Friday, January 28, 2011

Please vote!

     If we can learn anything from Governor John Kasich's failure to appoint members of minority groups to his cabinet, it is the importance of voting if one is able to do so.  (Black Ohio lawmakers demand that Kasich name minorities to cabinet, by Ann Sanner, Associated Press, January 27, 2011)  According to information posted on the Ohio Secretary of State's website, less than half of registered voters cast votes on November 2nd, 2010.  This does not take into account those who are eligible to vote, but are not registered.
     If Governor Kasich's claim that two members of minority groups were not interested in serving in his cabinet is true, he is not guilty of discrimination.  We do not know if any potential white designates declined the Governor's offer to serve in his cabinet.
     Apathy is responsible for the fact that we have an all-white cabinet in Ohio for the first time since 1962.  If more people bothered to vote, we might have more candidates running for office.  We might not be forced to choose between a Republican and an incumbent governor who received an endorsement from the NRA.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Let's Amend the Second Amendment

     If we want a balance between protection from random gun violence and our right to bear arms, we need to amend the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We should not repeal the Second Amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights for good reasons. It has caused foreign enemies to have second thoughts about invading our country, and is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. An armed citizenry helps prevent a government from becoming too powerful.
     The problem with the Second Amendment is that it is worded so vaguely that it prevents us from enacting gun control laws that actually protect us from random shootings: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Our courts have traditionally focused mostly on our right to keep and bear arms, and focused much less on the "well regulated Militia" part of the amendment. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, copyright 1993, gives three senses of the word "Militia:"

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers, as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

     The first two senses describe our National Guard units, Civil Air Patrols and armed forces reserve units. These organizations are well regulated. The militia described in Webster's third sense is not regulated. Our unregulated militia is comprised of drug dealers with pistols in their waistbands and disturbed men who use firearms to settle grudges with authority figures. These people do nothing to serve the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to provide for "the security of a free State."
     If our courts continue to rule that it is unconstitutional to regulate our militias, we must replace the Second Amendment with one that is more clear and specific. A workable system might be similar to what is used in Switzerland. All Swiss males of military age are required to keep a rifle and be ready to report for duty in an emergency. The Nazis invaded every country in Western Europe except Switzerland.
     We would not have to require anybody to have a firearm, but we could require anyone who wants to own a gun to be a member of a well regulated militia. This would mean serving in a National Guard unit, sheriff's posse or a police auxiliary. If a person is not eligible to serve in one of these organizations, or not interested in doing so, he would not be eligible to own a gun. An individual would be able to use his gun for hunting when not on duty. This would provide the security that the authors of the Bill of Rights intended. To keep a check on the federal government, a new amendment should specify that these militias could not be federalized. Membership in a militia would not exempt an individual from the draft, but the government could not call National Guard units for duty overseas.
     I propose something like this:

Whereas a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, any person enrolled in a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and the federal government shall not call any militia of the people to duty outside of the borders of the United States.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Censorship doesn't change attitudes

     The New York Times and the Associated Press have reported that NewSouth Press in Alabama plans to publish 7,500 copies of a combined edition of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.  The combined edition of these two novels will not contain the word "nigger."  Please excuse me for using this offensive word.  That will be the only time I will use it in this post.  I included it in case anyone who reads this post does not know what "the N-word" means.  The new edition will use the word "slave" instead of the N-word.
     I disagree with those who call this revision by NewSouth Press a desecration.  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is important American literature, but it is not Holy Scripture.  The reason that the novel is important American literature is that it clearly describes racism and race relations in the United States.  Substituting "slave" for the N-word may change or dilute Twain's message, and may even confuse readers.
     Not all African-Americans who lived in the South before the Civil War were slaves.  In one passage, Huck's father, a lowlife drunk and thief, describes how he once forced a free black man to remove his hat and step off of the sidewalk into the muddy street.  It did not matter to Pap that the man was a college professor, and "knowed everything," in Pap's words.  Pap believed he was superior to the person simply because of race.  Pap is racist, but knows the difference between a slave and a free college professor.  Having him say "slave" instead of the N-word could detract from Twain's comment on the arrogance and irrationality of racism in America.
     The N-word is offensive because it reminds us of offensive racist attitudes.  Taking the N-word out of an important work of American literature will not erase such attitudes.  Those attitudes have not completely disappeared.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Let's just get rid of health insurance

     Obamacare is under seige.  A court in Virginia ruled a few weeks ago that the newly passed health care bill cannot be implemented because it forces us to purchase something.  Even if it is necessary for everyone to have health insurance coverage, the federal government exceeds its authority by requiring us to purchase it.  Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are working at repealing Obamacare.  Attorneys general in most states have joined a lawsuit to have it overturned.
     The United States Supreme Court may rule that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to purchase health insurance.  The problem is that no one has a better idea.  We almost all agree that the present system needs revision.  As a society, we have taken on the responsibility to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.  We believe that everyone should have adequate medical care, regardless of ability to pay.
     The question becomes how to best do this.  We are terrified of having a system like we see in Canada or Britain, where everyone receives health care at government expense.  We believe such a system would bankrupt our government and stretch health care resources to the point that no one would receive adequate care.  A free market approach also has its disadvantages.  The best example is pre-existing conditions.  If a person with diabetes starts a new job, the new health insurance plan at the new job may not pay for insulin treatments because the condition of diabetes existed before the worker bought the health insurance policy.  This makes the insurance company more profitable, but does not help the diabetic to get the treatment he or she needs.
     We might save significant amounts of money if we do away with health insurance altogether, and pay for medical care through local taxes.  The money we would save by not purchasing health insurance would enable us to pay these taxes.  Insurance companies probably would not mind this.  Some of them have decided to stop selling health insurance policies.  Under such a plan, doctors and nurses would be county or city employees like police officers and firefighters.  Doctors and nurses would not have to face pay cuts.  Much of the money we spend for health care goes to administrative costs.  We spend billions of dollars to have health insurance claims processed and reviewed.  Dr. Thomas Willett of Green Lake, Wisconsin believes that he can reduce the cost of providing treatment significantly by not dealing with insurance companies.
     Making the provision of medical care a local public service would keep the federal government out of the health care business.  Even when it has the best of intentions, the federal government cannot devise a system for providing medical care for everyone without running into legal obstacles.  Even if the federal government were to come up with a system to provide universal health care, it would probably be even more inefficient than the system provided by the insurance companies.  Paying for medical care with local taxes may not be an ideal solution, but it would give citizens more of a say in how their money is spent than the current system.  It would also lessen the amount of control the federal government has over our personal lives.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Someone else beat me to it

College football players should draw a salary

Thanks to Thad Woodham of Westerville, Ohio for his letter to the editor.

Changes to the Animal Contract - A short story (Fiction)

I should have gotten a clue about people and their attitudes toward animals last spring when I was out for a drive in the country with my wife and three-year-old son on a Sunday afternoon.  It was a beautiful spring day.  I saw a groundhog on my left run across the road.  I tapped on the brakes so I wouldn't hit the groundhog, but I didn't want to brake too fast because the car behind us was close.  The groundhog made it across the road.  I noticed that the car behind us slowed way down.

We drove on, and pretty soon I noticed that the car behind us was closer than before I hit the brakes for the groundhog.  I could see a woman behind the wheel in my rear view mirror.  She stayed on my tail.  I saw a little patch of a shoulder when I stopped for a stop sign.  I pulled over to let her pass.  Instead of passing, she pulled up next to us and asked me if I had happened to notice the groundhog back there.  "Yes," I told her.
"Well," she said.  "Did you give any thought to braking for him?"

She didn't wait for an answer.  She powered up her window and drove off.  I yelled, "I did!" but she didn't hear me.  I hit the heel of my hand on the steering wheel and cursed.  I was mad because this person had almost forced me to make a choice between running over a groundhog and getting rear ended, but she wanted to be self-righteous about sticking up for defenseless animals.

I have to give her some credit.  She proved me wrong about one thing;  Every few years when we have the controversey about culling the deer herd in the park, I always say that people wouldn't care as much if the park officials said we had too many groundhogs in the park.  That woman didn't just care about the adorable deer.  She cared about all animals.

I was surprised to find myself confronted about animal cruelty.  I think of myself as softhearted when it comes to animals.  I can still remember years ago, helping my Uncle Jim on his dairy farm.  He told me I should be a monk when he saw how upset I got when he twisted a cow's tail to get her into her stall for milking when she didn't want to go.

A few weeks later, Rose and Michael and I were out for a walk on Easter Day.  We saw a dog in a front yard.  We decided to cross the street.  The dog was on a leash, but I could see that the stake that the leash was tied to was pulled out of the ground.  Rose and I did not even have to say anything to each other.  We both just started to cross the street.  Michael had another idea.  He said "Dog!" very loudly.  The dog heard him, and began to growl.  The growling did not frighten Michael.  He just kept yelling "Dog!" and laughing.  This got the dog growling louder and running around his yard.  Michael laughed louder when the dog got more excited.  The dog started barking.

Rose tried to get Michael to be quiet.  When the dog heard her yell, "Stop it, Michael!" she lunged for Michael.  The dog was a pit bull terrier.  I was not fast enough to get between Michael and the dog, but I was fast enough to grab her chain before she got to Michael.  Yanking the chain made the dog angrier.  The dog turned her attention to me.  She jumped at me with her jaws open and went for my neck.

I put my arm up to deflect the dog, and she clamped onto my forearm with her teeth.  I fell back from the impact.  We rolled around and tussled for a few minutes.  It took several tries, but I finally managed to get ahold of the chain again, crossed it under the arm that was in the dog's mouth, and wrapped the chain around the dog's neck.  I got my knee on the dog's chest and pulled on the chain with my free hand.  Once I had a good grip on the chain, I just had to hold it and keep the dog from getting out from under me.  I had to press down hard with my arm and my knee to do this.  I kept my grip on the chain and kept on pulling after the dog stopped moving.  It seemed like it took ten minutes to cut off the dog's air.  I didn't let go until I heard an old guy yelling at me to leave his dog alone.

I looked up and saw the old guy coming at me with a knife.  When the man got close to me, I kicked his legs out from under him.  I was out of breath from fighting with the dog.  The old guy was stunned from the fall for a second, then started yelling about how much his back hurt.  When I caught my breath, I got up and pried the knife from the old guy's hand.

Just as I got the knife away from the old man, the police rolled up.  They saw me holding the knife.  They got out of their car, drew their weapons, pointed them at me, and told me to drop the knife.  I dropped it right away.  Rose tried to explain to the police about the old guy coming at me with the knife, but they told her to stay back.  Another police car rolled up just as the police ordered me to get on the ground with my hands behind my head.  Michael thought all of this was great.  He laughed and hollered "Police man!" and "Police car!"

The old guy got up and kicked me in the ribs While I was on the ground.  Michael stopped laughing, and shouted "No!"  Rose ran for the old man and tackled him.  The police pulled them apart.  They put handcuffs on all of us.  Rose put up a fight.  She did not want Michael to wander off.  The police took the cuffs off of Rose once they got her calmed down.  They placed the old guy and me under arrest for assault, and told us that we could talk to a judge.

The cops who booked me told me that the judge was taking Easter Monday off, so I might not see her until Tuesday.  Rose and I had both maxed out our credit cards, so I couldn't make bail.

The guys in my tank at the jailhouse saw the bandage on my arm.  They figured out right away that I was the guy on the news who killed the dog.  The TV news story had an interview with my victim.  The old guy who owned the dog, Walter Anderson, got on TV and cried about losing his only friend in the world who never hurt a living soul.  The guys in my tank had many questions about the incident, including "Why did you have to kill the old brother's dog, man?"  And, "Why did you have to kick that old man?"  One guy asked this question in such a way as to let me know that I better come up with a satisfactory answer.  It took many tries before they understood that I wasn't out to kill anybody's dog, I just wanted to protect my kid from getting his throat ripped out.  They finally understood that I had to do something when old Walter pulled a knife on me.  I also got a little respect and admiration for winning a fight with a pit bull terrier.

Rose told me when I got home from jail that when she called my office to tell them that I wouldn't be in, my boss decided to go my bail.  Rose told me how she remembered the incident.  She said that while I was fighting the dog, Walter came out of the house and saw us.  She heared him yell, "Leave her alone!  Leave her alone!"  He then went back into the house and got his knife.  She apologized for not doing anything about it.  She said she was busy restraining Michael from getting involved in my fight with the dog.

Rose told me that Michael started asking questions while she was driving him home.  He wanted to know where Dad was, and why they put the handcuffs on behind my back, and when was Dad coming home.
Rose also told me about the visit from Britney Klein of Childrens Services while I was in jail.  Britney had to check on us because Michael was in police custody while they had the handcuffs on both of us.  Rose convinced Britney that she was a responsible parent, and that she panicked for a second when she thought her child was in danger.

Rose told me that the odd part of the conversation with Britney came when Britney asked about me and whether Rose wanted me back in the house.  Rose said that she and Britney went around in circles about this.  Britney seemed to think of me as a threat to Rose and Michael because of my violent behavior.  Rose did not understand this until Britney explained that violence against animals is often an indicator of potential abuse against family members.  Rose explained to Britney that I don't hit my wife or child and that I'm not the kind of guy who keeps a dog around so he can kick it.  She told Britney that I protected my family against an attack by a vicious dog, and that I did what she expected me to do.  Rose said Britney seemed to have a hard time understanding this.  She thought that killing the dog was extreme, that I could have protected my family without resorting to murder.  Britney told Rose that we should have let Animal Control officers handle the problem.

I thought I was sunk when my attorney asked me why I didn't have Rose call Animal Control and wait until they got there when the dog attacked Michael.  Robin Jones asked me this at my first meeting with her.  She told me she had a deal worked out with the prosecutor that Walter would drop the assault charges against me if I would drop the assault charges against him, but he still wanted me prosecuted for killing his dog.
Robin talked to me about my case.
 
     As your attorney, it is my responsibility to make you aware of what you are up against, Mr. Wilkins.  You seem to think this problem will go away when everyone realizes that you were just doing your job as a parent when you protected your young son from a vicious dog.  You probably think that people will think of you as heroic.  Some people might think of you as heroic, but the prosecution will try to paint you as an animal abuser.

I started to say something, but she held up her hand for me to be quiet.

     People love animals, Mr. Wilkins.  It has gotten all out of proportion.  Now, you describe yourself as a person who learned respect and reverence for life from your parents.  You don't want to abuse any animals, and you don't keep animals because you don't need to.  You think if you keep a dog for hunting or to protect your home, you should treat the dog decently.  You think if you keep a cat to control rodents around the house, that it is not fair to pull the cat's tail just for fun.  You think if you don't need an animal around for any of these purposes, it is extravagant and unfair to keep an animal as a pet.  You think that if people don't want puppy mills, they shouldn't buy dogs to keep as pets.

     I see your point, but it's not good enough anymore.  We have to show that you love animals.  It won't help that the prosecution will be able to put your neighbors on the stand to testify that they saw you throwing rocks at squirrels to discourage them from getting in your trash bin.  It won't help that they will be able to produce a story that you posted on the internet about how you gave up betting on horse races.  Animal lovers don't like people who bet on horses.  They don't like people who list bullriding as one of their interests on Facebook.

     Frankly, Mr. Wilkins, I don't understand people and their love for animals.  I think it's an easy way out.  It's pathetic.  People keep animals for companionship because they don't want to deal with all of the conflicts and problems that come with having people as companions.  When I see people driving around with a dog on their lap, and see the lick marks on the car window, it just makes me ill.  I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day that told the world that the owner of the car loves their granddog.  We need to present our case in such a way that a judge will see that you did not have the option of restraining that dog until help arrived.  I said judge because I don't think we have any hope with a jury.  No one will admit to not liking animals.

I agreed to present my case to a judge instead of a jury.  I told Robin about Rose's conversation with Britney Klein from Childrens Services.  I told her about the woman who confronted me about not braking for the groundhog.  Robin and I agreed that a jury would be likely to have people who think it is murder to kill a dog.  Robin told me that she was disappointed that it has to be that way.  She wants to make a case to the public that they have gotten crazy with their love for animals.  She told me that she has been waiting for a case like mine since she was in law school, and read a story in the news about a guy in Kansas.  The people in the town where he lived wanted him prosecuted because he killed his dog and ate it.

"We're not going to win the case if I get on a soapbox, though.  Why is it okay to raise a chicken or a hog on your property for food, but not a dog?"  Robin asked me.

She went on to tell me about how the laws regarding self defense have changed.  You pretty much have to have someone with a stranglehold on you or a knife in your ribs before you can use deadly force to stop the attack.  I asked her if having a dog's jaws clamped on your arm qualifies.

"That is the legal point we will argue, Mr. Wilkins.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you willfully killed the dog.  If we claim self defense, we will have to show that you had no other option than to kill the dog.  They will argue that you could have waited for the police to arrive, and let them remove the dog from your arm."

I found out at another meeting with Robin that Walter Anderson didn't just want me prosecuted for killing his dog, but he filed a civil suit for loss of companionship.

Robin Jones told me that the self defense argument isn't as strong in a civil suit.  She said that the burden of proof to show injury was lighter for the plaintiff, and that it's expensive to defend against.  She suggested filing a countersuit.  I wanted to go through my whole life without suing anyone, but I didn't see any other way.
Robin was still mad at me for talking about the incident with the guys in jail.  She told me to keep quiet about the civil suit until it was settled.

I got an acquittal on the criminal charge of killing the dog.  The judge had to tell Walter to be quiet.  Walter got upset and started yelling when he didn't see a jury in the courtroom.  The district attorney told him that it's the defendant's choice to have a jury or not.  I think Walter's outburst helped my case.  He got on the stand and told how he heard a commotion out in his yard.  He went outside to see me strangling his dog.  He started to talk about how I kicked his legs out from under him, but the prosecutor cut him off.  Robin whispered to me and explained that the prosecutor didn't want Walter to talk about that because the charges had been dropped and it would give Robin a chance to ask him about how he pulled a knife on me.  Robin did not ask Walter any questions.

Rose and the first police officer to arrive at the scene gave their testimony.  My attorney decided to not put me on the stand.  Instead, she called an expert witness.  Walter's civil suit mentioned that the dog I killed had a pedigree, and that he lost income he would have had from breeding her.  Robin subpeonaed the dog's pedigree.  The expert witness testified that even if I had waited for the police to extract the dog from my arm, they probably would have to kill her, anyway.  He said that pit bull terriers have a difficult time letting go once they clamp down.  Their muscles seize up, or something.

Robin wanted to win the criminal case for killing the dog before we filed the countersuit in the civil case.  The civil suit had me puzzled a little.  How can a dog be both property and a companion?  We will probably sue Walter for letting the dog pull her stake out of the ground, resulting in an injury to my arm and psychological trauma to Michael.  Robin told me that she wished we had had a dog with us when the dog attacked.  Robin thinks that it will be more difficult to negotiate a settlement with Walter's attorney because Michael was not injured.  She thinks we will be lucky if we can negotiate to compensate Walter for the money he lost by not being able to breed the dog I killed.  This made me think of a story my dad used to tell about his buddy in the Army who killed a guy while he was on guard duty and the court martial punished him by fining him the cost of the bullet he used to shoot the guy.

I would like to have a trophy of some kind when this is over.  I guess I should be content with the scar on my arm and the fact that I managed to avoid killing a groundhog while not damaging my car.  I had to kill a dog, but my son got through the incident without a scratch.  I want Robin to get me the dog's chain in the settlement.