Various Thoughts XIII

More grist for the miller. As before, do with it as you see fit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm dying. But so are you. We're all dying. It started the moment we were conceived. From that point there was a countdown second by second as we approached our ends. We didn't know it and we didn't care. We didn't give it much thought, but every moment brought us that much closer to the death that will claim us all. No human is immortal, but by and large the concept of death is not one to which we pay much attention, and not one to which we look forward – either hopefully or fearfully.

There are exceptions, of course, but they are exceptions. Suicide is tenth in the causes of death in our country, but even so it amounts to only one in a little over seven thousand of our population annually. Another group, more than seven times as large, includes those living with cancer, and for them (us) the clock's ticking has become more audible. The ultimate outcome will be the same as for everyone else, but what we ignored before now takes up much of our thought. Of course I'm only speaking for myself, but since the first diagnosis was made, every thought of the future is colored by the knowledge that time is going by. We usually don't step back from therapies that may cause improvement, but in the end time will run out.

I have cancer(s). Sooner or later one of them will get me – later, I hope. But I recognize that my “opponent” is only a mechanism. If cancer doesn't do the job, heart disease, or kidney failure, or a hit and run driver, or something else equally dangerous will get me. I'm over seventy-eight years old which exceeds the lifespan anticipated at the time of my birth. I've won, no matter what happens. I'm not sure what the prize is but eventually I'll find out (or, though I've won, I won't). So I'm back to trying not to give it much thought. The results of my efforts, however, vary from time to time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since 1967, the Temple Mount [which is a part of Israel] has often been a flashpoint for violence. On July 14, 2017, two Israeli policemen were murdered by Israeli Arab terrorists at the entrance to the Temple Mount. In response, Israel installed metal detectors Subsequently, Muslim protesters attacked Israeli police trying to maintain order and to ensure the safety of all worshipers. (Myths and Facts – Abraham Bard)

The article also noted “the al-Aqsa Mosque, is used as an arsenal for provocateurs. Most recently, the men who murdered the two Israeli police officers had an accomplice who brought their guns in a backpack onto the Temple Mount and left them in the al-Aqsa Mosque”

Rather than see the metal detectors as a way of protecting Muslims and other visitors to the Temple Mount, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Muslim leaders condemned Israel. The Jerusalem Wakf [sic] Islamic trust [which has been given permission by Israel to administer the mosque] called on worshipers to refrain from entering the compound until the detectors are removed. (ibid.)

(It is notable that the Vatican, mosques, and other holy sites have security equipment in place.)

Although Israel removed the detectors (detectors like those used in various airports, Yankee Stadium, and numerous other sites), I think it would have been better to leave them as a security measure. If the number of Muslims on the Israeli Temple Mount decreased because of the Waqf's decree – not because Israel forbid them – it would have been even better. But that is not to be. I hope some other form of security – a reliable one – is found.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My blood creatinine is a little high. If you don't know what that means, it signifies a problem with the kidneys. (At my age that doesn't phase me.) Reading about it on line I have learned that there are many techniques for lowering it, including a reduction in meat intake, increased fluid intake, and a few other means. But these don't affect my kidneys, only the blood test results.

Whom am I kidding if I follow these regimens? Only the people (apart from me) who see the results. And if I receive medical attention I'd rather it were based on accurate numbers rather than tricks. And I love meat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But not grist.

July 26, 2017

An Unfit Candidate

According to the Washington Post, Secretary Clinton has concluded that

Trump is ‘dangerously incoherent,’ [and] ‘temperamentally unfit’ to be president.

I agree. But he's not the only one who's unfit.

In a statement dated July 5, 2016, James Comey, the head of the FBI, though recommended that no charges be filed against her because “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” But, said Mr. Comey, “We are pleased … that no further action is required. … We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

As the Secretary would put it, let's put this behind us and move on. (Mr. Trump doesn't agree with Mr. Comey however. Citing the actions taken against General David Petraeus – the filing of criminal charges – for mishandling classified information, he concluded that “the system is rigged.”)

Lack of criminal intent is a very low bar to exoneration. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for criminal behavior, the conduct of “participants who know, or should know,” but who lack criminal intent, should be viewed with even greater concern. And when the perpetrator who takes such an action is a public official and by doing so places at risk “seven email chains concern[ing] matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level,” our country is placed at risk. And lying about it – covering up – compounds the crime.

In its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal notes that

Mrs. Clinton claimed that her email was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account[s] of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and “readily apparent.” ... it is possible that hostile actors gained access gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

It would be prudent to determine if the Secretary would have any security clearance were she anyone else. I suspect it would be denied her. And her “careless” behavior places us all at risk.

The Secretary has urged that we “move on” from the discussion of her email activities, and from the lack of action that her State Department took during the difficulties in Benghazi. We should “put them behind us” although they relate specifically to her job performance as a member of the cabinet. They are recent events.

At the same time she raises issues about the actions of Mr. Trump, a private citizen rather than a government official, in the last century – twenty or thirty years ago. We mustn't put that behind us or move on from there. It is relevant and makes him unfit for public office. Perhaps it does. Certainly when considered along with his subsequent performance it seems that his presidency would be an unhappy experience for our country. But the Secretary has already demonstrated that her service as Commander-In-Chief would put us all at risk.

All that is left is prayer that delegates to the conventions rethink their commitments and offer to the American people candidates who can be trusted to govern us sanely and safely.

Johnson and Weld might be able to fill the bill, but in this real and dangerous world they're not going to win.

Not Guilty

“Not guilty.”

That's all it takes. Perhaps, in the timeless words of Yogi Berra, “It ain't over 'til its over,” but now it's over. That verdict ends it all (like a statute of limitations). You may be guilty of murder or of whatever other transgression you were accused, in fact you may brag about your guilt, but you beat the rap. They can never try you for the same crime again, even if there is new and irrefutable evidence of your guilt. It's over.

There are many similar instances when, because of a single occurrence, some hazard has been removed. Paradigmatic of such a situation are the words of Numbers (35:9-12), which describes “Cities of Refuge” to which one who has committed manslaughter may flee, so as to prevent his own killing by a family member of the victim. Until he is within one of those cities he is fair game for retaliation, but after that he is safe from any revenge. He had been in a very dangerous situation, but was now safe.

Generally speaking, there are numerous cases in which an individual moves from an insecure position – perhaps even a dangerous one – to one that removes the doubt and the risk, though the risks are of widely varying degrees of severity. A letter offering a job or acceptance to college, for example, may be a cause for celebration providing security that, until that moment was lacking. In those instances, however, the revocation of that position, though dishonorable, is possible, as contrasted with double jeopardy. In the case of a jury verdict there's no going back. Perhaps other charges will be filed, but you can never be tried for the same crime.

The security of a refugee reaching American land, as opposed to the risks faced a moment before, when the possibility, if apprehended, of immediate return to the land from which he was fleeing, cannot be minimized. And the protection provided by a church or some country's embassy is absolute (more true historically than recently). Perhaps it is a manifestation of the idea of sanctuary. The dangers faced until then were no longer to be feared. Those who entered have reached their own “city of refuge.” Certainly a border between countries provides at least temporary protection from retribution for violation of the laws of the land just left. And the possibility of death by abortion, an immediate and permanent risk, yields to the protection of the law immediately upon birth.

But crossing the Rubicon has its risks as well. Passing the “point of no return” leaves the past behind, but there are times when it would be preferable to be able to return. Ask any investor who missed his chance to “sell high” when he had the chance, but didn't do so before the market went rapidly downhill, or lost his chance to buy when the market was low. The previous conditions may return, but in the meantime he has squandered the possibility for profits this time around.

And in the heat of an argument, who has not said something that he later regretted? Sadly, you can't take it back once it's left your mouth. A relationship that had, until that time, been flourishing, can be damaged forever. Indeed, the same result may follow a “Freudian slip,” even if no conscious malice was intended. When you've given yourself away, there's no way to convince the hearer that you didn't really mean what you said.

We have all experienced missed opportunities. We have all missed a sale or rejected a job. We have all been in the wrong place at the right time or the right place at the wrong. Life is full of lost chances. For the most part, however, a missed chance is only a delay. Chances reoccur. A miss may be as good as a mile, but a mile is finite. You can “go home again.”

That's not always the case though. Wars, for example, leave casualties. So do accidents. And some injuries cannot be repaired. They leave permanent disabilities. We sometimes try to be philosophical about the situation, but our protestations are hollow. The euphemists among us avoid talk of disability, preferring “different ability,” but that doesn't change reality. However much we may wish, we can't make it so. There are times when we can't go back.

But nothing is more permanent than death. And nothing is more to be regretted than an unnecessary death. However saddened we may be when a loved one dies of “natural causes,” it is many times harder to comprehend and accept a death that was avoidable – either from war or violence. Our Constitution tells us that our country was formed with several aims, and among them was to “provide for the common defence [sic].” The promised protection was against foreign powers, with the against home-grown violence left to the States. There are failures in both cases, and we grieve not only for those directly affected but also for the society that cannot accomplish all it has pledged to do.

When the government itself chooses to take a life, however, it is understandable that, for many, grieving isn't adequate. The Supreme Court has forbidden capital punishment under some circumstances, but neither the Court, nor the Constitution, rejects it as an option. Still, there are many who believe that the state has no right to take a life. (Usually the popular proscription is aimed at capital punishment rather than war, but there are also those who are conscientious objectors to any form of violence.) The arguments are both philosophic – killing is wrong, and practical – the state may get it wrong and kill the innocent.

The latter possibility – the execution of someone who is not guilty – is, in many ways, very similar to the first case discussed. Both involve court rulings and in both cases the results are irreversible, though they are opposites. In one case the state provides possibly unwarranted immunity and permanent protection, in the other death – a similarly permanent result, even if exculpatory evidence later surfaces. Not all irreversible status changes are desirable – especially in this instance. An executed innocent soul may never have caused harm and certainly never will, but a freed murderer may kill others.

“Que sera, sera.” But it's not always for the best. And when it's unalterable, the potential for great evil exists along with that for great good.

The Tenth Amendment And "... all the other Acts and Things ..."

OK. Let's cut to the chase.ⁱ Do you know (without checking Google) what's in the Tenth Amendment?ⁱⁱ Do you know the origin of the quotation in the title of this essay?

I didn't think so.

And that's a serious problem. The quotation, from the document that justified our severing ties with England, and the amendment from the Bill of Rights – which is part of the document by which we are governed – are unfamiliar to us at the same time that we pledge fealty to our country and what makes it great.

Our revolution was based on the belief that England, as embodied by King George III,ⁱⁱⁱ was harming us, rather than protecting us. John Locke had expounded the view that there was a Social Contract by which people accepted a government that would protect them, and that they were willing to trade some of their liberty for safety. The Founding Fathers felt that England was not living up to the bargain and it was time to change governments.

And though the threats have changed, along with the manner of addressing them, we face similar challenges today – perhaps more. We're a world power now, and besides the pressure to solve the world's problems, we're a target of the unhappy, whatever their gripe. Either we caused it or we should solve it.

Our own citizens are divided about this. They seek security but many are reluctant to make sacrifices for it.^iv For example, as the American People were panicking over the possibility of ebola – as they demanded isolation of anyone who have come in contact with an ebola patient – a nursing student refused isolation and threatened legal action against the government if it forced the issue. Who was right and who was wrong in the particular case isn't relevant. What matters is that individuals are certain that their view of matters is the one the government should follow. That applies to what we should be doing elsewhere and what we shouldn't be doing at home. Everyone is smarter than those we have chosen to represent us. We may insist that our leaders save us, but they must do so without in any way limiting our actions or our freedoms, or our inalienable right to make our own decisions. About anything.

But that's anarchy, and “anarchy” and “democracy” aren't synonyms. Many political philosophers have told us this. We instituted a government and we, in the form of our people at the time, accepted the bargain. That has implications for us, even though we weren't there. If we accept the concept of democracy we must follow the laws, changing our representation if we believe it to be failing to do its job properly. Unfortunately the government that represents us^v and is responsible to us doesn't always follow our views. Not that they should necessarily do whatever polls say is the majority view at any particular moment, but they should be aware of public sentiment and, if they disagree with it, they should publicly inform their constituencies of their reasoning and their positions. That would provide us with the chance to learn about the situations and their thinking, making our next votes better grounded. We chose them and we may pass judgment on their performance at the next election. But until then we are bound by the laws they have passed.

However well we know their views – even if not at all – they're well informed of ours, whether we like it or not. The Constitution forbade quartering, torture, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. All were ways of gathering information then. We agreed that they were not warranted.^vi Now hidden cameras, telephone taps, monitoring of our internet and social media messages, and other similar techniques are in use. And that raises an important question: what rights did we give up, and what rights are we willing to surrender in order to be safe? Do we want the government to have access to our communications?

The Constitution, as it was written, was obviously silent on modern information gathering techniques, but we have chosen to extend the original concept with the times. Unfortunately, however, those who challenge our liberty have also moved with the times – both in their ways of planning and in their ways of waging war. Of course we reject any action that would make us like them. Their ways are not our ways. They use the telephone and the internet to communicate with each other and to spy on us. But we will not sink to their level. We have completely unlinked our demand for safety from any willingness to sacrifice for it. And those who would destroy us are entitled to the same rights as we, even if they have no compunctions about what they do with those rights and how they exploit us.

So now, as beheadings, other murders, rapes, and abductions are becoming common elsewhere, we “deplore” them.^vii But often that's all we do. The perpetrators vow to continue their mayhem – even on our own soil. One response, the Patriot Act (and some less publicized actions by our government) promotes surveillance and electronic monitoring as methods to neutralize the threat, although many of or citizens protest. They would eliminate all monitoring as invasions of our privacy. But it is reasonable to view such surveillance as a part of the protection that we demand of our government. It is, after all, the government's responsibility to “provide for the common Defence [sic] … of the United States” and this is one of the mechanisms that it uses. If we believe there to be problems with the program it is incumbent on us to so inform our representatives and to elect others if necessary – to work within the system, not to destroy it, and ourselves in the process.

I don't think we're ready to change governments yet. I know I'm not. So if I have to give up some of my privacy to protect myself, I'm willing to do so. I don't think it's the “slippery slope” that's going to lead to tyranny, but even if it is we have more time to address it than we have to deal with the clear and present dangers we now face.

Next episode: “Do You Really Think So?” – Better not to think about it.

I        The catch-phrase derives from the inevitable chase scene at the end of silent-movie comedies and is usually attributed to Hal Roach, Sr.

ii       I'll let you look it up – and the quotation (from the Declaration of Independence) as well. I suspect that I could have chosen another amendment and another quotation and obtained the same result. The specifics of the amendment and the quotation weren't the point. More important is the fact that we haven't been properly educated on their significance.

iii      Look up “syndoche” as well.

iv       Or they are moved by what they consider a “higher” cause.

v       We the People.

vi       Although we permit some searches now when properly warranted.

vii      We're reluctant to do much more.

Go Tell It On The Mountain

                                                                         

With the passing of every moment our national debt increases,ⁱ and with it the need for cutting our expenses and increasing our revenue. I've already suggested that we outsource large parts of our government in the interests of saving money, but I noted that there were certain functions that we'd have to retain and execute ourselves. Certainly our military must remain local, and its control maintained in a secure facility. But that is only one among several such functions. For example, the Sixteenth Amendment has presented us all with the treasured gift of an income tax, and we surely wouldn't want anyone else laying hands on our money.ⁱⁱ

The Constitution that made us a nation designated three primary branches of government – the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches – and specified the responsibilities of each.ⁱⁱⁱ Our founding document was quite explicit about those responsibilities,^iv but was less concerned about the location of their performance. Indeed, the first Presidential inauguration was held in New York, our Supreme Court Justices used to “ride circuit,” and Congress, itself, has moved around since our Constitution was written in Philadelphia.

All the branches settled down, however, with the establishment of a national capital in the District of Columbia – Washington, D.C. And for more than two centuries that has been our center of government, where the offices of the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are located. It's beautiful, dignified, centralized, symbolic, and very costly. But in addition it's a tempting target.^v

In the mid-1940s came the initial recommendations that the Air Defense Command (ADC) move its headquarters to a protected location. Although the ADC no longer exists, the move took place and currently a successor, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command), has placed its Alternate^vi Control Center in the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker. It's secure and compact, underground, and protected by a mountain. It's the site from which our response to attack would be coordinated.

Mountains have always held some kind of mystical and spiritual connection for Mankind, even before Thomas Mann wrote “The Magic Mountain.” Religions ancient and modern have pictured mountains as the source of inspiration. Ancient pagan rites were held on mountains, while ranking high in western literature and culture is Mount Olympus, the home of the Greek gods. And the source of most of western religion was Mount Sinai, where the Law was given to the Israelites when they left Egypt. Even now the mystique of the mountain persists in our fantasy movies.^vii

For this reason we should consider moving our government – the part remaining after we outsource most functions – to a secure location somewhere in or under a mountain in the west, possibly in the Cheyenne Mountain complex itself. Roads are already built there, as are support facilities. And we already own the property. A pared-down government could be located in a single location and we could sell all our property in Washington.^viii What is clear, though, is that the cost of property in the west will be far lower than the value of our holdings in the east, so this will be of great help in lowering our debt. The space should be more than adequate, although some construction will be necessary. Even so, however, the costs of construction and maintenance over time will be far less there than what we pay in a big city. Our government will be far safer, and able to meet doomsday in style.

The idea of underground security, whether under a mountain^ix or not, isn't new. We bury the dead and build underground bomb shelters for protection against enemy attacks. In fact that's the nature of the Cheyenne Mountain facility itself. Saddam Hussein hid underground, though his bunker didn't offer all the protection he would have liked. And the Iranians are building their nuclear facilities underground in hardened facilities capable of surviving attack. We're America though, we're the best, and we can make our sub-sierran government hard and fast. No one can threaten us or beat us. They can kill us all but our government will remain safe and able to retaliate against anyone.

Our defense is already largely underground, and whatever isn't can be added to aerospace complex, or others like it. The outsourcing of many governmental functions along with the centralization of the rest should lower costs significantly and be an important part of lowering our national debt. And who wouldn't love the idea of burying the IRS and the rest of our government?

Next episode: “Safety Net” – And other applications as well.

i      At this moment – 1 PM on February 1, 2013 – it's close to sixteen and a half trillion dollars. That's even bigger than the Power-Ball jackpot.

ii     That, of course, excludes our own politicians. They're certainly entitled to dip in whenever they're short.

iii   Those branches may not always follow the guidelines set by the Constitution (our officials certainly don't) but they're there, and our President and representatives have sworn to uphold them. We're smart enough not to believe the politicians.

iv     Even though the writing of the Constitution itself was illegal – those present had been authorized to make some changes in the Articles of Confederation – our Founding Fathers didn't hesitate to set rules for future officials to obey slavishly.

v      It was invaded during the War of 1812, and, more recently, the Pentagon was damaged by Al Qaeda in 2001, on September 11th. More damage was planned but, fortunately, not accomplished in that action. As missile attacks become more feasible, even for smaller powers, a protected inland location would provide greater safety for our leaders.

vi     The primary command center for the NORAD/USNORTHCOM command center is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

vii    You've seen them. Don't pretend you're above all that.

viii   I have a lot more to say on this, but it will be the subject of a future essay.

ix   According to the Jewish tradition, Mount Sinai was raised over the heads of the Israelites when they were being asked to accept the Law. In that case the security of the divine teachings was considered preferable to the security of the grave.

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.