more about the music he was playing than what was written on the album's program notes; when verbal precision was a basic, and an expected, quality for someone communicating with others.

It was a time of precision. It's not important now. Everything is entertainment. Language is of no consequence. At least not in terms of providing meaningful communication. We've learned to live with superficiality, solecism, unconcern, and distraction.^iv Machines have taken over. Everyone has a pocket or hand-held device^v to transmit his “status,” about which no one but himself really cares. Our main interest in words is in finding someone's errors, or otherwise trying to act smarter than anyone else. We tend to focus on the oxymorons without giving due notice to the morons who use silly language. And on those who promote euphemisms and other forms of politically correct speech. The cover is more important than the book. Don't pay attention to what's behind the curtain.

And masquerading as erudite by the use of high-sounding, if misleading or unthought-out, language abounds. One of the phrases I find most annoying is “calm wind.” The justification is that on the Beaufort Scale of wind speeds there is a category, Beaufort number 0 [zero], in which the wind speed is less than a mile an hour. It is called “calm.” The idea, however, that there can be such an entity as a “calm wind” – wind that is not moving – makes no sense. But it must be true. I heard it on the radio.^vi

And I've heard, repeatedly, of harm coming to “innocent bystanders.” I'm not sure if there are guilty bystanders as well, or whether the intended victims are innocent or guilty. I suspect the newscaster is simply reading from a prepared script, and that neither he, nor the person who wrote script, recognizes how silly it sounds.^vii As do the ideas that some situations are “more unique” than others,^viii that in difficult situations “both” sides must compromise,^ix and the designation of some murders as “hate crimes.” Presumably all the other murders are done for the sake of love. I doubt that the victim is much concerned about which type of murder is designated as the cause of his demise. Either way he's dead and the term used shouldn't affect the severity of hispunishment. As for my perspective, I could care less.^x

And we hear all the time of crimes that occur at ATM machines – a redundancy, since ATM itself means automated teller machine – and of stolen PIN numbers, about which the broadcaster reads about right after reporting on the SALT treaty and the latest news concerning the HIV virus. But the problem is not limited to the media. The less than ideal education we receive is aimed primarily at getting us to achieve high scores on our SAT test so we can get a good job with the employer making a big payment into our IRA account. Our education has helped us know the difference between AC and DC currents, LED and LCD displays, and etc. Isn't that special?

No, it isn't. According to volume II of my Webster's New International Dictionary,^xi “special” means “Distinguished by some unusual quality ... esp., distinguished by superior excellence, importance, power, or the like.” But that was then. The term nowadays lacks that positive connotation. Dictionaries of euphemisms remind us that “special” really means “mentally or physically inferior,”^xii and we're more likely to speak of such things as special students – students who learn slowly if at all – and the Special Olympics – sporting events for the disabled. Actually I shouldn't have used that word. A quadriplegic is not disabled, only “differently able.” I'm not sure what his different and “special” abilities are, but I do know that I mustn't say anything that might damage his self-image. In reality, though, the use of euphemisms is primarily aimed at making us feel less guilty. Very often the objects of our pity are better able to deal with their problems than we are. And the use of tortured terminology is of no help in their adaptation to reality.

But I'm carping. Languages change. They always have and they always will. However the reason shouldn't be that speakers are lazy and don't care, and don't pay attention to what they are saying, and they're hoping and wishing that listeners won't care either. Do that long enough and there won't be any listeners. Sloppiness will make it so.

Next episode: “Fiscal Cliff Notes” – Time to increase taxes and cut back on spending.

 

i      It's funnier told orally.

ii      Ideas and word choice.

iii     Grammar, logic and rhetoric. The trivium.

iv     As Walt Kelly said in 1953 (in “The Pogo Papers”), and Pogo Possum later on, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

v      Don't U no? (Perhaps the correct punctuation is a period or exclamation point instead of a question mark, but I'm not up on the current trends and I don't know if the expression is meant as a question or is intended to place emphasis on the statement that precedes it. I suspect it's just the Irish form of “ya know?” but that it's really intended as a mild intensifier [there's an oxymoron for you] rather than a question.)

vi     Of course I might have gotten it wrong because I had a bad cold when I first heard it. If only it had been a good cold I'm sure I wouldn't have made any mistake.

vii     I suspect, as well, that those involved in the production of the program are similarly unaware of the meaningless nature of the words.

viii   Implying that there are degrees of uniqueness, and ignoring the fact that “unique” is an absolute. Something is either unique or it isn't.

ix     Of course both sides must compromise. One can't do it alone. Takes two to tango.

x      Actually it should be “I couldn't care less,” but common usage has eliminated the correct idiom and replaced it with one that says the opposite of what intends. Know what I mean? I could care less if you don't.

xi     Second Edition, G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, Springfield, Mass. 1940.

xii    “A Dictionary of Euphemisms,” R. W. Holder, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain, 1995.

 

Man Makes The Clothes

                                                                                                                                                    

“Who told you you were naked?”ⁱ

No one needed clothes in the Garden of Eden. But Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, they had lost their innocence, and had recognized and were embarrassed by their lack of any covering. So when G-d asked him where he was, Adam admitted to hiding and to being afraid “because I am naked.”ⁱⁱ

Adam and Eve were, of course, punished for their sin, but G-d, mercifully, addressed their newly discovered modesty. He “made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and He clothed them.”ⁱⁱⁱ G-d was the first tailor and clothier.

In reading about history over the past few years I have seen, and been greatly troubled by, photographs from the Holocaust showing naked men, women, and children. They were dead or about to be killed. Naked came they into the world, and naked they would leave it.^iv And their lack of clothing was dehumanizing, as it was meant to be. They lost their clothes and they lost their dignity, even before their lives.

And I have heard, recently, of clothing drives to benefit the victims of “Superstorm” Sandy. Perhaps their need was different from that of the original man and woman because they had whatever clothes they were wearing, so modesty wasn't the primary issue. But while the weather had been ideal in the Garden, and no clothes were needed, there was a great need for warm, dry, clothing for those who had been attacked by the cold, wind, and rain, and garments were also sought to give the victims some sense of dignity. In the Jewish tradition^v we thank G-d every day for clothing the naked, but we recognize our duty to follow His lead. Indeed, it is through us that the needy are aided. Certainly the same injunction applies to food and shelter, but events have led me to give a good deal of thought to clothes

The needs I have raised, modesty and protection, were the earliest justifications for the use of clothing, but a third, identification of something about the wearer, joined them very soon, indeed, it may have been there from the beginning. That is because of a great deal of overlap in these three categories. For example, what we think of in terms of modesty^vi may be overturned and viewed as “style,” and those who are interested in such distinctions may consider nudity and an outfit marked by a high neck, long sleeves, and a long skirt as two ends of a fashion spectrum, and they not be embarrassed by adhering to what to whatever is in “style.” As long as they are viewed as members of the “in” group they don't care what they are wearing.^vii The different outfits have different purposes and send different messages. A Victoria's Secret shopping bag is a green light; a chastity belt tends toward the red.^viii

The use of clothing for some kind of identification is usually more specific however. Royal garb and Indian ("Native American" – although however genteel that may sound it is clearly wrong since  they are certainly not limited to our country) headdresses are easily recognized.  A police or military uniform is unlikely to be misunderstood by anyone, nor is a school uniform or a tee shirt with a written message. Hijab and abaya, habit, collar, kippa, and turban, are dependable guides to religion, as is traditional clothing an indication of ethnicity.^ix And the outfits of a ninja warrior, clown, nurse, and Batman will make their identities immediately apparent. Their outfits provide a message. As do a scarlet A and a yellow star and other stigmas imposed by society on those to be shunned or eliminated.

Less specific, but similarly parts of a uniform, are the conservative gray flannel suit and the casual Friday togs donned every day by the Silicon Valley programmer. Simultaneously we seek to be unique members of society while we are recognizable members of our own group. We want to be different, but also to blend in. And sometimes we don't want to be noticed at all. Then we must be out of uniform – incognito, in mufti, in “civvies” – so as not to be noticed. We may view it as a necessity, but it's really a matter of choice.

But for the needy, those considerations are irrelevant. If they choose a leather jacket,^x it is not a matter of fashion. And if they select modest clothing over what is revealing, we should not think that it indicates a style decision – it is usually because the former is warmer. Those in need are in need. Those who aren't, can only be grateful for the means to survive without help. And we should be thankful for the dignity which our clothing provides. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Perhaps some day we'll all return to an Eden in which all our needs are addressed, but until then we're all our brothers' and sisters' keepers. G-d made the first clothing for mankind, but it now is up to man to make the clothes, and to try to support the poor in other ways as well. We must clothe the naked and feed the hungry. If they have needs, we must help to fill them. The way has been shown us, and we are obligated to follow.

Next episode: “Morons And Oxymorons” -- The talk of the town.

i      Bereishit (Genesis) 3:9

ii     ibid. 3:10

iii    ibid. 3:21

iv     There are many variants of this idea. See especially Job 1:21, Ecclesiastes 5:15, and Timothy 6:7. The original version was “Naked came I from my mother's womb ... ” but in more modern usage the terminology “into the world” is more common.

v      And I assume in most other traditions as well.

vi     And for most societies this is an important issue, even if the definitions are different.

vii    Or not wearing. A Rudi Gernreich monokini was, in its time, very stylish.

viii   In some societies. The taboos observed by some may seem absurd to others.

ix     For example, the outfits of the Amish, Chassidim, African nations, the saffron robes of Buddhists, and similar attire.

x      Assuming they have a choice.

It's Their Job

                                                                             

I suspect that the New York Police Department is tracking major crime figures. They're mostly Italian Catholics, aren't they? And I imagine they're investigating all those who enter and leave the places where criminals congregate – whether restaurants, nightclubs, or whatever.ⁱ

No bother. People don't make much of it. In fact they probably applaud it, even though those groups as a whole don't pose much of a threat to the average citizen. The police would be remiss if they didn't keep track of potential sources of danger. There is certainly no accusation of spying or impinging on religious freedom. It's just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

If you're a terrorist, though, or attend the same functions as known or suspected terrorists, it's considered harassment if law enforcement officials try to determine whether you pose a threat to others. Since there appears to be an increased number of such terrorists among Muslims, and since they seem to be disproportionately involved in those activities making them an increased threat to the average citizen, even if the terrorists are a minority of the community, it is logical to assume that they will be disproportionally evaluated as police do all that is in their power to prevent any incident. Some view this as profiling and religious persecution but that assessment is a misreading of police activities. Police policies are just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

No, maintain some of our citizens. That's not what we're paying them for. Not in this case. We must not target Muslims or any aspect of their religion and culture. The American way is one of equality, and the profiling of probable Muslims is a violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitutionⁱⁱ – the American equivalent of the Bible. Indeed, it's the same amendment that ensures freedom of religion. Well, that's not exactly true.

More accurately, the First Amendment gives us freedom from religion.ⁱⁱⁱ According to the writ – a writ which the atheists among us, as well as their defenders, mistakenly claim^iv precludes any governmental act that has a religious component – the government cannot make any laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I have emphasized words from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in the view that they relate to the question at hand.) The courts and the lawyers will have their own understandings of what those words mean, but the amendment doesn't seem to mean that our government is not permitted to have anything at all to do with religion. (Actually, many of those in office now have taken their oaths of office using religious books.) According to The Declaration of Independence,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they [the people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration certainly refers to a Creator, so it seems evident that the Founders were not fundamentally opposed to the observation of religious practices – only to the imposition of the practices of some, on all. It is of note as well that they considered it the responsibility of government to ensure the People's “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” even by organizing its powers … “to effect their Safety and Happiness.” And they placed safety before happiness.

Safety is the concern of most of our citizens. Recognizing the reality that one of the most significant threats to our safety is that of terrorism – the events of September 11, 2001 and prior and subsequent actions, here and abroad, demonstrated that – we have increased the utilization of profiling^v in our battle against those threats. If that process requires focusing on Muslims, it makes sense in view of the fact that most of the terrorist actions around the world have been the work of Muslims. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists but that as a group they represent the greatest threat. Religious prejudice and the First Amendment are not issues. Large numbers of people – both Muslims and non-Muslims – are likely to be unhappy with such a practice, but the Founders and most of us placed safety before happiness. The Constitution places a premium on our safety.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Domestic Tranquility and the common defence [sic] were its priorities as they are ours. If they are not secure, we cannot enjoy happiness. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't require that we ignore reality and check our intelligence at the door. First things first.^vi The Declaration was a direct descendant of the “Social Contract” which was outlined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It maintained that there was a bargain between the governed and the government in which the people gave up certain of their rights in order to gain protection. Perhaps that means that we must permit some infringements of what we consider basic rights. Perhaps there must be some profiling. It has been highly successful elsewhere. If that is what is necessary to ensure our safety, so be it. Many of us are willing to permit properly supervised modification our freedom^vii with that safety as our goal.

So if, in the interests of our security, our representatives, people we have freely elected, place the responsibility for ensuring that safety in our law-enforcement officers and authorize means that some view as inappropriate, we should remember that absent such security we will have no rights. So if the police take actions our representatives authorize under such circumstances, we should support rather than denounce them. Perhaps they're not always perfect in the performance of their mandate,^viii but they're not scapegoating one group. After all, they're doing what we pay them for. It's their job.

Next episode: “Man Makes The Clothes” – Usually.

i      And I'd be surprised if the police aren't watching the Russian “mob” as well. And all the places they go and the people they meet or, at least, those in their community. Not to mention the various drug cartels. Russian-Americans, and those from countries sending illegal drugs to the US are, overwhelmingly, honest, but we may wind up watching more than the specific people we suspect of crimes.

ii     In fact, even saying something negative about Muslims is a violation of their constitutional rights. The First Amendment may guarantee free speech, and you can insult members of other groups, but finding fault with a Muslim is a hate crime and may even be responsible for violence.

iii    Which is why the Constitution, a wholly secular document, is our “spiritual” guide.

iv   “Claim,” because there is no such exclusion. Certainly, military and congressional chaplains gainsay that view, as do tax exemptions for religious organizations. Even the famous “wall of separation” which many maintain precludes any such involvement, is not a constitutional feature; rather it is a term that Thomas Jefferson used in a letter nearly two decades after the Constitution was written. All that the First Amendment forbids is the establishment of a state religion, guaranteeing all citizens the right to a free exercise of religion.

v      As well as other tools.

vi     Freedom of Speech was only given in the Bill of Rights which was formulated after the Constitution was approved.

vii    Some even view unmodified freedom as anarchy and a return to the “Law of the jungle.”

viii   We enter here the “slippery slope” absolutist argument versus “the greatest good for the greatest number” position – a philosophic dispute that will always exist. I believe that sufficient common sense and safeguards exist to guarantee the preservation of the freedoms as a whole even if it is necessary to place some limitations on the rights of some.