Abuse of Power, Canton Ohio

I recently got an email with a link to the Ohioans For Concealed Carry's website. They had posted a dash-cam video of a car stop last month that was shocking to me. I was a police officer for some time and got to thinking I'd seen pretty nearly everything. After viewing this video, I knew I was wrong. Watch it for yourself; I'll warn you, the language and conduct may be shocking to some. Heck, I was shocked at the vehemence of it.

Canton PD Notification Arrest & Officer Conduct    Ohio Law & Politics
Written by OFCC News  
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 20:53
It's being called "The cop heard 'round the world"... This Canton Concealed Carry arrest is a perfect example of why the law on "mandatory notification" needs to be changed quickly.

This video is real life evidence of a re-occurring problem in Ohio law with gun owners: The poorly defined "promptly inform" law leaves a gaping opportunity for police officers to cite a gun owner with a misdemeanor when they can't find anything else to charge that person with, or when they want to make an example of that person for carrying a firearm. In this particular case the officers are so focused on their own demands that they completely miss multiple opportunities to be "promptly informed" by the licensee. At least once when an officer is climbing around his car, and only minutes later when finally approached by an officer at his door the man tries to say "I have a carry..." but is interrupted."

http://www.ohioccw.org/201107214955/cantonpd.html

Today, I got another notification from OFCC with a link to yet another video of the same officer a year ago doing much the same thing. So, it is not an isolated incident on a bad day, but a pattern. 

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x2014919089/Video-Officer-Harless-loses-his-temper-on-another-arrest

"CANTON —

The police department is investigating a second incident involving an officer already under scrutiny for his conduct during the arrest of a man with a gun.

The circumstances of the incidents differ: One, from June, involves a driver with a license to carry a concealed gun. The other, from July of last year, concerns a backseat passenger without the legal right to be armed in a vehicle."

My response to this second incident from last year was:

"Well, it appears that Ofc. Harless did not pop his abusive cherry with the incident of June 8. Here, again on dash-cam video, is an earlier example of Ofc. Harless's language skills and lack of professionalism. I've had incidents like this happen in the wee hours of a morning and my partner and I didn't go ballistic. When the gun was seen, whoever found it said, "Gun!" loudly and froze the scene. It is possible that my partner or I would draw a weapon to make sure that no one moved to pick the gun up. All parties would, most probably, be on the ground in the "felony prone" position and handcuffed. Once the subjects and the weapon was secured, questioning could begin as to why there was a gun found in the car. But maintaining a calm demeanor is essential. If you act the way Harless did on both occasions, the chance of the situation escalating into a shooting is very, very high.

This guy does not deserve to wear the badge and should be, at least, deprived of his livelihood, his pension and, most probably, his freedom."

We were discussing this incident in the car on the way to my wife's work. Ana -- who has a strong dislike for abuses of authority and was somewhat trepedatious about getting involved with a cop, sort of the ultimate authority figure -- has been appalled at this incident. But she raised a question I couldn't answer: "What happened to this guy that he's so uptight about finding guns? Did he get shot? Lose a partner in a shooting? What?" Even if all of the foregoing were true, while they might explain his actions, they certainly don't excuse them. Or the inaction of the Canton Police Department for negligently retaining what is so obviously an out-of-control cop with serious anger-management issues and a .40 caliber Glock.

I am watching to see what happens. The officer is already on suspension and is taking sick leave as well, so there is something going on. He needs help, but mostly he needs to be disarmed and lose that badge and pension he's been working on for 14 years. The fraternity that I was part of for a goodly chunk of my adult life doesn't need cops like Ofc. Harless. The rest of the department should demand his removal, forthwith.

Norwegian Wood -- A Tragedy

Like most reasonable people, I was appalled by the bombing and shooting in Norway for which Anders Behring Breivik has taken credit. I am working my way through his manifesto -- at least it is purported to be his, although it is signed by Andrew Berwick and shows London as the point of origin, not Oslo. It is slow going, since it is dense and often makes little sense, but I figure I need to try and see what was on his mind.

I knew that there would be people concerned about another mass shooting and would try to use the deaths for their own political ends and I was right. Today I got an email from a friend with a link to David Codrea's Gun Examiner blog. Here is the headline of that blog, taken from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's website:

"“Norway Terrorist Used Lax U.S. Gun Laws To Help Get Armed for Massacre,” a headline on Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s tax-funded website claims. “Anders Behring Breivik’s Manifesto Describes Buying  High-Capacity Magazines from U.S. for Purpose of Mass Murder.”

If only we would let her disarm us, all would be well:

    One type of weaponry in particular that terrorist Anders Behring Breivik easily acquired from the U.S. – high-capacity ammunition magazines – would be prohibited from sale or transfer if H.R. 308, a bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY4), would pass and be signed into law.  That legislation currently has 109 cosponsors in the House."


Continue reading on Examiner.com McCarthy blames Norway shootings on ‘lax U.S. gun laws’! - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/mccarthy-blames-norway-shootings-on-lax-u-s-gun-laws?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1TW6jlGOC

This is my response, sent to my friend and to David Codrea. I'd send it to McCarthy, but I doubt that it would do a single iota of good: her mind is made up and she is right and righteous in her rectitude, so to speak.

"OK, let us for a moment assume that Breivik was limited to 10-rnd magazines. Since he was attacking an unarmed group on an island, magazine changes every ten rounds with his Ruger Min-14 wouldn't have slowed him down significantly. So, what benefit would the ban on high-capacity magazines have been in this case? The initial killings, of course, were done without a firearm, using common agricultural products. Would Rep. McCarthy like to see some form of control of fertilizer, since it figures in many explosions of IEDs? Or diesel fuel? Where would she and those like her stop in regulating the activities of potential terrorists? And how would these potential terrorists be identified? Until she and her ilk can answer questions such as those to the satisfaction of many of us Americans, we will continue to oppose efforts like this to make us more subject than citizen. Oh, and there is that pesky phrase, unique to the Second Amendment, that says that the right of individuals (the Supreme Court has affirmed that in this case as in others, the right of "the People" is an individual right, not a collective one)  to bear arms "shall not be infringed." I take that to mean that bearing arms includes the magazines and that limiting the number of rounds -- 10, 30, 100 -- is an infringement.

Would it make me any happier to see that Breivik had used an AK bought on the black market with Bulgarian 30-rnd magazines? Yeah, maybe, because then idiots like McCarthy and her kind couldn't try to blame this sociopathic tragedy on US laws. But the people he shot would still be wounded or dead. As dead as those in the path of the blast wave from his Ampho bomb.

Rep. McCarthy and those like her are not playing with a full deck, nor are they playing to win, in order that the American people may remain free. Shame on them and where's the recall ballot?"

Someone said, in the wake of this tragedy on a wooded island near Oslo, that as horrible as it is, this act is, perhaps, the collateral damage that is the unintended consequence of living in a free -- reasonably, anyway --  society. When people are free to act responsibly or not, without the constant monitoring that is the norm in dictatorships of left and right -- and is becoming all too common in places like the US and UK which were formerly free of such things -- they are free to do horrible things. The price of preventing more of these tragedies is to curtail and circumscribe rights and freedoms. It might be safer, but I don't want to live there and neither do most of my friends.

Borders - Ironically Mourning the Passing of a Giant

I got an email today, from Mike Edwards, CEO of Borders, confirming what CBS News told me earlier in the week: Borders, after 40 years, is closing its doors. I've shopped Borders since the first one opened near me in California a couple of decades ago. I had mixed feelings, since I was always a supporter of the small bookstore, especially the ones that specialized in one or two genres and could be counter upon to have the things that the general-interest stores often didn't. But Borders offered so much, all in one place.

When I lived in San Francisco, there was a small independent bookstore right down at the corner of 18th and Geary where my girlfriend and I often browsed and where we spent a fair amount of money on books. The people at the store knew us and our tastes and were always quick with a recommendation or to pass along an advance reader's copy of a book they thought we'd like. A downturn in the economy back in the '80s forced the owners to close that store, concentrating on their other store in the more heavily-trafficked area of Union Street in Cow Hollow. I see that this store is gone, now, as well. Sad.

Yes, stores like Borders, Barnes & Noble, Stacy's and the other big, national chains out pressure on the small stores and their loss is unfortunate and saddening. Of course, when I was a kid, supermarkets were doing much the same thing to small local grocery stores, butcher shops, bakeries and the like. And we all mourned the passing of those little guys for the personal service they could give that the big stores couldn't. But progress is inevitable, I guess.

So, Borders is going, as well. There was a time when I had a choice, living in Alameda -- a small town near San Francisco in the East Bay and mostly located on an island near the Oakland Airport -- of two Borders, one much closer than the other. There were others, too, if I was shopping in another area. And then there were fewer, my friends In California told me. The one closest to where I had lived closed first and then the first one I'd shopped and browsed at. It was sort of like watching one of those elaborate set-ups of dominoes falling, but it touched many of us.

I liked Borders because I could buy books and music, magazines and videos and then DVDs, all in one place, sort of like the supermarket that replaced the little shops from my childhood. And browsing was important. Serendipity has always played a part in my selection of books and CDs (and records; remember them?) I'd go looking for one thing and find three others. When I had disposable income (remember that?) I could walk out of Borders with my arms full of books, magazines and CDs and my pockets proportionately lighter in cash.

I shopped Amazon, too. But usually it was for something specific. It is, I find, hard to browse on-line stores. Even with Amazon nudging me with suggestions based on past purchases -- and I wonder sometimes at the AI that makes these choices, because I can't, for the life of me, figure out how they come up with some of them -- it isn't the same as leisurely walking the aisles at a book store.

Borders cites their slowness in adopting the digital age as embodied in the Kindle or B&N Nook, as one of the "headwinds" that brought them down. Once upon a time  -- and we're talking over 40 years ago -- when I was thinking of living aboard a fairly large ocean-going sailboat, a 90' ferro-cement-hulled ketch some friends and I were contemplating, I dreamed of being able to convert my library, even then quite large to some form of digitized format. I read science fiction. They had such things. If only they really existed. And now they do. Between my terabyte external hard disc and something like a Kindle, my books and music would take up very little space and could be searched in ways I never imagined. Wow, living my dreams, science fiction turned to fact.

But, as my friend, the one I used to shop the bookstore in SF with who is still a friend (long story for another time, perhaps) said, at the rate we read,  the cost would be prohibitive.  I'm plowing through a book a week and sometimes more when I'm not reading those nearly 1,000 page behemoths like the Goodkind Sword of Truth series, as I am now. The Goodkind books were free, courtesy of my wife's boss, who passed them on to her. (She's four books ahead of me in a 12-volume series, with more proposed to come.) To replace them in Kindle format would run over a hundred bucks, with each book going for around $8.We get a lot of our books for nearly nothing at library sales, where, on the second day, one can usually walk away with a paper bag or a file box full of books for $3 to $5. Such a bargain. Perhaps some of them could be found for free in an e-format, but again part of the fun of shopping those library sales is the treasure hunt aspect and the serendipity. I've even found signed first editions to toss into my bag or box at an average of a quarter or so.

With Kindle books running from free, through a buck or two up to around $15, acquiring a library on Kindle could quickly add up. And what to do with the large library of print and paper that now exists? I can't covert them like I can my LPs and CDs and cassettes to digital format. And Kindle, rated the best of the e-book readers by and large, doesn't read all the formats out there. So, I'm not going e-book any time real soon. But I understand that I may be a member of a dying breed.

With Borders going, going and then gone, my options here in Albuquerque have dwindled. Even one of the best of the independents in New Mexico, Page One, has had to retrench and consolidate. They're still there, but one wonders . . . It is a great experience, browsing their collection of new and used books and dealing with a knowledgeable and very friendly staff. Much nicer than either Borders or the Internet. The same pressures that caused Borders to fold, of course, press on Page One.

So, while it may be ironic that I am mourning the passing of the giant that helped kill the small bookstore I liked so much in San Francisco, the demise of brick and mortar stores, where browsing the aisles is part of the pleasure with the purchase only the end result, does make me sad. Perhaps I need to wear a mourning band for a week or so.

Washingtom Post OpEd -- Stand up to Herman Cain’s bigotry

 I got this in my morning email from a list to which I subscribe. It was sent without comment, so I wrote a comment and sent it on. I decided to post it here, as well, because it has some resonance for me. In general, I like Herman Cain. This gave me pause, though and I decided to look at it and give it some thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stand-up-to-herman-cains-bigotry/2011/07/18/gIQA5QChMI_story.html

Stand up to Herman Cain’s bigotry
By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 18

Washington Post Opinion Online

It is time to stop giving Herman Cain’s unapologetic bigotry a free pass.
The man and his poison need to be seen clearly and taken seriously.

Imagine the reaction if a major-party presidential candidate — one who,
like Cain, shows actual support in the polls — said he “wouldn’t be
comfortable” appointing a Jew to a Cabinet position. Imagine the outrage
if this same candidate loudly supported a community’s efforts to block
Mormons from building a house of worship.

But Cain’s prejudice isn’t against Mormons or Jews, it’s against Muslims.
Open religious prejudice is usually enough to disqualify a candidate for
national office — but not, apparently, when the religion in question is
Islam.

----------------SNIP -----------

(Lest you think that Robinson quoted Cain out of context, go to Fox News and listen to Cain in his own words at  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/1062128412001/herman-cain-on-fox-news-sunday/?playlist_id=86913 His comments about the mosque come at about 5:50 of the nearly 15 minute segment)

So, this is my response:

There must be some common ground where sensible people could agree on just how much of a threat Islam is to our nation and the Western way of life. Historically, Muslims have imposed their religious law wherever they had the upper hand. To be fair, so did Christians, historically. The author of this screed, which is almost as off-the-wall as he claims Cain to be, makes a number of comparisons, some of which might be valid if there were some better historical precedent. But when he goes all Swiftian on us with his "It makes as much sense to worry that the Amish will force us all to commute by horse and buggy" he reduces it all to sound bites and stupid -- yes, I said stupid -- analogies. The Amish are separatists, wanting only to be left alone to live life according to their beliefs. They don't proselytize or try to force their beliefs on the "English" as many of them call the rest of us. And they are pacifists, for whom force is not a term in their lexicon, except perhaps as a negative concept to be avoided.

Islam, alone among the Abrahamist religions of the Middle East -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam in chronological order -- seems to still speak in terms of jihad or holy war. Yes, Christians went on Crusades, which are mighty close to the same thing to retake the Holy Land and erase Islam. But that was a very long time ago. The radical imams who preach jihad and issue fatwas against the infidel -- that's us, folks -- may think they're still operating in the 14th century, but they are using TV and the Internet to do so and they are doing it right now. Europe is seeing a major push to elevate shariah law to the same level as secular law in France. So far, France has taken a fairly hard line against it, but as the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims shifts, can they resit for long when the Muslims are the majority? Or even a strong and vocal minority?

In some US cities, the number of Muslims is steadily growing. They are one of the fastest growing segments of the population in some areas, in part because they do not believe in the concept of zero population growth, the idea that to maintain a balance, we need to reproduce ourselves and just a bit more, to offset those who do not chose or are unable to have children. (This replacement fertility will depend on mortality rates and the sex ratio at birth, and varies from around 2.1 in developed countries to over 3.0 in some developing countries.) It is the belief, started in the US and Europe in the '60s, that overpopulation will, eventually, deplete all the resources on the planet if it is not checked. 

Most of the people who practiced it were among the better educated and better-off people, primarily White. Blacks in the '60s saw ZPG as a racist attempt to eliminate Blacks by lowering the birth rate. Given that in theory all people were supposed to be doing it, I could never figure out how they got that, unless they figured that once the Blacks got on board, White people would all breed like Australian rabbits, with about the same effect: Blacks would be nearly extinct and we would be even more numerous. What did happen is that the birth rate among educated White people declined and the birth rate among others did not.

I think that Cain's view that preventing Muslims from building mosques will eliminate radical Islam and deny terrorist cells a place to germinate and grow is simplistic, but many mosques, even ones that are relatively moderate, allow groups to meet there and do not always monitor what the meetings are about. Even many moderates among the faithful and their leaders are sympathetic to the aims and goals of the more radical among their brethren and will turn a blind eye to what is going on. So, if we allow mosques, we then must keep a close eye on what is going on there.

Helter Skelter, which would bring about a major race war where Blacks would be victorious. He and his extended family would be safe from all that and would emerge as virtually the only white people left and being superior, would rule the Blacks. There are some who would see that as part of the plan to get us to the End Times as quickly as possible.)

Religious freedom is sacrosanct among many Americans and they see it as absolute. But freedom is not license and while I feel we need to allow people to worship as they please, I don't think we should let them foment revolution or train for jihad or hasten Armageddon. As the saying went, back in the days of the Cold War and the beginnings of nuclear and missile disarmament. "Trust, but verify." 

And now, for something completely different -- climbing

Let's get this out there right up front: I don't climb mountains. I am rather fearful of heights and one if the most frightening things I've ever done was to rappel from a three-story rooftop during some form of SWAT-style training Scared the bejesus out of me and I froze for quite some time -- measured perhaps with an hourglass - before I stepped off into the rappel. Someone sent me this link to Catherine Destivelle's free-climb solo ascent in Mali and I was fascinated. I felt like sharing.

She has her own website -- doesn't everyone? -- at http://www.destivelle.com/en/profile.aspx which has a short bio of her. At 51 and with a teenaged son, she doesn't climb as much or travel as far as she once did, but her accomplishments are legendary.

When I was a kid, maybe fourteen, family friends took another kid and I up to New Hampshire into the White Mountains. We hiked Mt. Monadnock, which is near the White Mountains, although not actually part of the chain. I didn't make the summit, but it was an adventure, nonetheless. Ever since then, I have had a fascination, at a distance, for mountains and the people who climb them, especially the ones who climb like Destivelle.

As you watch this video, I wonder if you see the similarity I do to the cliff-dwellings of the Pueblo people. The long-abandoned home of a tribe of pygmies in Mali looks like Chaco or one of the other cliff cities in the Southwest.

Enjoy.

Crystal Bowersox - Idol in the making

I'll confess a couple of things, up front. One, I'm a sucker for a good chick singer, especially one that can write her own stuff as well as interpret the work of other artists and add something to it. Second, since I can't stand Simon Cowell, I don't watch American Idol. I had no idea that she was the runner-up on season 9. I first came to notice Crystal Bowersox in the commercial she and B.B. King did for some glucosimeter. I noticed that because I'm diabetic, so things like that catch my eye, especially when there's a good looking woman with a guitar involved. I meant to check her out, but it took me until yesterday to do so. (If you are interested in her response to the whole Idol journey, check out her video diary at http://www.americanidol.com/videos/season_9/crystal_bowersox/crystal_bowersoxs_idol_journey/) Had I known how good she was, and how much I was going to enjoy her music, I might have overcome my feelings for Simon and watched and voted for her.

Like just about everyone who sings or plays an instrument, Crystal has a website so I checked that out. Nice. http://www.crystalbowersox.com/home/ Looking around for more of her, I came upon the CMT site I've chosen to introduce those that don't know her.   http://www.cmt.com/videos/crystal-bowersox/642441/for-what-its-worth-live.jhtml?artist=3803308 There are five videos here, and, yes, there are short commercials, but the quality of the material is worth putting up with some stuff. The live tracks with her bass player and long-time friend Frankie May are especially good.

Here's a sample of her music from You Tube: 

I said I didn't want this to be a political blog, so this is a look at a bit of my musical taste. Like I said, I'm a sucker for female vocalists. When I was in Miami with friends in the summer of 1965, I met a young woman while shooting pool in a bar in Coconut Grove. She was  a local, more of less, having come down from the Tampa area. I found out she was a musician and things went from there. She was good, needed a ride up to New York and we started the trip in her black '53 Ford, with windows that didn't all work and what turned out to be a short life. Her name was Nancy and she was a pretty damn good singer, with a style that was familiar but her own. Her guitar playing was simple, but worked well to accompany her singing. Long story short, we were an item, I got her some exposure, she took off for Philadelphia and we weren't an item any more. I have fond memories of that summer, which began with the trip to Miami, a lot of music, new friends, old friends, a great singer and an interesting relationship and ended with my draft notice. But, hey, that's a whole other story for another time.

Enjoy Crystal Bowersox, why don't ya?

Green No More - comments on money down a rathole

This came into my email box this morning, sent by a friend whom I respect, even when we differ, as we often do.

"A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.

The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.

All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.
.....
http://www.ksbw.com/r/28586219/detail.html"

Here is what my friend commented:

"More proof that the government has no business in attempting to manage business.  This is just another 'Green' program that was pushed down taxpayers' throats by a government that has no idea what the hell is going on.  While we are developing the technology to someday make vehicles like this affordable, we are still a long way off.  Rather than allow these industries to grow and develop at their own pace, Obama and his lemming supporters think they can force a workable technology on us before its time.  More tax $$ down the rathole of environmentalism..  These $$ should be paid back out of the personal $$ stash of every bureaucrat and elected official who endorsed it and donated the peoples' $$ to it."

I responded by saying:

Not to speak too loudly in defense of government involvement in what might better be strictly non-government business, the push to develop green alternatives to the fossil-fuel-based automobile is certainly nothing new. Oh, maybe the specifics are new, but the principle -- government investment in beneficial ideas -- is certainly not. After all, the idea of pushing a railroad across the nation, linking east and west coasts with a band of iron might have been allowed to develop at its own pace, unaided by the federal government. Right or wrong, the government saw that there was merit to a transcontinental railroad and threw their full weight behind assisting the private-sector undertaking. And, to be sure, I know that individuals both in and out of government made bundles on the deal. But we got a transcontinental railroad out of the deal, which wasn't a bad thing.

While electric cars may not be ready to replace the rather inefficient petrol-based cars that are common today, they aren't exactly a new idea. They are a return or look back to one of the several technologies that once provided power to what came to be automobiles but was not developed because the petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine seemed the better idea, or got the push to take the lead over electric and steam.

There may be something to gain from supporting alternative-fuel research on a short-term, personal basis. Read that as corruption. But I think that the longer term possibilities are good. Investing in the future, even investing public money in it, is not some new-fanged idea of Obama's nor of Al Gore's. We've been doing it for some time, including a ton of money poured into research and development in military defense and the aerospace industry. Both areas have provided jobs and a lot of spin-off products that have become everyday items.

Salinas thought it was investing in not only the future of automobiles, but in the future of Salinas, an area that could use some economic diversity and a shot in the arm. Steinbeck country is almost wholly agricultural and that agriculture is dependent on artificial means to keep going. I'm sure that some politicians might have made a buck or two on the deal, but I also think the investment in our national future as well as the future of Salinas was in there and maybe even at the front of many people's thinking.

Now, I consider myself a small "l" libertarian" with strong suspicions about big government that are pretty much balanced by suspicions about big business and its influence on government. So, I don't rush to condemn every move made by government that I can see was motivated by some concern for the common good. I think this is one such situation. I believe in a lot of the sentiments of the green movement, while not entirely trusting some of it or, perhaps more accurately, some of the people involved in it. Perhaps it is because so many of them see government control as the first and best option in moving toward a greener world. That's not my style, although I can see that some help from the government could move the process along toward a positive conclusion more quickly than allowing strictly market forces to do it.

I welcome your comments on this.

The Rise of the Wrecking Ball RIght -- Comment

This went out to a few of my friends as an email. I thought I'd share it as my second post on this blog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-rise-of-the-wreckingb_b_899871.html

"Recently I debated a conservative Republican who insisted the best way to revive the American economy was to shrink the size of government. When I asked him to explain his logic he said, simply, "government is the source of all our problems." When I noted government spending had brought the economy out of the previous eight economic downturns, including the Great Depression, he disagreed. "The Depression ended because of World War Two," he pronounced, as if government had played no part in it."

Robert Reich, the Rise of the Wrecking Ball Right.

This is an interesting piece by Robert Reich which was forwarded to me by Martin, the 80+ former guidance counselor from my high-school days. I am no fan of the bloated government with which we have been increasingly saddled over my lifetime. Neither am I a fan of the bloated corporate giants that, through skillful manipulation of that government, the application of money and, when all else fails, brute force, have directed that government to its own ends. So, I am not typical of the people of whom Reich writes, although I do share some of their anti-government views.

Let me say that I agree with the unnamed Conservative Republican that World War Two was hugely responsible -- perhaps more than all of FDR's social(ist) programs -- for ending the depression in the US. Of course, it was mostly a government-funded undertaking and one of the last times we went to war with the full advise and consent of Congress. (WW II did far less to end or reverse the effects of the World Depression, of course. In many places, it was US Government aid that helped bring some nations out of it, a fact that many of them seem to forget from time to time. On the evidence, some might ague that the UK never really recovered from WW I, the depression and WW II, despite some positive blips. I tend to agree, but that is another discussion for another time.)

Unlike some of the people Reich mentions in his article, I know that I am the recipient of government benefits, in the form of Social Security and Medicare. I have, in the past, been the beneficiary of government unemployment insurance. And, at three times in my life, I have drawn a government paycheck. I also benefit, locally, from a state-government sponsored medical supplementary program that helps with costs not paid by medicare and also allows medical coverage for my wife at greatly reduced rates. I am thankful for all of these benefits, but feel that as a taxpayer and a veteran, I am owed some payback for all I have given. I also believe that the CEOs who received compensation packages totaling in the millions should be paying a fairer share of the tax burden than they seem to. That is especially true when the companies for whom they work have benefited from taxpayer-funded bailouts and then posted record earnings while many Americans are unemployed and still paying taxes of one sort or another.

To be fair, there are beloved social welfare programs for people many of us do not believe have earned such treatment, including illegal immigrants and many minorities, whom the left has made into protected and even, in some cases, cossetted classes. All the government bloat is not confined to one side or the other of the body politic.

For a good portion of my adult life the government has expanded, taking on responsibilities far in excess of those specified in the Constitution, even by extension of principles. Government agencies, especially those at the federal level, have become so numerous and so involved in the personal lives of us all, that the illusion of personal freedom is hard to support, even for an optimist. And the militarization of our law enforcement at all levels, mostly in support of such policies as the "war on drugs" and the "war against terrorism" plus near-imperial wars around the world, but especially in the oil-rich middle east, make one wonder what sort of country we are living in. All of these evils are government programs.

So, while the whole "wrecking ball" concept appeals to many, they fail to see beyond the rhetoric to the fact that the very people who call for less government only want less government in areas that do not directly benefit them. The right wing might talk a good game about a "return" to simpler government and a "back to basics"laissez faire capitalist system, with limited government involvement, but, first, it isn't a return; we were never there. Government has benefited big business -- especially really big business -- almost since the beginning. The railroad tycoons, often hailed as the epitome of rugged individuals in a free-market capitalist system, made their money mostly from two things: a government-backed monopoly on carrying freight along their routes; and, second, the sale of vast stretches of (often worthless) land along that right of way, made possible by the federal government, as custodians of that land.

So, read Reich's piece and make up your own mind. I am of the opinion that both sides of the aisle are pretty much equally guilty of perpetrating programs that have bloated the federal government and served as a model for state, county and even local governments, to the detriment of us all. I am a limited-government libertarian, with strong reservations about the inherent goodness of business entities (which makes me anathema to many orthodox Libertarians) and I believe "that governs best that governs least" which is often attributed to Jefferson, who was, at heart, an anti-federalist along with Sam Adams and James Monroe. (Jefferson was in France as Ambassador while the whole federalist debate was going on)

Jamie

Welcome to my world

I've been thinking of posting a blog for some time, but never got around to it. So, this is a journey of exploration for all of us. Some of you know me from other places or other times. For those who don't, I'm nearly 67, born in San Francisco, raised there, in New Orleans and New York's Borough of Queens. I've lived a lot of places, with most of my time, split by those sojourns in NOLA and NYC, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Almost two years ago, my wife, Ana, and I decided to move to New Mexico. I'll share the reason at some point.

I've done a lot of different things, but the longest time was as a police officer for the Department of Health in San Francisco. The City and I have a difference of opinion on my being retired, but that's what I consider myself and this is my blog. {;-) I'm an Army veteran from the Vietnam period, with time spent in SE Asia and Europe as well as stateside, most of that in the DC Metro area.

I read a lot, watch more TV than is probably good for anyone and love movies, music and museums. I can take or leave long walks on the beach, although I've lived most of my life until now close to a body of salt water. We traded mountains and sky for the salt water and, so far, it has worked just fine.

So, that's me in a nut shell. Since I have opinions about a lot of things, I'll be sharing them on a semi-regular basis. I'd like to know when you agree, disagree or think I'm putting you to sleep, and all feed-back is good feedback if it's constructive.