Dangerous Words from Treasonous Mouths Should not Go Unchecked

   I find it surreal that Marjorie Taylor Greene today (on President's Day, no less) called for succession of the Republican-dominated states from the United States. I find it surreal that so many people support the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. I find it surreal that extremist groups -- militant groups -- like the Proud Boys are showing they would like to rise up in rebellion against the United States.

   “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government,” said U.S. Rep. Greene, R-Ga, in the tweet. “Everyone I talk to says this. From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are done."

   Traitorous? Usually I'd say it serves little benefit to call people names and box them into unsavory categories. But, this is a moment I beleive we should shout a warning as to what is going on. The Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Proud Boys might never pull off an overthrow of the U.S. government, but make no mistake, the signs and threats are visible and obvious.

   And, Marjorie, it is you and the Proud Boys who are traitorous.

   Rather than letting Marjorie's words go unchallenged, rather than letting support for the Proud Boys swell and become more popular, it becomes necessary to call a spade a spade, and name Marjorie and the Proud Boys for what they are: traitors.

   “This rhetoric is destructive and wrong and -- honestly -- evil," tweeted back Utah's Republican governor, Spencer Cox. "We don’t need a divorce, we need marriage counseling. And we need elected leaders that don’t profit by tearing us apart."

   “Our country is governed by the Constitution. You swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution," former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney tweeted. "Secession is unconstitutional. No member of Congress should advocate secession."

"Did she just call for Civil War?" tweeted New York Times best-selling author Marianne Williamson.

"What are MAGA Republicans focused on? Dividing Americans." tweeted California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu.

Others simply called Greene's statement, "treasonous."

Perhaps every American, period, should be recoiling to what Greene said. But our leaders? They especially should be speaking out. Some -- as quoted above -- have. But, being a leader in America includes standing up for America. Our leaders should not be shrugging off what Greene said. I don't mean some of them; I mean all of them.

Dangerous words from treasonous mouths should not go unchecked.

   

Police Corruption Should Be Fought on Our Own Shores

    Perhaps America -- when it comes to its men in blue -- is often no better than Nicaragua, Brazil, or El Salvador. 

   As the list of police brutality incidents swells, should we consider that if there can be corrupt officers in the South and Central American countries, there can be such officers here? Do we think we are immune? 

   Corruption should be opposed on our own shores, not just those far away. We can do little about the police corruption in Mexico, Guatemala, and Venezuela. But, we can fight it here at home. 

'War on Crime' Can have its Overkill

    The war on crime. We should ask ourselves if the very term prompts us to take measures harmful to our society. Don't get me wrong; fighting crime is good. But, the "war on crime" decree can be wrongly interpreted.

   By both sides.

   The police? They see the need to arm up. They use terms borrowed from the military, such as tactical unit, special forces and strike forces. They show up in the middle of the night, often in large trucks that are the next thing down from tanks.

   If you live in the community, and know your neighbors, and like them.  Everybody in the community soon is emphathizing with their friends who are being hauled off. Sometimes, twenty armed officers show up in a mass raid just to haul away a person for not reporting to his probation officer. The neighbors hear of such injustices. They see the militarization of the police. And they become fearful of the police and start to regard of the police as the enemy, an entity that is just there to rub their noses in the ground.

   Overkill. And it becomes the face of the police in the communities. 

   The officers get heady. Their job is to wage war on these people, and, in war, the rules are  reduced. They begin in think they are like James Bond -- licensed to kill. Don't laugh, they do. The police violence in America is witness to that. 

   No, we don't want to be soft on crime, if the definition of that is to let criminals lose. But, in our anger of not wanting to be soft on crime, we should be able to realize treating a probation violator the same as a murderer is not just, nor does it help things. Nor should we come to believe that not being soft on crime means putting a choke hold on a suspect when he is already subdued.

   'War on crime' seem innoculous enough. No, I am not suggesting it we ban it. You cannot ban an innoculous term. Still, consider the subtle, deceiving way the term works against us. Yes, some officers take the term as their license to commit police violence. War is violence, and they are not only willing, but proud to administer it. It is almost a patriotic thing. Not all police, but some.

   We can do better than this. If we let the terminology, "war on crime" mean the police can treat people with impunity, it will be to our shame. It would not be wrong to have a campaign helping the police understand what things 'war on crime' should not be carried to mean.

Charity Takes an Enemy, and Calls Him a Friend

     Charity is never judgemental. It does not say, you deserved it. You will have to pay the price. I have no pity for you.

    No, charity is all mercy and no judgement. Leave it to governments to punish for crimes committed. Leave it to God to be the administrator of vengence. Vengence is mine, it says in the Bible. One Christian church has a scripture which says the Lord will forgive whom he will forgive, but of us it is required to forgive all men.

   The scripture in Romans -- how much of today's problems does it give us direction on? "Vengence is mine. . . . Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on this head." In other words, if he is guilty of a wrongdoing, and you bless him anyway, it will prove to be his undoing without you needing to be the administrator of punishment. "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Recompense to no man evil for evil."

   You tell me then, does this scripture apply to the homeless? Do we suggest they brought upon themselves their own misfortune? Do we speak of "tough love," and discharge them into the street until they can figure it out? Does the scripture apply to the drug addict, and we tell him he does not qualify for any assistance unless he comes clean of the drugs? 

   Does it apply to the immigrants, who we say are criminals for coming to America without permission? Instead of seeing how they fail to live our laws of America by crossing the border, perhaps we should see we have failed to keep the laws of charity. If they come with a criminal record -- if they have committed murder or rape, or it they do when they get here, let government punish them for such crimes. But, let us not judge that they are all criminals just because one of them is a criminal.

   Charity is never laced with judgement, with punishment, or with scorn. It takes an enemy, and counts him as friend. It dismisses the ill that someone has done to you, and says you bear no ill will in return. Charity is all love and forgiveness, with no room for hate and grudges.

   So, what of home invaders? If we shoot just to stop them, that is just; but if we shoot to kill, because the @#%^$ deserved it, that is wrong. 

   Charity is not an eye for an eye. The question is, in this day and age in which we live, do we fail to apply the laws of charity.

Gun Lovers and Weed Users Have One Thing in Common

    You would enrage the gun advocate by doing so, but compare the gun to marijuana. Both are harmful -- or are they? The gun advocate will swear by the gun. He will argue it saves more lives than it takes. He will argue that without it, our nation would lose its freedom. And, the Mary Jane user? He, too, will swear by what he uses. No one ever died from a weed overdose, he will say. It's harmless. It's medicinal. It releases creative juices and has helped some of the best musicians craft some amazing music.

   In that, they are the same. Gun lovers justify their guns, and Mary Jane users justify their Mary Jane. 

Body Cams can Be Turned off, but Video Cams on Street Poles Cannot

    From the advent of a video camera capturing Rodney King being beaten by the Los Angeles Police, it has been the cellphones and video cameras and body cams that have brought justice where justice once did not exist. 

   The idea of video cameras attached high up on street lamps might seem an invasion of privacy to some, but they could serve as a big check on our police -- and a tremendous deterrent to crime --as the future rolls toward us. 

   Keep the cameras from staring into people's back yards, but by the nature of being on a public street, you are out in public. You should expect that others will see you.

   An eye in the sky -- a video camera attached to a street light -- contributed to the video footage of the beating of Tyre Nichols. It contributed to exposing police violence. And, when signage is displayed announcing the eye in the sky is watching you, criminal activity is deterred. 

   Body cams can conveniently be turned off, but the street pole camera cannot. We need more videos staring down from our street lamps.

Coming to a City Near You (in 2201): Magnetic Vacuum Transportation

   Now, if I were a super-rich scientist, with all the resources to experiment with, here's what I'd try. It would be my attempt to skip the Year 2023 past the rest of the 21st Century and straight into the 22nd Century.

   I'd put a person (OK, let's start with a monkey or dog) in a metal capsule. Then, I'd put the metal capsule in a vacuum tube -- that's right, one with all the air sucked out. Then, I'd place a strong magnet at the other end of the tunnel . . . and, voom, the capsule would shoot toward the magnet.

   And, who knows how fast? If there is no resistence, does that mean there would be no limit on how fast something could go if placed in a tube where there's no resistence?

   Magnetic vacuum transportation: who knows if that is how we will be transported in the 22nd Century.