And the drum beats on.  I have been writing about the need for the nation and our people of all  persuasions to come together.  But, now, it’s crazy.  Bombs are being sent everywhere and Jews are being massacred.  This is just in one week!  What is going on?  People are asking this question everywhere; but, they are not getting the answers they want.  Why not?  Because they only want their answers with no regard to those of others.

My hometown newspaper, the Public Opinion, ran an article with some interesting insights.  One person who was interviewed remarked, “It’s like our country is becoming ‘The Hunger Games.’”  The article then goes on to record how people are so weary of the hatred that permeates our society and  wonder what will be needed to change it.  As one person noted, “If this isn’t it [shootings], I’d hate to think about what it will take.”

Folks, I don’t like to say this, but I don’t think we’re yet ready for this needed change.  As the Opinion article said after the requisite remorseful statements were uttered about the shame of this political violence, “politicians and talking heads had already backed into the usual corners.”  Meanwhile, the  President called for unity while describing the “liberals and press as villains.”[1]  The listening public is showing its stripes as well.  Casual comments by individuals heard on TV clearly indicate that they are only listening to their talking heads without listening to the same blame sharing by the other talking heads.  The names are changed, but the message is the same: it’s the other guy’s fault.

People, it’s our fault.  Mr. President, it’s time for you to be a statesman.  It’s time for you to lead the nation.  You can do this by recognizing how there is enough blame for everyone, including yourself.  You must declare how the time has passed where we demand the other fellow solve our problems. Now, it’s time for each of us to ask, “What can I do?”  It’s time to reach out and listen to the other guy.  What’s that person saying?  You don’t have to agree, but you do have to listen.  Then repeat back what was said to ensure comprehension.  Back and forth; back and forth.  It will be a slow process and probably a really ugly one for a long time until the vitriol is gone.

Then, comes the humble pie.  When both sides understand each other, a serious effort must be made to consider salient points with care.  Humility will require acceptance of good ideas that come from either side where common ground can be achieved.  From this dialogue some harmony can be achieved between warring parties.

At this point, such harmony seems to be a long way off.  I once read that negotiations (which is what I’m talking about) will only start when people decide that conflict is no longer productive.  Judging from what is being said and done, Americans aren’t there yet.  I only hope that we pull back from acts of violence before it erupts into full scale war.  Remember, that happened once before: it was called the Civil War.  Do we need to repeat this lunacy before we harken to the words of Abraham Lincoln when he said, “Of the people, for the people, and by the people?”

I am not totally without hope.  The shooter at the Tree of Life synagogue, Mr. Robert Bowers, was wounded.  Ironically, after spouting hatred of all Jews, he was attended by a Jewish medical team.  Such is the core of their faith: life above all.  They practiced it in the face of utter horror.  Can we do no less among people whose stated views are different from ours?  I hope…

[1] Galofaro, Claire; Beck, Margery A.  “Fed-up Americans Crave Unity.”  Public Opinion.  Chambersburg, PA.  October 29, 2018.

On Friday, 5 October, 2018, Chicago police officer, Jason Van Dyke, was found guilty of second degree murder in his 2014 shooting of 17 year old Laquan McDonald.  The decision probably prevented a major riot.  Instead, there was joy among the black community.  For the first time in a long time, they felt that justice was served.

The black community has long been serving notice through protests and riots that they do not trust the police forces serving their cities.  Whenever there’s shooting, the black community’s response is predictable: the violence was unneeded at best and was another example of racial prejudice at worst.  Tamir Rice of Cleveland, Ohio; George V. King of Baltimore, Maryland; and Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri are only three names that have generated the animosity Blacks have for their police forces.  Such does not indicate a belief in the motto of all police forces: to serve and to protect.

Since shooting violence is the common thread of these attitudes, a question arises: should police officers be armed?  The ready objection is that police officers need weapons to enforce the law.   Without access to deadly force, it is assumed that communities will descend into lawless violence and chaos.  Is that really true?  Perhaps a look at the history of the famed London Bobbies might offer light on this question.

Prior to the 1820’s, English cities were patrolled by local constables who were responsible to their local governments.  Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary, thought a better way was possible for preserving the peace and ensuring freedom from violence.  His solution was the creation of a well-trained 1,000-man force that would protect London.  Specifically, they were to detect and prevent crimes.  Along the way, they were also used to detect fires and light gas lights.    They were directed by a two-man commission.  Note, none of these peace officers was armed with a firearm.  These men were armed with truncheons, handcuffs and whistles.  This tradition has endured to this day.[1]

The problem with carrying a firearm is that eventually, one might feel compelled to use it.  I learned this lesson from my son-in-law who is a lifelong resident of Naples, Italy where violence is a common element of life.  When I asked him why he didn’t carry a weapon, his answer was that he would one day be obliged to use it.  So, to avoid that situation, he remains unarmed.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that every officer who has shot someone did so in good faith.  That is, he or she believed that human life was in danger and no alternative existed but to use deadly force.  Choices must be made in a fraction of second, and despite long training about this situation, the consequences of these decisions are forever.  Furthermore, perceptions after the fact lead to second-guessing and mistrust.  All this is under the best of circumstances.  Given the history of Jim Crow law that has typified our nation for the past century, Black suspicion about the motives of police officers runs strong.  Riots occur even in the aftermath of all shooting events.

Therefore, following the advice of my son-in-law, it seems evident that a fundamental change in the policies of our city fathers is needed.  If armed force leads to riots, then why not eliminate the cause  of riots?  Why not disarm city police forces and follow the example of London Bobbies?  To carry this idea out further, access to firearms by police forces would only be permitted after a judicial review.  Furthermore, if non-violent wiretapping requires a warrant as a means of preserving liberty, why shouldn’t access to deadly force require a warrant as a means of preserving liberty?  Being dead certainly obviates any possibility of liberty.

Clearly, there would be those who will decry these ideas.  They foresee chaos and violence running rampant in their communities.  Actually, that’s always a possibility.  But, whose communities?  If one is worried about violence in affluent suburbs, that doesn’t seem likely.  Violence and riots are not being recorded there.  Rather, the riots are occurring in the inner cities and only after police actions.  Therefore, if the police cannot kill people, then any issues of any violence that occurs after police are disarmed become highlighted as to their real origins.  Police officers could not be seen as perpetrators of violence, but hopefully as facilitators of community efforts to prevent and detect crime.

The choice of my words, prevent and detect, was deliberate.  In fact, prevention cannot be done by police forces.  Criminal actions are done by perpetrators who think they can evade retribution.  Law enforcement agents, even the best of them, can only detect crimes after the fact  and prosecute them.  This means that communities wanting peaceful streets must accept a certain amount of responsibility for them.  They know who lives in them, and presumably would have more direct influence over individual residents.  This effect could be amplified by a daily contact with unarmed policemen who patrol their beats on foot.  This interaction could possibly lead to a feeling of mutual partnership that is aimed at reducing violence.  If so, then the possibility of civic intervention might exist to deter any specific act of violence. In sum, armed police forces don’t seem able to curb gun-related gun violence.  Perhaps increased civil-police cooperation might help.

This possibility in not impossible.  When I lived in Europe, police forces in some nations knew their neighborhoods so well that if a youngster was late in coming home, the parents were given a visit by a neighborhood officer wanting to know if all was well.  Consequently, families felt secure in the midst of their neighborhoods.  So, what the heck?  Why not try for it here in America by using the English Bobbies as a model?

,

[1] Bauer, Patricia.  “Bobby, British Police Officer.”  Encyclopedia Britannica.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/bobby.  10/6/18.

Well, recently we have been seeing a marvelous display of political theater.  If I were a Broadway reviewer, I would have given it two thumbs up.  It had everything one could want:  a distraught woman, an angry man, posturing choruses of senators.  The interactions among them were marvelous…and like a Greek tragedy, predictable.  One knows the end of the play even at its beginning.

The tragedy of this play is that it was gathered to ferret out the truth about a judge who is being vetted for a lifetime position on the nation’s supreme court.  The standards for this position should be of the highest nature, and the reviewing senators should be striving to confirm this standard.  This was clearly lost in the proceedings that we saw.

The Republicans were interested in getting Mr. Kavenaugh onto the Supreme Court in anticipation of his conservative views overturning the progressive decisions rendered in years past.  The Democrats were interested in blocking this appointment.  Thus, lacking the votes needed to thwart Republican desires, the Democratic minority created the spectacle seen yesterday in hopes of defeating the nomination through the political pressure of public revulsion to violence to a female.

Whether the accusations were true will never be known.  Violence to females is almost always done in seclusion, which leads to a “he said, she said” situation.  Corroborating evidence is scarce at best.  But, in this theater, the truth of the allegations was not the issue.  Illusions were the thing.  Would the illusion be enough to derail Mr. Kavenaugh’s nomination?  Such is the stuff of theater.

What’s tragic is how the lives of two people will be forever smeared by this tableau.  Dr. Ford wanted to perform a public duty as she perceived it.  She also wanted it to be private.  Mr. Kavenaugh wanted to be affirmed to his post cleanly.  Neither got what they wanted.  Dr. Ford was brought before the public without the resolution she wanted.  Mr. Kavenaugh will be joining a colleague, Justice Thomas, for a lifetime of whispers.  Both people were put through a horrible trial for political ends that had nothing to do with them.

Now for a dramatic postscript.  If the situation were reversed and Mr. Kavenaugh were a Democratic nominee, the play would be unchanged.  Rages of umbrage, tearful condolences and peans of heroism would be heard. Hypocrisy would be dripping from the walls.  Americans deserve better.  A pox on all of the actors save the tragic protagonists.