Article
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/us/florida-fatal-crashes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

A spokesperson stated the Highway Patrol would “review this situation and determine if our process needs to be changed.”

I can tell you without a doubt that the policy and process needs to be changed. But I can almost guarantee you that a review will determine no fault on the police department and no need to change policy.  The police department will continue to be ‘unresponsive’.

How do I know this? From nearly half a dozen personal experiences.  Enough for me to anecdotally conclude that police departments are not trained in being responsive to potential emergencies, only past ones.  And while many excuses can be made as to a shortage of officers, vehicles, etc. There is something more to it.

Recently, I found myself behind a swerving mini-van which posed a danger to itself and numerous other vehicles. I did my civic duty and called 9-1-1 twice. I drove through half the county awaiting to see a police vehicle.  It never showed. Had I not remained with the vehicle until it was safely off the road, people could have died.  Now I know it takes time to respond. But I drove through half the county, often at speeds as low as 35mph.  Are you seriously going to tell me not a single county officer could respond within that time? 

Similarly, 6 weeks before my wedding I was nearly killed in an accident. A combination of skilled driving and divine miracle allowed me to reach my wedding day.  It was a drizzly day, I came over a small hill on I-91 only to see a car parked with it’s flashers in the middle of the highway.  Attempting a sudden 65 to 0 stop in the drizzle is no easy task.  Lead time was very slim, and I could feel my light Honda starting to hydro-plane.  I knew if I rear-ended that car, I was dead.  I made a decision to turn toward the guard rail wagering my chances of surviving a side impact with the rail was better than plowing into the vehicle. Miraculously I was able to turn before impact with the rail and narrowly pass the disabled vehicle.

I called 9-1-1 to report a car in a dead stop in an unviewable area of the highway posing an extreme danger. The dispatcher was non-chalant, and I could tell by their voice they were not going to act.  “Excuse me, but I almost died.  And there are already more cars narrowly avoiding impact. Get a patrol car out there and do something.” 

And in a similar incident where I-95 flooded in the New Haven, Connecticut area.  Cars were on the highway and finding themselves suddenly hydroplaning with zero visibility through about 8 inches of water. Alerted the police to the need for them to bring a patrol car to the area and slow down the traffic before someone was injured.

I do not understand why our police force is so focused on responding to incidents instead of pre-empting them. But I can tell you, this Florida incident was caused in part due to this mentality, and do I want to say “laziness”? Though I think it is more of a doctrine of “response” instead of “prevention”. 

You see, as soon as that first impact occurred on that night (one in which the highway had already been closed to two prior impacts). A patrol car should have been routed to the area of the accident to start slowing down the traffic. Flashing red & blue lights in fog & smoke tend to slow down most drivers.  

Lives could be saved through an implementation of a “pre-emptive” and responsive doctrine.  No, police cannot be everywhere (but strangely they seem to be when it’s quota time for traffic tickets – then they can be sitting out in the middle of corn fields watching stop signs for which a dozen cars might use in an entire day).

This failed doctrine holds true beyond automobiles.  One cannot rely upon the police force to keep you safe. You can’t always have a police officer with you. And sadly, you can seldom expect law enforcement to arrive in a fashion timely enough to keep you safe. I believe a lot of this comes down to the beauracracy involved.  Before you even reach a police officer you must go through a 9-1-1 dispatch that is often poorly trained, and poorly paid.  If you can get through that hurdle you then must potentially get through beauracratic policies that may further impede response.  Ones designed to prevent officers from wasting gas driving around to potential emergencies that might never materialize. We’ll never know the extent of beauracratic influence that officers have to deal with, and how it impedes their service (unless of course you’re an officer). But from a few discussions I’ve had in the past, there is a lot more than us average folk are aware of.  I mention the gasoline as just one, where chiefs and supervisors force the rank and file to be less effective due to budget restraints and rising gas prices being one of the most affectable.  So when you wonder why you always see a police cruiser just sitting there all day, that’s your likely answer.  And many of these police chiefs do so because they’re beholden to politicians who will often use “budget cuts” to police departments as one  of their first weapons in their political negotiations.

For example, in the 1/2 dozen times I’ve called 9-1-1 over a vehicle swerving on the highway. One might point out that not a single one resulted in an accident. So why should the police respond? But I will counter with the fact that I expended my time to assist those vehicles (by flashing my lights and honking whenever they were about to impact) and thus prevented accidents that were likely if I had not remained shadowing the vehicles.

The problem with “potential incidents” is that a police officers arrival is likely to make them “avoided incidents”. If an officer had been set-up immediately to warn of the accident ahead and thus slowed traffic, or better yet, kept there after the first two accidents until visibility returned. How would you document the success?  A police officer’s presence would have likely prevented any accidents. From a management’s point of time it would likely be viewed as a waste of resources. Especially if one had to pay overtime to maintain an officer’s presence.  It is very hard to guage the success of preventative action. 

For example, we know exactly how many people are killed by criminals wielding firearms.  We know how many criminals are killed by citizens wielding firearms in their defense. But we only have a vague idea of how many incidents have been prevented from ever occurring due to armed citizens.  Many encounters in which an armed citizen defends themselves go unreported. The criminals flees and the citizen sees little point in getting caught up in paperwork with law enforcement, especially if the city or area they’re in is reknown for not being gun friendly. Most of the accounts I’ve heard of a firearm being used to dissuade a perpetrator from action were not reported to law enforcement. Most seem to feel their firearm accomplished it’s purpose and they are safe. End of story. However, I believe this to be a failing in the gun community. If one is accosted, one should report it. Regardless of a safe outcome, reporting it to the authorities has the potential to provide safety to the next passer by.

How many people use firearms to defend themselves in a given year? I’ve heard anywhere from 65,000 to 2.5 million. I’d wager it falls somewhere in the middle, probably around a 1/4 of a million each year.

All this said, remember, the final responsible party for your safety is yourself. Avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations. Be it walking down a street in a bad neighborhood or driving during poor visibility conditions.  And if you must engage in such situations take prudent actions. Be armed, and be aware.  Drive slow and provide yourself more lead time by leaving a greater space between yourself and the vehicle in front of you.

Solution? Snake season. It’s something many individuals have pointed to as a solution for certain invasive species.

However, opening a hunting season might not be enough on it’s own. How many snake hunters are there? We do not have a huge tradition in this country of men taking their sons out to stalk that huge snake buck.

I’d propose some incentives:

1. A bounty stamp
   $5 = < 5′ $10 = 5′- 10′ $20 = 11′ – 15′ $50 = 15′ – 20′ $250 = > 20′
    
2.  Any bounty stamped snake skin can be used in garments and luxury items and sold tax free within the state. Suddenly, watches will use bounty skin just to be sold tax free.

Demand for the skin will increase. And eventually the problem will disappear due to economics.

Articles on the matter:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/pythons-wiping-out-mammals-in-everglades-researchers-say/?hpt=hp_t3

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/feb/22/python-hunting-season-set-south-florida/

One thing I am curious about, is whether Romney’s 15% tax return includes his Social Security tax. Why? Because I believe Social Security is just that, a tax. One that is only applied to the first $250,000 apparently.

I think we also need a tax credit called the “Militia Are Regulated Credit” (MARC) Act. If you document possession of a semi-automatic rifle chambered in one of the main calibers of our armed service, 1,000 rounds of ammo, a current CPR/First Aid certification you receive a $500 tax credit. Since you’ve helped make America safer, and reduced how much we need to spend on our military budget.

In a recent decision a U.K. judge determined that a photo violated the copyright of another for having a similar look and feel.

[See discussion at DPReview.com, one of the best sites on the web for digital camera and lens reviews.]

But a simple Google search reveals that this is both a common subject matter and a common processing technique. There are hundreds if not thousands of like photos. This example greatly exemplifies the flawed nature of our intellectual property laws in Western society. And while this is a U.K. court decision. Realize that much of the IP laws in the Western World are pushed by the same media conglomerates. Many of the laws are similar because they are driven by the same interests. Namely, U.S./Western corporate cartels which pressure/buy-off U.S. legislators who then pressure other nations to adopt the laws that the copyright cartels have paid our legislators to pass.

Recently, we saw an amazing thing happen in politics regarding the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills. We witnessed a huge industry with a massive and entrenched lobbying arm that has been purchasing politicians for years received the biggest public smackdown in history.

We saw politicians discover the game has dramatically changed. And that the internet industry is not to be taken lightly. How did this come about?

Simple, some of the biggest sites staged a campaign of awareness and service removal. Sites such as Wikipedia became inaccessible. Many other popular sites had intro pages one had to click through in order to continue. Many blogs and smaller internet sites were adding to the mojo. I myself did not, as the determination of the vote had already been turned and the bill was no longer going to pass or be a threat in it’s present form.

In fact, the demonstration of power by the internet industry was very hedged. They new they had already won weeks ago. They did it more so as a demonstration. And yet that simple demonstration sent ripples waves through the entire political system. Imagine what would have happened if Google and Amazon actually shut down access to their entire systems for one day.  For those unaware, a huge portion of the internet runs on Amazon’s Cloud Service, including big companies such as Netflix.

But why is this happening? Where is this war brewing from? And who is right? What is causing this chaos?

I believe that it is due to a universal hegemony of thought control and ownership. Most people have been taught that intellectual property is property and that it can be stolen, and must be protected. But few are introduced to the concepts surrounding the establishment of intellectual property laws, and what their purpose is.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution states
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”

No where was the intention of IP to protect monetary profit of cartels.  But that is what it has become.

A couple of key elements are including in that clause. To Promote progress of science & arts. Secure for a limited time. Authors & inventors. Writings and discoveries.

First clause states the reason: “To promote progress”, as such, if the law is not promoting progress one can deem it to be failing it’s purpose.

When a company like Google spends $8 billion dollars buying a company such as Motorola for the sheer reason to shield themselves from legal lawsuits by Apple and Microsoft, one truly has to question is progress being impeded?

The situation has become akin to a game of Jenga. So many blocks stacked on top of one another that to remove one causes the entire tower to fall down.

Second, “for a limited time”, if this is not met than the law is in violation of the passage that grants it authority.

Disney has pushed for copyright extensions. Largely to prevent Mickey Mouse and others of it’s work from entering public domain. Originally the laws specified up to 28 years for a copyright. This has continualy been extended to the point that it now lasts for 120 year or 70 years after death of author. It is hard to refer to such as “a limited time” when it exceeds the lifespan of humanity.

The result is that nothing is entering the public domain. No new works are becoming freely available to the benefit of humanity.

But why should they? I am sure some of my capitalist minded friends believe that they should be owned and profited by in perpetuity. But the problems is that ideas and invention derive and build upon each other. If you apply universal unending copyright law throughout history, you create a system that not only doesn’t promote progress but makes it impossible.

Disney, a stuanch financer of perpetual copyrights built itself on the creative ideas of others Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Snow White, Pinnochio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sword in the Stone, Aladdin,….shal I go on and on? Their success is built on the creativity of others.

Likewise with invention. The automobile cannot be constructed without the gear. No gear without the invention of the wheel. A perpetual right and exclusion results in an end of progress.

Next part of the clause we look at addresses who was to benefit “Authors and Inventors”.

Is this being held true today? Who is benefitting? While the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) likes to talk about theft and piracy. Anyone familiar with the history of RIAA knows that few have ever stolen more from the artists. An industry cartel that is famed not just for failing to pay artists their due but for being gatekeepers who controlled the industry forcing all artists (until very recently) to go through them in a process where the artists lost much of the right to their creative works.

Likewise in the industry of invention. Very few individuals are receiving patents. It has become a facet of society only accessible to the corporation entity. Even when an individual conceives of some new ‘thing’, it often becomes the property of the employer. Inventors are more often than not laid off after the completion of their design rather than profiting by it and being able to further their inventive skills.

Furthermore, everything has become patentable, or ownable. T-Mobile claims to own a shade of pink and will sue any business that uses it. Amazon believes they have the sole right to check out a user with a single click. Billions of dollars are being spent on patent wars in our court systems, many of which are over intuitive logical progression of thought. For example, a few decades ago the internet was created. Several thousand years ago auctions were created. Yet somehow the idea of an auction on the internet is worthy of the granting of a patent. Newspapers have been around. Now there are e-readers. Does the mere publishing on a newspaper on a new technology constitute invention? I do not think so.

But here is a bigger problem. Invention is becoming the exclusive right of big companies. I have ideas. Ideas I’ve had for years. Some potentially patentable, but I cannot afford the approx. cost of $10,000 to file a patent. Even $1,000 to file a provisional patent is outside the scope of many. Most of my ideas I am not seeking to profit by, and would gladly put into public domain for others to use. Yet our Patent office does not facilitate such, quite the opposite. The swamped patent office doesn’t even really vet most submissions. They collect their money and let tax payer dollars be wasted in the court system by frivolous lawsuits. Which are often won due to the ignorance of judges on these matters. (As seen in the example at top.)

IP laws are becoming stronger and stronger and covering broader and broader applications. While at the same time they are being consolidated in ownership. A handful of industry agents control a large portion of the new creative and innovative works.

Realize that in 2009 there were 482,871 patents filed. Of that, 4,914 were filed by IBM. Literaly 1% of all patents gained in 2009 was by a single company. Talk about being the 1%.

New legislation, such as the America Invents Act will only further this divide. Raising costs of filing patents AND making America a “first to file” nation. Which means while you’re trying to perfect your idea and raise the cash to file, someone with deep pockets could copy your idea and file before you and own your invention.

The scenario has the potential to be even more grave in the future. Some may wonder “Why is a gun blog, talking about copyright?” Besides the fact that many of us bloggers have to dance the line or risk litigation.  I view Intellectual Property as one of the most dangerous threats to society with the potential danger from it only being surpassed by slavery.

What….I’m crazy…or sure sounds like it. And you might be right. But hear me out.

Recent advancements in technology have begun to allow us to understand the brain in a much greater way. Already we’re starting to see prosthetics controlled by the mind. Replacement mechanical eyes that allow the brain to see. There has even been progress made in “reading one’s thoughts”. Granted, all these technologies are very rudimentary. But in 40 years they could become commonplace. What happens if iPhone are no longer in your hand, but in your head. Perhaps even with extra memory storage for your brain. What happens when you whistle that song? Or that tune gets stuck in your head. Suddenly, you might find yourself owing money to a copyright cartel because you saw a trailer for the new Smurfs movie and now you can’t get that stupid song out of your head “La la la la la”.

But the truth is, that Intellectual Property, if not checked and balanced has the potential to become a form of slavery. One in which your thoughts and ideas are owned, and the mere engaging of such creativity could cost you money.

That kind of tyranny, would require an over-throw by force and arms if necessary. Such a world would not be one I would want to live in or see my children subjected too.

Thankfully, with the recent (re)action on SOPA/PIPA, I have a small hope that we might be able to start bringing some sanity and balance to intellectual property laws. Sadly, I think it will be slow and a long time coming.

There are better solutions. One’s that would achieve the goals stated in the Constitution far better, encouraging progress, benefitting the inventors and artists and fostering a more open business climate. One such concept would only allow individuals to acquire patents. And would merely provide a tax break to whatever company employed the patent holder. This strategy does not preclude another company from building and selling a better mousetrap. It just let’s the company that employs the patent holder have a competitive edge. And would create a system where inventors are kept employed, and given freedom and funds to further invent. As opposed to our current system which encourages inventors to be discarded.

And while it is more complex issue that a simple post can detail, and would require a more complex solution. The real point here is that there are serious problems with the present system that are not being addressed, while at the same time new law after new law is being passed to further the divide from original intention to present.  This has been allowed to happen largely because the common person is unfamiliar with the argument.

Downloading is stealing, right?  Really, stealing deprives another of their object. Downloading cloning. What happens when you can simply print a car or a house.  That’s crazy right? What if I told that such technology was potentially right around the corner?

When we create laws. We need to be forward thinking, and consider how these laws will affect the future – both for good and for bad.   

The Samaritan was coming to the aid of someone he saw clearly in danger at the hands of criminal.  Such behavior ALWAYS entails a risk. And many times it ends with a sad result.  But I will never criticize such behavior, for it is one of mankind’s most noble facets – that we will come to the aid of each other. And it is in fact the fundamental building block of society.

Each individual has to make the decision whether the consequences warrant the risk.

What I want to remind my readers if they ever find themselves in a situation similar to this woman is that “it’s just a car”.  Scream (that’s fine we do that when scared). But flee and let them have the car if you can.  (And of course use your head, if you have small children in the back of the car don’t abandon them…but it your back seat is only full of groceries, don’t die for a few potatoes and cans of soup.)

When I was taking martial arts I had the opportunity to witness a student take his brown belt exam. In it the instructor walked up as a hypothetical attacker with a gun, pointed to the man’s back and demanded his wallet.  The student immediately attempted a disarm technique.

Afterwards the instructor asked him “How much money you got in that wallet?”  After looking inside, the student replied with “Twenty bucks.”  The instructor questioned him again, “So you’re telling me you just risked your life for $20. Why didn’t you just give me your wallet. Don’t you think your life is worth more than twenty dollars?”

The instructor then repeated the exercise; this time he exclaimed “I’m going to kill you!”  The student completed the disarming maneuver.

The point of the exercise was not merely to test skill, but to test the judicial use of wisdom.  Knowing when to oppose, when to submit, and when to flee can make the difference of life or death.  Don’t risk your life over an  automobile or an  Andrew Jackson.

Assess the situation. Also realize that it is not uncommon for a mugger to shoot his victim after achieving the objective of a wallet.  But consider reaction times. What are your chances of drawing you gun, firing and stopping the criminal before he pulls the trigger of the gun already pointed at you?  Odds are in his favor.  Toss him your wallet.  Now he’s the distracted party. He either runs, in which case you’re still alive and our objective is met…. OR…. He returns his attention toward you with the intention to incapacitate you, only to find himself facing an armed opponent drawn and ready to fire; if you haven’t already fired.

Also realize that there is a very strong possibility that you will be hit. Remember you are shooting to stop your opponent. And you do not relent until the threat has been stopped. If you are hit, remember, you are determined to survive.  Many gun shot wounds are not fatal.  Lastly, sometimes tragedy strikes, and good people go down, as the above story details.  If you have family, be prepared, take the measures to ensure they will be taken care. Have a life insurance policy.  Yes, it sounds like a bad commercial. But remember, the number one reason most of us carry a firearm is to “protect our family”.

If you own firearms and have children it is your duty to ensure that your children are properly trained in regards to the presence of those firearms.

• When they can access them.
• Where they can access them.
• How they access them.
  &
• What is a firearm

I am a big advocate for the guideline that if you allow firearms into your house.  Do not allow toy firearms  into your house.  That does not necessarily mean that a child cannot own a toy gun. But that if that such should be treated in a similar fashion as a real firearm. “No, we don’t point toy guns at our baby brother!” [Exception being for things very very clearly not resembling a firearm such as Super-Soakers.]

Instilling these concepts while a child is young helps prevent accidents when they are older. If a child treats even a replica or toy as if it were a firearm, and as such, as if it were always loaded.  Many accidents would be prevented. Possibly even this one involving the death of a young child from a replica canon.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-gps-ruling/

This is very important, even to the 2nd Amendment, as there may come a day when firearms are as obsolescent technology as the bow or sling. But we’ll still have the need to have the right to bear personal arms.

I’d really like to see this reasoning applied to infiltration and searches of things like phones and computers. It appears the big deciding factor was the physical act of installing the device. I am leery of the physical aspect being such a deciding factor. As such, were the FBI to simply hack an onboard GPS unit, would this decision still have gone down? I think it’s a case that needs to be decided. As all too often there seems to be this concept inside certain administrations that if they don’t physically go somewhere then no violation has been made. That somehow hacking or hijacking my phone calls, stored data or emails is acceptable.

Regardless, I find this a positive decision. Though I personally believe convictions should still be granted on ill-gained evidence. Just that those who gain the evidence illegally should suffer stiff penalties. I feel this way, in part, because I dislike violent and dangerous criminals being released back onto the streets on mere technicalities. If we know you committed murder, then we should be able to sentence you. If a police or other agent gained evidence illegally, then they should be sentenced separately.

Lastly, remember, we’re not talking about an inability of the police to monitor such individuals as this drug dealer. We’re simply saying that they need to get authorization for a warrant. In otherwords, by the point where they are considering monitoring, they should have enough evidence and insight to convince a judge that there is an aspect that warrants their suspicion. That’s all…just get a warrant. This sets apart a legal civilized police force from a gestapo.

I spent a good portion of my youth out on the water. I attended a special high school in which we built boats in shop class and went out rowing and sailing. Our core class curriculum including a course on Piloting and getting our Safe Boating Certificate.

I also had the opportunity to crew on board a 90 ft traditional wooden Schooner (and a 60 ft ketch). Safety of the passengers was always the foremost responsibility of the crew.

Reading about the Costa Concordia incident initially filled me with frustration and anger – and still does. For a captain and crew to abandon their passengers is a most heinous crime.

There is no doubt that Captain Schettino was craven in his duties. And sadly, this seems to be the historical case when it concerns cruise liner officers.

I myself have been a member of crew on a passenger vessel that ran aground. While our incident had very minimal risk, we’d merely run afoul on a sandy bottom and we were within a mile of a Coast Guard station. We sent our runabout to drop an anchor on the deep side and push on the shallow, winching ourselves the inch or two we need to set float again.

But I’ll never forget that day, nor how infuriated the 1st mate was at the captain. Who was foremost at fault. In thinking back to this tail, it made me reflect on the whole ordeal.

The captain who ran us aground was a nice man. He was one of our relief captains. He was easy going, very friendly and never yelled. But he was not of the same caliber as our other captains. On one occasion he left the wheel unattended to chat with a passenger. And we’ve already mentioned that he ran us aground.

Thinking back on this, caused me to reflect a little further regarding Captain Schettino. I think God was just trying to remind me of my own humanity and failures, and that he still loves me inspite of myself. And I started to mourn for Captain Schettino.

I am still affirmed in my belief that he was craven and grossly negligent. But I also pity the man. He was probably the type of Captain that just liked to have fun, who enjoyed seeing his passengers have a good time. Right now, he is enduring a nightmare of a captain’s greatest fears.

Captain Schettino is on house arrest, and hopefully also under a suicide watch. He is dealing with having lost his ship, the death of passengers, accusations of marital infidelity, and the knowledge that he was craven. That’s not an easy face to wake up to and look at in the mirror every morning. It’s one of those events where you wake up every morning hoping it was just a dream. That it was all imagined…but it wasn’t, it is real.

There is a difference between negligence and cravenness versus a “goblin” of a predator. And I think I had to remember that. I have little sympathy for the man who goes out preying on others, robbing, raping, murderering his fellow beings with deliberate and conscious thought. That is wholly evil. Where as failure is not wholly evil, if anything, it’s quite human. No, it’s far from the noble and decent aspects of humanity. But it’s not the same as the evilness of a criminal predator.

This is why in our laws we have distinctions for causing the death of another human being.

We firstly, look at pre-meditated murder as being the most heinous. This is an act in which one has carefully thought out with determination the taking of another’s life either with specific deliberation or with causality of action (a armed robber engages in his activities with pre-meditated knowledge that they may kill their victim, hence being armed).

Second, we view those acts of passion. The man who comes home to see his wife with another man and in a passionate rage beats the man to death. These we understand the motivation, but convict on the failure of the individual to allow human rationality to control his base animal insticts.

Next we view gross negligence. This is where one’s actions were foolish and led to the death of others. We term this manslaughter as opposed to murder. This includes drunk driving and the events surrounding Captain Schettino. Essentially, as I view it. The deaths were unintended but also avoidable. That is the defining aspect for me.

Lastly, we have two categories. The accidental death without negligence, such as a skateboarder trying to cut through traffic and being hit and killed by a driver of a car. The determination being made that the driver could not have avoided the situation by any reasonable actions of their own. And the other being a justified act of self defense, in which the individual took the life of another in order to prevent grave harm and/or death to themselves.

So while I am angry with Captain Schettino and his negligence causing the deaths of dozens of passengers. I also feel and mourn for this man who’s life is ruined and who will never be able to look into the mirror. Because this wasn’t an evil man, just a weak one.

It’s pretty sad, when a Senator, son of a Presidential candidate, is unable to board a flight courtesy of the TSA. And while I know that many will say we should all be treated equal, to which I mostly agree, but I must state that if we are really that afraid of our top elected officials being terrorists. Then we have serious, serious, problems.

[UPDATE: May even be some breach of power issues in this case as well.]

SECTION 6 of the Constitution reads “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The one good side to this incident is that the Silly TSA agents just gave one of their biggest opponents extra ammunition.

There was a time I was concerned to fly because of Al Quaeda. There was a one in a million chance I might be terrorized. Now, thanks to the TSA, I am nearly guaranteed to be terrorized. I have not flown since the TSA scanner/pat down policies were implemented. Thankfully, I’ve been able to avoid this conflict. My concern is increased with reports that the TSA seems to be increasingly leaving their airports, and train stations to venture onto American highways.

ARTICLES [1] [2] [3]

We all talk about lines in the sand. Where do we draw them? How do we draw them? I believe unwarranted random stops, searches and seizures on the part of the TSA violate the Constitution. When should a U.S. citizen simply continue driving in civil disobedience. (Yes, there will be consequences. But there were consequences for Rosa Parks when she rode the bus.)

When does one say enough of the slippery slope? I do not know…but I am greatly saddened that my fear of our own government agencies is surpassing my fear of Al-Quaeda. Is this the “Victory” in the war on terror we were looking for?

Will I one day find myself detained for simply having “Ron Paul 2012″ emblazened on my bumper? If so, what do we do America?

One of the biggest reasons I am supporting Ron Paul in this election, is because I believe we are heading toward a tipping point. And we need someone who will absolutely say “We won’t go there.” And for all the talk of candidates, there is only one who has made that stance.

I don’t want to ever have to face my lines in the sand. I know a few of them, that I will not let be crossed. Those pretty much involve the harm and/or detention of my children or wife. Most others are still gray and in the distant fog. I want them to stay that way. I don’t want them to ever be close enough that I will be able to see them defined with their edges.

I want to continue believing in and loving America!

We ask them to goo out. Spend day after day in fear that it could be their last. Make it the last day for many others.

WAR…it leaves scars that only those who have experienced can ever understand.

While I briefly served and have a National Defense ribbon. I always found myself rather ashamed to wear it. I wasn’t anywhere of risk. I was merely a cadet at a military academy. I have no scars worthy of that pin. I was just active during the close of the gulf war operations.

Tens of thousands have earned that pin. And endured scars to their souls for which I cannot even imagine. Young patriotic men who now look in the mirror and see a killer. It’s my understanding from all accounts that the taking of another human life does something to a good man’s soul.

So how does society handle such an issue? How are we going to handle it? The Brady Campaign folks would like to see these men and women be stripped fo their rights. Those who sacrificed their lives, their bodies, and their souls for our nation. They feel the effects of mental disorders such as PTSD make our returning soldiers high risk and dangerous. Especially combined with the fact that we’ve spent tons of cash training them to be the most lethal soldiers in the world.

I am sure that some would like to just lock them all away and forget they ever existed or sacrificed for us. Much as was done in the Star Trek: TNG episode “The Hunted”.

What surprises me the most is how willing our society is to be soft on criminals. And yet offer less grace to those who’ve suffered on our behalf. What happens when a soldier returns from Iraq. I am sure there are a couple of weeks of downtime. A debriefing period. A small amount of time to re-acclimate from “killing the enemy” to having to do deal with working for a minimum wage as some prick of a manager lords it over you with arrogance. What a transition…I can’t even imagine what it would be like. Seriously, I’m surprised that more people haven’t found themselves throttled by returning soldiers throughout history exclaiming “Do you know what it’s like to watch your friends be ambushed, to watch comrades die in your arms, to take a life – to keep twits like you safe at home.”

The sad truth is that we largely abandon our soldiers upon their return. From war to ordinary life with no sanctuary in between. Could we as a society do them better justice? I think so…

Perhaps we should have a program that facilitates returning combat soldiers a time of greater transition. A year of pay, an opportunity to participate in a number of garden communities or similar social activities (building playgrounds, what not). But a period in which the soldier can reflect and try to become at peace. Feel the dirt in their fingers, or see children laugh and play on a playground they’ve helped build.

Truthfully, I think we owe it to them…

Go give this song a listen courtesy of Revolution Rock and Roll(free download does require joining mailing list, same musician who did the theme song for Jack Spirko’s The Survival Podcast)