A response to a friend's post regarding Red Flag Laws for firearm confiscation

Please realize what you described is an ex parte event that leads to confiscation. I'd say this is exactly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Further, it is only after confiscation that there is a hearing with the accused. Anyone who would support this hopefully realizes the type of precedent it represents. But, for furtherance of discussion...

"Danger to self or others" What does this mean, exactly? Does the type of danger make a difference or is it all the same? Who gets to decide this? A judge? They know the law but what do they know about the assessment and prediction of violence? This is part of what I do professionally, and I can tell you that it is far from perfect. This isn't like a mental health arrest where there is a petition to hold an individual involuntarily and then the individual is assessed by a professional able to provide a well reasoned & supported argument for depriving someone of their freedom for 72 or more hours.

"Based on statements and actions" Still seems too vague to hang civil liberties on. To what levels do these need rise? As I said earlier, if someone threatens violence with a firearm, I'm all for removing the threat. But how do we jump to a conclusion to violate civil rights if a threat is made that either doesn't include the means or the means is something other than a firearm? What if the reporting party is lying or otherwise misrepresenting the situation? What if the person has no other history of violence?

"After a set time, the guns are returned..." How much time? Are they just returned (someone delivers them back to me)? Do I go somewhere and sign a release? Or as I suspect (based on the bureaucracy of gov't & anecdotal reports), there is a long a convoluted process for retrieving my personal property. And what is my recourse if the process is so onerous that I obtain legal counsel to secure my personal property.

The Devil, I'm told, is in the details. I'm not sure of that, but I'm always very wary of anyone who legislates to manage my life with this level of wiggle room.

I don't have an absolute problem with separating a "dangerous" person from firearms. I'll even go so far as to say there could be some circumstances that rise to the level of "greater good." These are very far and few between because at my core I will always choose a little more discomfort & danger over the loss of liberty.

 

Adventures in Grocery Shopping! 

While scavenging the emptying isles at my local food procurement establishment today, a fellow scavenger commented toward me, “You should really be more considerate and wear a mask.” After simultaneously and nonverbally clarifying I was the intended target of his unrequested editorial comment and that he was judging my lack of KPQRSTU95, < 0.0000003 micron, face mask rather than my level of attractiveness, I responded, “Does my lack of mask make you stay away from me?” Looking a little confused he said, “Well, yes.” “Thank you,” I said. “Now I know my lack of facial virus prophylaxis helps me attain both of my intended goals.” Not waiting for his noise box to annoy me again I added, “It keeps you away from me and it identifies people who don’t know how to mind their own fucking business.” He cocked his head like a confused dog. Seriously. I hate to compare him to a dog because the dog is far superior to that taint stain of a human but there you have it. California is nothing if not a daily adventure in crazy.

Reflections on D-Day and America 2021

 

As I reflect on this day in history and the people who supported and participated in the invasion to take back Europe, I believe we’d do well to reflect on the resilience and sacrifice of that generation. It seems to me that in three generations we’ve lost something. I’m not certain I know exactly what we’ve lost. I do know what I observe.

Over the past decade I’ve observed: people who seem to be offended so easily as to appear they’re searching for anything to be offended by; a perversion of science for political gain (not new) by not only its consumers but by the reporting media and the scientists; a willingness to accept mediocrity; a growing belief in the need for immediacy; an educational system that not only fails to provide knowledge but fails to teach critical thinking; higher education that talks about diversity but doesn’t actually practice it; an alarming increase in the belief of and reliance on external agency; a lack of respect and understanding for history (the good, bad and the ugly); an inability or unwillingness to tolerate stress; a willingness to blame inanimate objects for the behaviors of individuals; a growing belief that one is owed more than one has earned; and, many who have argued against the binary nature of human beings now using a binary approach in arguments they make. It occurred to me as I’m typing that we lost (or are losing) our resilience and tolerance for sacrifice, that we’re also becoming reductionistic. Perhaps that’s it. We’ve entered a period of reductionism. Everything is too complicated. Where we had one, two, or three choices we now have so many that we’re exhausted by it all. But I know it’s not that simple. To boil it down to reductionism is reductionistic.

It makes sense that we’d want simple. It’s easy. It is predictable. We’re built to develop simple heuristics. It’s very adaptive. Unfortunately, simple just isn’t in our nature; especially when we have free time. And yet even when we acknowledge our messiness, we try to solve problems (big, messy problems) by altering one factor we think might be a lynch pin? Are we this naïve? If we treat the symptoms of an illness but not its cause we’re just waiting for it to run it’s course; either because we know it’s time-limited or it’s terminal. We’ve become so weak, ignorant, naïve, offended, overly sensitive, closed-minded, uncaring, pick your adjective, that we’re going to treat our problems with palliative care rather that rolling up our sleeves, being honest about the messiness and working toward fixing a big, messy problem we created and allowed to fester? My fear is that we will. We’ve lost what the greatest generation had. I’m worried that if we don’t start soon to regain what we’ve lost, we will pay a much greater price.

Critical Race Theory: Insidious, Racist, Marxist

 Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been around in other forms for a very long time. What frightens me is that it has made its way, as a THEORY taught as fact, from post-secondary education into government, and now into secondary and primary education. It is now being used to develop educational curriculum, government doctrine and will I predict be codified in some form. During this same time, we've see a decrease in respect for our nation from some of its own citizens, the loss of positive tradition such as The Pledge of Allegiance and the singing of our national anthem. An education system that teaches equity is owed rather than the constitutional promise of the right to pursue happiness, etc., and, the importance of and respect for hard work. The removal of history from public places (even racist history) to remind ourselves of our accomplishments and our sins. The belief that everyone (or maybe just a few) deserve "basic income" from the government. The changing of language to divide, silence, and demean the freest most generous country the world has ever known. And an education system that seems focused on   teaching "what to think" rather than "how to think". I think I see a pattern.

It is interesting to me that folks who talk on CRT never bring up the fact that CRT is an outgrowth of Critical Theory which in turn is based upon Marxist doctrine (Frankfurt School). CRT is different from classical Marxism in that it elevates Identity (race, sexuality, gender, etc.) rather than the Worker and believes power (the oppressor) needs to be overthrown from within (subversion) as well as from outside (protest/riot). It also teaches that one's reality (narrative) is to be developed and understood solely from one's personal experience rather than personal and shared experiences of all people coming together in a consensus. I would call this an anarchic approach to reality. I think I see a pattern

Forced hibernation over the past year was good for me musically. I found a new band, Jinjer, and I want to quote a lyric from their song, "Teacher, Teacher": "(Chorus)...When their prejudice let us down, We stand firmly on our ground, Don’t let their school make a fool of you, Because the teachers may be fools too..."

I will not allow myself to be fooled. And I will suffer no fool.

 TLDR: CRT = Identity politics = Cultural Marxism

Did She or Didn't She: Clinton's Email SNAFU

It's amazing how lazy and easily confused people have become.  The slightest obfuscation combined with a lack of critical thinking has the masses proclaiming, "Witch Hunt!" or "Guilty!"

I've not heard or read one story yet that has convinced me of either position. My personal bias is that she likely did it.  Yet, since I've not seen or heard real evidence I withhold judgement.  I could pass a judgement if I had the information that allows me to make that decision. But getting that information, while actually fairly simple, requires people to ask the correct questions and remain stalwart until an unambiguous answer is given.

My thoughts on the questions that need answering follows.  The questions are purposely closed ended.  And as such only two responses would be tolerated:

1. At any time was information within or attached to any email on the server(s) in question contain information that was classified as confidential, secret, etc.? 
2. Is there policy that restricts or forbids information classified as confidential, secret, etc. to be outside of  a specific e-communication network?
3. Did any information within or attached to an email on the server(s) violate the policy?
4.  If the answer to #1 is, "Yes," is there any data that suggests that the information was shared, otherwise obtained, or at risk of being obtained by individuals, organizations, governments, etc. for whom access is/was not approved?
5. Are there Federal laws that address the issue in #2 and/or #4?

Perhaps I'm the simpleton.  But it seems to me that answers to the first three questions give us pretty good grounds for making an informed judgement.  A breech of policy should come with some significant consequence. Breeches in policy are always significant. They suggest incompetence or a willful disregard for the group's internal rules of operation. "It was a simple mistake," "I didn't know," are not excuses I'd accept from people working at high levels of government; especially one who aspires to the presidency.  Breeches of Federal law concerning confidential, secret, etc government information are worse as they could make us vulnerable to a threat.

So why don't we have unambiguous responses to these questions?  Because being direct, clear, honest, and respectful are no longer qualities most individual Americans value let alone practice.  And by extension our elected leadership knows most Americans no longer care enough to hold them accountable.

Dor the Prophet

About thirteen years ago I began my exposure to a world not many people seek out or wish to understand. It wasn't too long after my exposure that I started living by an "it's not a matter of 'if' it's really only a matter of 'when,' mentality when it came to potential SHTF events. I've also been very aware that living in a Republic with Democratic values meant there would be a balance between safety and civil liberty (IMO there is an inverse relationship between these).

Fast forward to six years ago and I was giving a job talk at a large university on the matter of "if" and "when." I focused on the need for increased vigilance as well as good consequence management with specific regard to major catastrophes on campuses (e.g., large scale interpersonal violence). Very few in my line of work are on the vigilance and proactive threat reduction end of the equation so I spent a fair amount of time on consequence management. I spoke truth, freaked out my colleagues and didn't get the job. A year later the Virginia Tech shootings occurred. That message hit home. It's not a matter of "if" because it's is going to happen. And it can happen quickly. And many systems are not set up to manage the consequences let alone be proactive.

Now for today’s twist. There's more acknowledgment of the need for risk of violence assessment and management as well as consequence management. But the paranoia of litigation has the pendulum swinging in the direction of losses of civil liberties. For example, a large, west coast university system is currently investing in a consolidated medical records system for student health and mental health. These medical records will include mental health information (i.e., counseling session details, diagnoses, etc.). None of the aforementioned is overly troubling or out of the ordinary. But who has access to this information? It should only be people who have been authorized by the consumer. After all, the consumer is the "holder of the privilege" of the communication in healthcare and the provider is only a custodian of the record (Note: there are circumstances where healthcare providers are allowed or required to breech privileged communications). Ah well there's the potential rub. I can tell you that the centralized system at the aforementioned university system is being looked at as a resource by non-providers (e.g., university attorneys) for judging someone's appropriateness for being on campus to avoid risk (i.e., the risk of litigation). Oh, and this could possibly occur outside of the consumer's or provider's awareness. I spoke earlier of the relationship between safety and civil liberty. But let's be clear, that argument does not apply here. Oh sure, that's what will be said publicly. If it is said at all. But behind closed doors the administration and the attorneys are counting the money saved in litigation. And they saved that money by violating someone's civil liberties and reasonable expectations of privacy.

Am I saying we shouldn't look into people’s back grounds if there is concern over the potential for violence? No!  I am absolutely supportive of proactive behavior.  But then I also have the trainng, expertise and experience to do that work.  What I am saying is that making the call to violate someone's civil liberties should be done only when the appropriate data is available and the data has been reviewed by someone who knows how to interpret it. And to my knowledge, attorneys and university administrators are not well versed in the assessment of dangerousness (e.g., leading to Tarasoff warnings) or the assessment of the risk for violence.

So here's a new "if/when" scenario for those considering making this kind of move. And there are many organizations moving in this direction.  It's not a matter of "if" you'll lose your shirt in a court for violating someone's civil rights, it's only a matter of "when."

Half of American Schools Failed Federal Standards (FoxNews.com)

One of the messages I'm taking away from this article (see link below) is that we're willing to lower our expectation of the education system. It's as true now as it was then. The "No Kids Left Behind" legislation was horrible. But in some ways the law, its poor construction, implementation and yes, our inability to at least make some headway toward increasing the quality of primary & secondary education, points to a larger problem. The expectations we have of our students.
We should expect students to meet minimum competency levels in math, English, science, etc. And these minimum competencies should be consistent across the entire country. We most definitely should expect our educators to get the students up to speed. Be clear about the consequences of failure, and hold the education system as well as the students' guardians and the students themselves responsible.

I'm failing to see the problem with this. It seems easy. Here are the educational goals (and I'm talking detail here). This is how you show you have accomplished the goals (even more detail here). Have you accomplished the goal? Yes or No? If someone reaches the level of expected competency, give 'em a smile and pass them on to the next level. If someone doesn't reach the level of competency required, then there must be remediation. And remediation must continue until the student reaches that minimum level of competency. If it can never be reached because, heaven forbid, we all have different intellectual abilities, then I guess that individual has progressed as far as he or she is able.

"But Dor, there are all these kids out there who are disadvantaged in some way." You are correct. There are. And we should help them reach the level of competency that is set FOR EVERYONE. It may take longer. It may require of us to be creative and flexible, but we should not waiver on our expectations.
Do we understand that when we allow different levels of competence to mean the same thing (e.g., a High School Diploma from one state is "better" than another state) that we cheapen and distort the intrinsic meaning of the achievement? It seems to me most people don't understand that. And my sense is most people don't care. It's fortunate they don't care because then they won't be troubled with the fact that their legislators are about to embark on yet another education boondoggle that won't address the real issue - competency requirements in education.

Link to article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/14/report-nearly-half-american-schools-failed-federal-standards/