On turning Sixty

A few thought on turning 60 years old.

I'm not quite sure what to think of this. After all, 60 years is a significant span of time for a human being, although not all that long in the grand scheme of things.

Since it is the tradition to grant wishes and give gifts on one's birthday, I was thinking about what I would like as the ideal gift. At first, of course, I thought of trivial things: a Classic Corvette, an all expenses vacation, even an autographed collection of Stephen King or William Carlos Williams. But these are things, and in the grand scheme of things (no pun intended), end up as dust collectors and clutter in an already cluttered life.

And lets face it, at 60, your life is cluttered, whether you like it or not. My little “office” at home is a narrow room, about eight feet wide by twenty feet long, and it is very difficult to maneuver in . There are three cabinets of VHS tapes, six bookshelves filled with books and other assorted things (which I rarely use), a weight bench with weights and several dumbbells and barbells, a folding table filled with all sorts of books, magazines, and other tools of the trade, a desk which I am sitting at as I type on the computer, a chair, an exercise ball, a space heater, a CD holder, another table, three guitars, a banjo, a mandolin, two wastepaper baskets, and several items out of sight I have neglected to mention, I am sure. All of this contained in 160 square feet. I think you will agree, this is the definition of cluttered.

As to feeling 60, I am not sure what that means. After all, I woke up this morning like I woke up yesterday. A little stiffer, perhaps. I have accepted that as a part of life, seeing as various injuries and bad habits of my youth have taken their toll. I won't dwell upon them all here, but suffice it to say I have dared to challenge myself from time to time, and not always in the smartest of fashions. [I think back now and am reminded of the famous last words of the American Redneck....'Hey, Ya'll, Watch This!']

I would love to say I have succeeded at every endeavor, but that is not the case. I have had my ups and downs, my successes and my failures. I have completed an Associates Degree in Liberal Arts, and have all the credits needed for a Bachelors Degree, but cannot seem to master a foreign language with enough skill to fill that requirement, which frustrates me to no end. The requirement, that is. I see no need to master another language when my native tongue is spoken around the world. Furthermore, since I never intended to work outside the United States, I just don't see the point. But the universities and other institutions of higher learning seem to think this is important, so I continue to write poetry and prose sans the benefit of an acknowledged degree. C'est la vie. так это жизнь. E` così la vita.

But back to the birthday wish. I believe if I could make one wish come true today, I would wish for all the peoples of the world to believe in themselves, in their inherent goodness, in their ability to reach beyond their petty differences and realize they have been laboring under the flawed misconception they are destined to forever be at odds with one another.

As a Christian, I understand where part of this comes from. The concept of original sin pervades our thinking like a universal solvent, creeping in to every thought, every plan, every notion. We accept without question our nature is flawed, and by extension believe every other person is the same. Since we believe we are all flawed, we therefore believe that people, when given the opportunity, will always sink to the lowest level, and are, therefore, innately untrustworthy. When we think of each other like this, we are presuming the nature of humanity cannot rise above this flaw.

Now this is not exclusive to Christians. I use them here as an example because I know the people who read this are probably Christians and want them to understand where I am coming from. No matter what culture you hail from, this basic precept exists in one form or another. And it is the greatest impediment to our rising to the next level of human development. We can be one planet, one people, one race, if we are willing to trust one another.

As the Bard would say, “Aye, there's the rub.”. Trust is probably the hardest emotion to earn, and the hardest state to attain. We are raised by our parents not to trust, and some would argue with good cause, for there are predators and deviants among us, evil men and women intent on satisfying their own needs above the needs of others. But what we fail to teach our children is these are the exceptions to the rule, not the norm. We teach women in our society particularly to distrust other women, a practice going back in time to competition for mates. And while we teach our sons teamwork, we also teach them to consider other men as adversaries. I could give you many other examples, some more extreme and distasteful, but the point is we teach our children not to trust.

And our leaders, be they Presidents, monarchs, employers, or clergy, use this to maintain their power over us. Now you would think they would want us to trust, to share, to be at peace with one another, but nothing is further from the truth. For a society which trusts is a society which listens to each other, a society which bonds together to cry against injustice, especially when it is injustice carried out in the name of the people. If we were to learn to trust one another, we would be the ones in power, and the leaders would be forced to surrender their power back to the people. And power is a drug once taken which cannot easily be surrendered. So the leaders allow the public to be terrified by the media, even so far as to staging events and circumstances to drive fear into the people and a wedge between factions, making them fear one another. And when you fear, you cannot trust.

Twenty years ago, this wish could not have been made, at least with an expectation of fulfillment. Twenty years ago, the internet was nothing more than bulletin boards and emails. Twenty years ago, there was little chance of hearing all the facts of any matter without the media slanting the information in one direction or another. Twenty years ago, we did not have this marvelous tool called the internet. Twenty years ago, we could not speak across oceans and continents to learn about other people and their desires, their aspirations, their dreams. Twenty years ago, communication required risk, confrontation, encounters. None of that is true today.

Utopia is not my goal, and in my opinion, will never be achieved. But hunger, poverty, disease, homelessness, depression, and all the ills of mankind caused by greed, corruption, and injustice are solvable. All you need is trust.

Frederick Smith

© June 24, 2012

A commentary in poetry

“United we stand, divided we fall”

The ancient truth of Aesop stands, an axiom unchallenged.
When we unite, no power on earth we cannot overcome.
Our rulers know this. They understand the power of the masses.
And so conspire to set us one against the other, dividing into classes,

exploiting every negative to keep us separate.
Relying on our ignorance, our apathy, our hate.
The saddest testament is how we live, and what we say,
continuing the lies they thrust upon us every day.

We've learned this canticle of  propaganda all too well.
So tell, me, brother, sister, is it time for us to swell
into a single mass and cry together, “NO! NO MORE!”
“We've had it with your petty lies, your avarice and war,

your struggles to protect the rich and keep the poor contained,
your greed in keeping everything within your rich domain.
Your politics and trickery replaced the chains of old,
we're tired of waiting patiently for what will never come.”

Think carefully, my brethren, before you stand with me,
for greed and avarice will not go quietly.
They'll use their laws and armies to attempt to keep us down.
They'll call us communists and claim we are the ones,

the real culprits of the cause of all your loss and pain.
They'll whittle at the least of us til nothing else remains.
Unless you really want this world to change, don't stand at all,
go back in to your closet, go spray paint on your wall,

do nothing, and hope someday your children will be wise,
not following the path that you have set before their eyes,
but rising to the knowledge that we are of one race,
and understanding being human is not about a place,

a sea, a book, traditions, or how we think of God,
but a universal kinship, a vast genetic bond.
We are HUMAN, we are one, we are united in our blood,
inherent in our strength is our desire to be one.

So, tell me, brother, sister, can you offer up your lives,
to realize a dream where people everywhere survive
in harmony and unity, without the chains of old?
Are you willing to be brave? Are you willing to be bold?

Are you willing to be tolerant, and can you understand,
the differences among us are the power to be grand?
The colors of the rainbow exist within our hearts.
Are you willing to embrace them, give love a fresh, new start?

I would not have you answer me from lurching gut reaction,
but having thought this through, discussing with each faction,
if we are willing as a race to put away the past
and bring the new millennium of peace to Earth at last.

I've little more to say on this, my sermon's at an end.
If nothing else, I hope that you are thinking now, my friend.
I'll add one final epigram, these words you should recall,
“united we will surely stand, divided we will fall.”

Frederick Smith
© June 23, 2012

The Second Amendment and You - Why should you care?

I've been thinking about this lately and wondering just how many people actively think about their right to bear arms.

I know at least a few of you do, judging from comments made on my blog and other sources, but I'm kind of concerned that most of us "sane" (for lack of a better term) individuals don't seem to be on the same page here. One comment about passing concealed carry laws and allowing 17 year old black males to "defend themselves" against overzealous white vigilantes has me particularly concerned.

For the benefit of the uninformed who were cheated out of a decent education in high school, here is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

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.

Now, by the wording of that amendment, the reason for people to have firearms is to protect themselves from aggression. Since a militia is defined as civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army, this would pretty much cover just about anyone who isn't wearing a uniform. And since the 14th Amendment has stated that all people in this nation are to be regarded as equals (I know, saying it doesn't make it so, but that is another can of worms we can discuss later), then why would we need to pass extra laws to state teenage black males should have special consideration to keep and bear arms?

The first part of this Amendment is the part I'd like to focus on for a moment, if you will bear with me. Specifically the word "militia", and further the part about being trained. Obviously training would include the mechanics of the weapon, how to aim it, how to load it, how to clean it...etc. But since the definition included above says "civilians trained as soldiers", is this really the training we are discussing?

When I was in the military, and when I was a reserve and military police officer in the San Diego area, I received the training mentioned above for a variety of weapons. I learned to aim properly, care for and clean the weapons, and how to secure them when they are not in use. But I also learned the rights and responsibility of using a firearm.

You see, in order to have a firearm, it is not enough to simply know how to use it, but much more important to know WHEN to use it, and when not to. Simply thinking you might be threatened or being afraid is not enough. You need to justify the use of "deadly force" before you use it.

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force.

Without getting into specifics, this would appear to mean that the individual holding the firearm in any given situation is burdened with a tremendous responsibility to be sure the situation warrants the use of deadly force. But this also begs the question: "Is it reasonable to assume that a person acting under duress in any of the situations mentioned above is capable of responsible, dispassionate action?".

Since we employ people to cover the areas of Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement, and there are already procedures to hold them accountable for their use of deadly force (i.e., laws, civilian review boards, internal affairs protocols, etc.), let's concentrate on the use of deadly force in the first two circumstances: Self Defense and Defense of a Third Person.

Self Defense has several legal definitions, depending on the state or country you live in, but I think we can reasonably agree in this discussion we are talking about defending ourselves from someone who is intent on doing us physical harm. One example I can think of is a man or woman who is concerned about a number of muggings and robberies occurring in an area who arms him or herself with a firearm to avoid being injured. If the person in question is attacked, and the attacks which have occurred prior to this instance have resulted in serious bodily injury or death, does that person then have the right to use deadly force?

You might think the answer is yes, but what if the criminal flees as soon as he sees the gun? Is the person being attacked still entitled to use that deadly force? Since the use of deadly force is for self defense, and since the threat of bodily harm no longer exists, would that shooting be justified?

I could go on and on with examples, and we could argue all sorts of variables, but I think the point to be made here is it takes responsible ownership of a firearm to fully comply with the intent of the law.

So back to the idea of arming 17 year old persons and sending them into the street under the protection of concealed carry laws. Personally, I think that is a horrendous idea, sort of like the mayor of Detroit several years back who wanted to arm young men and send them out in the streets. Or the mayor of the small town in Texas who made it mandatory for citizens to be armed. Firearms are not toys, and they should not be handed out indiscriminately. But the firearms themselves are not the problem.

Firearms are tools, mechanisms which in the right hands can provide food, stave off danger, and defend against violence. But it is ultimately the individual who is holding the firearm who is held accountable for their actions. To issue a license to an untrained, uneducated person is to invite chaos and murder. At 17, most of us have tempers which are fueled by knee jerk reactions to supposed insults, real or imagined. We often lack the emotional discipline to restrain ourselves, which is probably the greatest reason I can think of to restrict concealed carry laws to those individuals who have successfully passed a rights and responsibilities course.

By the way, this is the primary reason I am a member of the NRA. This organization is adamant in their belief that firearms should be available to persons who understand the responsibility of ownership and use.