Gangland

It seems the Triangle is not immune to the blight of gangs and their violence. Television storylines are making headlines in the newspaper. Witnesses are being intimidated and parents of young witnesses are not allowing their children to come forward to give testimony that would surely put serious criminals behind bars. Who could blame them? Once the felon is behind bars, and the police and prosecutors are gone, who will protect them?

The problem is not with the parents, their reaction is logical. The problem is not with the children who are not allowed to testify by their parents. The problem is the system. Not the criminal justice system, mind you, but with the socio-economic system. And it is not likely to get better for a while. An often ignored side-effect of economic difficulty is crime. Sure, the news is always reporting on job loss and unemployment, inflation (or deflation), gas prices, foreclosures. But not a word has been mentioned about crime rates.

As I discussed in "Get a Job" (December 13, 2005) and in "More Children Left Behind" (October 3, 2006), the problem starts at home. But let us not be too quick to blame the family. Parents often times have to make a very difficult decision - making ends meet or being more present with their children. What often times exacerbates the problem is the entire absence of a parent leaving the responsibility to fall on only one. The parent who chooses to take two jobs, work many and long hours spends little time with their children. Often times, these families can only afford to live in lower-income neighborhoods that tend to attract "bad elements." No matter how "tough" a particular child may be, he or she is still a child and still craves certain necessities. They need guidance, they need to feel like they are part of a family. And what often substitutes are gangs. In a gang, members feel a sense of belonging. They feel that they are being protected and others are watching out for them. Here one institution takes the place of another - gangs for the family.

Not enough attention is paid to the cause of the breakdown of the family. Too often society will blame the individuals, and in some cases, I would agree. But for it to be happening on such a large scale, it must be more, it must be systemic. What government should be asked to do is get to the root of the problem of the family - and it is NOT gay marriage. Why is it that so many children must be raised by a one parent home without support? Inadequate or no health care? Our economic system has been notorious through its history for leaving segments of the population behind. It has taken large movements and controversial exposes to get government to take notice. It has worked for child labor laws, for unsafe working conditions. What will it take for Congress to notice this large segment of the population that feeds the gangs with new recruits? Instead of treating the symptom, let's get to the heart of the problem, and solve it there.

Gang Threats Scare Off Witnesses (The News and Observer - newsobserver.com) March 1, 2009

"Recession" is a 4-Letter Word

Jobless claims: Highest since Katrina (CNNMoney.com)

The Great Inflation Cover-up (CNNMoney.com-Fortune)

Fed official: Economy 'all but stalled' (CNNMoney.com)

80,000 job losses, unemployment spikes (CNNMoney.com)

On March 26, 2008, "President" Bush visited a small business in Sterling, Virginia where he promoted his economic stimulus package (see speech "President Bush Visits ColorCraft of Virginia, Inc., Discusses Stimulus Package, Economy"). At no point did he mention that horrible word "recession." He did however refer to the economy as enduring a "downturn" and even a "rough patch", but he is "confident in the long term we'll come out stronger than ever before." And that the best way to do this is "to give people their money back so they can spend it." Admittedly, "it's going to take a while for the economy to feel the effects" but until then we can "rest assured" that "in the long term we'll come out stronger than ever before."

Oh, is that so, Mr. "President"? How can you explain to the 7.815 million people now unemployed to be patient because in the long term things will be better? "Oh, don't worry. I know the banks have foreclosed on your home and you can no longer make ends meet, but if you wait until, say, 2010, it will all be OK. At that time the housing crisis will be over and the economy will be better. And it will all be the result of this 'good law that I signed.'"

The data below show the rate of inflation since 2001 as well as the rate if unemployment over the last 13 months from the Bureau of Labor Statistics latest information.

According to this information, the rate of inflation has been increasing since 2001. That is to say, the buying power of the $US has been falling at an increasing rate. Or, prices have been rising faster and faster each year. It has been argued that if we focus only on "Core Inflation" (the rate of inflation without the volatile fuel and food market) that the rates are not at all alarming. So in other words, if we tell the consumer that if you don't buy fuel to run your car or heat your home, and if you don't buy food, then your should be 'OK' and won't feel the full effects of inflation. Economists who use only core inflation to measure the rate of inflation are ignoring the human factor of the economy - these are essential items to human consumption. And if an economist ignores the human factor then EVERY economic model can be thrown out since they are all based on how consumers will make their economic decisions. This is when economics as a science becomes irrelevant. The only way it can remain relevant is if economists remember the source of all economic data are the consumers and the tendencies of consumers when they make economic choices. The study of economics for its own sake is pointless. (Which can be said of any social science - social sciences must be studied in a way that makes it relevant to the student - but that is a discussion for another day.)

But if we combine the increasing rate of inflation with the increasing rate of unemployment we have a larger problem - stagflation (see the March 20, 2008 posting on "The Average Day" titled "Stagflation"). But what does the Unemployment Rate measure? Simply, it is the number of people who are "out of work." That definition is insufficient. It may lead people to believe that includes children, retired persons, stay-at-home moms, and disabled people. Unemployment only measures the portion of the population who are eligible, able, and desiring work - the "Workforce". So a 52 year old man who has decided to give up looking for work is not considered part of the workforce even if he is healthy and has bills to pay. Since he is no longer actively seeking employment, he is not considered part of the workforce. What is also deceiving is the exclusion of the "underemployed." Underemployed consists of people who are forced to take work that is below their qualification and experience. For example, the same 52 year old man has a PhD in Aerospace Engineering yet his company has downsized and cut his division. He must now compete with equally qualified individuals younger than himself. The big difference is that he will command a higher salary than those 20-25 years his junior and so becomes less marketable. In addition, working against him is his age and potential health risk, which again ups the overall cost of a firm to hire this worker. As a result, this individual may be forced to take a job for which he is overqualified - anything from, in the worst case scenario, retail at a department store, to perhaps store manager. Is this person employed? Yes he is. Is he commanding the salary he deserves based on his experience and training? Not at all. Again, leaving out the human element to economics.

But "Recession?" Not us, not now. What is the "President" doing to head off this "rough patch?" Giving everyone who files their taxes this year $600 dollars! Now that is a reason to celebrate! Isn't it? Why don't you look any happier? Oh, yes, I know, fuel prices are continuing to rise and that $600 will simply be eaten up in fuel costs. Oh, that's OK. That is money you would have spent on fuel anyway, right? But look on the bright side, if own stock in one of the Big 5 oil companies you will earn greater dividends. Now that is something to celebrate. (See post "April Fools'! The Joke Is on the Consumer")

If we admit that we are in a "recession" then how would that look for the President? How would that look for our economic leader? How will that tarnish his legacy as president?

For more anti-Bush paraphernalia, visit http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.

Music With Meaning (vol. 2)

A long while ago, my father had a juke box in the basement that would play 45 records (that's right, a record not a cd or tape!). And one song that really got me fired up was "And When I Die" by Blood, Sweat, and Tears. What I like most about the song was its tempo changes. I used to walk around the pool table (yup, full size pool table, we also had a pinball machine!) until during the slower parts and would run during the faster parts. I mean, I felt inspired to run since the song was telling me that the devil was right behind me chasing me! It was exhilarating for a 6 year old.

Today, I still like the song. No, I don't run around the pool table (in fact my father no longer has the juke box or the pinball machine - and with all the clutter in their basement these day, I'd break my leg if I tried to run around the room), but I now better appreciate the lyrics.

"And When I Die"
by Blood, Sweat, and Tears

I'm not scared of dying,
And I don't really care.
If it's peace you find in dying,
Well then let the time be near.
If it's peace you find in dying,
And if dying time is here,
Just bundle up my coffin
'Cause it's cold way down there.
I hear that its cold way down there.
Yeah, crazy cold way down there.

Chorus:

And when I die, and when I'm gone,
There'll be one child born
In this world to carry on,
to carry on.

Now troubles are many, they're as deep as a well.
I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell.
Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell,
But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell.
Yes only my dying will tell.
Yeah, only my dying will tell.

Chorus

Give me my freedom for as long as I be.
All I ask of living is to have no chains on me.
All I ask of living is to have no chains on me,
And all I ask of dying is to go naturally.
Oh I want to go naturally.

Here I go,
Hey Hey!
Here comes the devil,
Right Behind.
Look out children,
Here he comes!
Here he comes! Hey...

Don't want to go by the devil.
Don't want to go by demon.
Don't want to go by Satan,
Don't want to die uneasy.
Just let me go naturally.

and when I die,
When I'm dead, dead and gone,
There'll be one child born in our world to carry on,
To carry on.
Yeah, yeah...

I think about the words. To me, it is almost a prayer. OK, not your typical prayer, but one where we pray to go peacefully and see our way to heaven. And that when we go, there will be something beautiful left in our place - a newborn child.

The day my mother-in-law died, I turned this song up loud in the car, and sang it at the top of voice. It hurt my heart to do it, but yet I felt that I was praying for a peaceful journey for my mother-in-law to heaven.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a religious person; I don't pray in what would perceived as conventional ways. But I would consider myself spiritual. I find comfort in the idea of a heaven, that there is a God, and that when we die we pass on to something greater.

(Sure, this song sure does seem like a strange place to find God, eh?)

Equal Protection of the Laws

Amendment 14
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction hereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To me the question is simple. Any law that denies any citizen of the United States rights or protections enjoyed by the majority of the people is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been upheld time and time again. Surely the law that was used to end racial segregation does not stop at racial differences. As the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution and its Amendments trump ANY law of Congress, Executive Order of the President, or any law of any state in the Union. As a result, any legal attempt to deny citizens the rights and privileges received through marriage by denying them the right to marry should likewise be seen as a violation of the Constitution.

As a result, the effect the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 has on denying citizens the rights and privileges of marriage is a violation of their rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plain and simple. There is no room for point of view, the law is clear.

Amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies the basic and fundamental rights of a citizen living in a free society. Citizens must not be afraid to express their opinion. They must feel comfortable with their beliefs. They must not be afraid to gather in groups for political purposes. The "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment guarantees that the government of the United States will not establish a legal, official religion for the nation. This also guarantees a person the right to not practice a religion at all.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that "marriage" is a sacred institution. It is a union of a man and a woman and consecrated by God. If that is the case, then the defense of "marriage" by any law is yet another violation of a Constitutional Amendment. As a religious institution, it can not be defined by a law of the United States, it would be up to the religious institutions to define what a marriage can, and can not be. In this light, the Federal Defnese of Marriage Act of 1996 is again shown to be unconstitutional.

Whether it is thought that "gay marriage" will "destroy the institute of marriage" and will harm "family values" is irrelevant. If Congress and politicians, and the Moral Majority or the Family Research Council or any other so-called defenders of "family values" want to attack an institution that is harming family values they should fight against the institutionalized socio-economic segregation. This segregation keeps people in poverty, drives both parents to work more than one job while leaving children to fend for themselves and to turn to surrogate institutions for acceptance. Certainly it would be better for a same-sex couple to adopt a child and show it love and give it a safe environment to grow than to have that child bounced from foster family to foster family.