being objective

  Following another mass shooting in Baltimore there is much talk about what to do. The police department is short over five hundred officers! I'm no cop but it might have something to do with being powerless when you have the job. You can't stop and frisk anyone suspected of carrying a weapon, you can't actually enforce the laws about the squeegee kids or those breaking curfew. Several officers have been ambushed and killed in the last few years and the criminals are being released back to the streets almost as fast as they are arrested. Policing on eggshells is certainly a thankless job. Top that off with another change in leadership. The former police commissioner left just prior to this latest shooting. This last incident took place at a neighborhood block party. It's been an annual event for some time now and hundreds gather. The police knew about it, but there were no police present at that gathering at all. On the news following that occurrence the police commissioner tried to deny knowing when that party was. If he had only known! And this is the guy that is now going to lead the department? 

 The latest proposal is to bring in the national guard. The police department is undermanned so we will bring in troops! Now, just what will these troops do? Their purpose will be to patrol the streets in battle gear and do what? Beyond an intimidating presence I can't see where they have any power or authority to do anything at all. If the duly sworn police officers can't stop suspected wrongdoers on the streets to question them what can a national guard private do? The governor would have to authorize this move. Then you have effectively established martial law. I can't see it any other way. The narrative is, bring in the troops to stop the violence. Just how they are going to do that however is not spoken about. Will the guard declare war on the gangs? Is that how we stop the violence? Or is the guard there to simply return fire. It's true that the legal gun owners are being disarmed so only the crooks have guns. I guess that is part of the plan. A means to tell the good guys from the bad. Eventually only the government has arms and control is achieved. The very thing the second amendment is designed to prevent happening. 

 There are a few that are speaking to the truth of the matter, mostly they are pastors. The real problem isn't the guns, it is the willingness to use those guns that is the problem. This problem begins in the home. You can make all the excuses you like, cite every past injustice, offer every explanation but that will do nothing to stop this. Until the parents start holding their children accountable for their actions not much is going to change. It's a cultural thing, this willingness to shoot. It has been glorified in song and the fatalities made into martyrs. A quick look at Google will yield a list of 56 rap stars that have been murdered! Being a rap singer is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world! 

 It begs the question, why. It isn't just black rap singers, it is all rap artists. It's simply that there are far fewer white rap artists than any other group. Really not unlike blacks in country music. The music does represent a culture. A culture of violence. You can say the violence is sparked by injustice, desperation, lack of opportunity, diversity, economic distress, or any number of factors you like but the bottom line is simple enough to understand, it breeds violence. Some say country music breeds extreme patriotism! Those damn rednecks, although the image is changing somewhat. Some cowboys be woke bro. That's one way to sell records. It started with outlaw country, when the good ole boys started smoking that wacky tobaccy. But they haven't decided to start shooting; yet. 

 For me it is all a sign of the degradation of society. It's the same thing my parents said, their parents said and I'm certain every parent has said. Each generation wants better for the next. For that reason, each generation changes the rules. Each generation wants to try what wasn't allowed by the previous. Lessons learned must be relearned. In the study of history, a democracy lasts about 250 years before collapsing. It collapses when the citizens of that democracy place accountability for their failures on the government itself. It truly is as John Adams said, dependent upon a moral and religious people. Simply changing the moral and/or religious definitions will not keep the democracy intact. Like the old adage you can put lipstick on a pig. You cannot have a morality that declares the death penalty as morally wrong, an injustice against humanity while at the same time aborting children on demand is a right. You can't say suicide is wrong and then pass legislation saying I can assist you in doing that. Those actions fall into the moral relativism realm. In that thinking all actions are relative to the society in which you live. The society decides what is right and wrong. Personally, I believe in moral objectivity. I believe there are things that are right and wrong in every instance, in every society all the time, no exceptions to the rule. I also believe when a democracy reaches the point where it is moral relativism controlling the decision making, that is where the collapse begins. Just like Adams said. Adams believed, as do I, that wrongdoing is an internal thing, not an external one. I am responsible for my choices.