Should We Build a Wall?

Sometimes I can only shake my head.  I’ve seen a number of postings on FB about how walls are ineffective and can be defeated.  Some have gone so far as to invoke God as being against walls.  It gives me reason to question the sanity of those who are opposed to a particular wall, or really a political belief in sovereignty yet are unable to make rational arguments supporting their position.  It is far easier to stand on a corner and shout the other side is insane, than it is to decide, perhaps they are not.

We can start with simple yes or no questions but regardless of the answers, it will never alter the positions of those who are for or against a border wall, because the time for logical debate is long past and neither side is willing to concede they are maybe wrong (even a little bit).

The real issue at hand isn’t whether or not we should build a wall, or even if walls are effective or not, those are only wonderfully convenient talking points to mask the foundational question, “Should the laws of a sovereign nation be subject to the whims of outside political activists who have gathered together to trample on the laws they dislike?” Unfortunately, that question is unanswerable in the 15-second sound bites we’ve now come to accept from the media as they cull through the politicians and other elite seeking just the right 15-seconds to inflame their viewers.

After the 2016 election, the Congress created a Special Investigation into this question as it dealt with the allegation of Russian influence/corruption of the voting process.  So far, after two years of investigation and some $30 million dollars, there remains no clear indication whatever Russia did – had any distinct impact on the national vote.

It has long been said we are a nation of sheep and there is a lot of truth to that, for like sheep all most of us want to do is live our lives in peace and let someone else guide or guard the flock.  The politicians and the power-elite know this and gain their power from the flock as they drive them in whatever direction suits their particular need.

So, what is the answer?  Unlike others who suggest they speak for God, I don’t know.  What I do know are the following facts. 

• Over the past 200 years, America has been in the enviable position of not spend massive amounts of energy and capital guarding its borders.  We had acceptable relationships with both Mexico and Canada and none of us saw much need to invade the other.  Sure, we had entry points and we had coastal defenses in case those pesky Europeans wanted to invade, but for the most part, everyone knew the rules and followed them.  Canada kept the Arctic hoards from coming south, and Mexico kept the Incas from coming north.
• Immigrants of the past are not the same as immigrants of today.  There were rules that were followed, and for the most part, they assimilated into the culture adding to our society with their foods, their art, and their histories.  Today’s immigrants are overwhelming the communities as many try and force their culture on the natives without a real desire to assimilate.  At the same time, we native Americans seem to have lost our identities and shared cultural values as we fracture into ever-smaller groups, each demanding a superior place in the social fabric.
• The historical labels of Liberal and Conservative are no longer valid descriptors.  Liberals today are intolerant of those who oppose their views and seek power through manipulation.  Conservatives have no true sense of the natural evolution of society and tend toward knee-jerk reactions against the more extreme social changes.  Labels remain only so those in power can herd the right sheep into the appropriate flocks.
• As long as America remains a viable market for addictive drugs the flow of those drugs from their various points of origin will continue.  The by-product of this is the issue of human trafficking and the increased expenses of border security.  So far, every strategy the US government has tried in its “War on Drugs” has failed.  We’ve filled our jails and watched as lives are lost to the addiction.  I am not sure the government can ever fix this problem, for its root is in a moral choice each individual makes and regardless of what politicians may say the Government is amoral.

So, at the end of the day should we build a wall or should we just do away with Homeland Security?  I guess the answer depends on who you think the new arrivals will vote for.

Betwixt and Between

-->

As of right now, I see Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) known best for their distain of the federalist concept, are now embracing the rights of the several states to govern themselves, at least when it comes to the legality of recreational drugs.

Lest anyone think these are long-held beliefs, let’s talk about their past positions.  Both are longtime advocates for a larger, more powerful federal government with increased regulatory authority to force upon the states its control and power.  At least until President Trump and the Republicans came into power.

Both believe the federal government, and not the states, must mandate the elimination of semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles, and that there must be a national database of gun owners so that it can at some point reach out to take the guns should it determine it wants to.

Both support the federal government’s involvement in determining the rights of the states to set policies in education, housing, employment, banking, and voting.

In fact, with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Ms. Warren advocated for the creation of regulatory agencies that even the Congress couldn’t control.   So, I find it interesting that all the sudden there is a cry for the states to have the power to regulate Marijuana growth and distribution as if it would not be governed by the same statutes that control the interstate commerce of other products.

As with most issues the DNC now champions it seems pretty clear this new-found faith in the States is based on a perception that legalizing Marijuana will result in new support for the upcoming election.  I wonder, is there a secret poll that suggests stoners will turn out in force to support the DNC?  As newly minted pseudo-federalists will they demand the voting locations have to offer snacks to entice voter turnout?

Opium and the Masses

Suddenly, opium is back in the news, well really not opium but its refined version – heroin.  The media and politicians seem to be abuzz with a new outbreak (spike) of opiate deaths in America, as if this was some new disease we must rally and treat.  For the record, what I know about heroin and other opiates wouldn’t fill a thimble, but I do know about addiction; and the impact it has on the life of the addict and those around him or her.  My Senator, Marco Rubio, posted on Facebook he was being briefed by the DEA, and he has met with the Mayor of Pensacola and Sheriff of Escambia County to discuss the opioid crisis here in Florida.  He said there were too many deaths.  I wonder how many is acceptable?

I don’t think I am hard hearted about this, but the dangers of drug use are no secret, even to the youngest potential users.  We don’t hear much about heroin when the threat is to our minorities or inner city young, but let it spread to the ‘burbs and it is “Annie bar the door.”  The reality is most young people believe themselves to be indestructible and immune to the laws of nature, which means most addicts move willingly into that world, either through simple choice or enticement by their peers.  In that aspect, they are not innocent victims, and it is only in retrospect they regret their decision, seek help and recovery, or they die. 

This drug crisis in America seems to be a routine occurrence, about every three years or so, or when the news media, or the politicians need to divert attention from something.  In this case, it would seem to be the conservative press and politicians who are raising this threat as a national crisis, because ABCNNBCBS has better stuff to amuse the public with (i.e. the sins of Trump).

Someone pointed out a few days back that our engagement in Afghanistan is now our longest running war.  Sorry, but I have to disagree.  Our “war on drugs,” has run far longer, and yet with remarkably similar success.  The war on "Terror," and the war on "Drugs" share a couple of similarities that lead to similar outcomes.

Both terrorist cells and drug cartels target the weakest and most vulnerable, and because of their ubiquitous nature the government is ill equipped to stop them outright.  It is akin to playing a “whack a mole” game.  When a head pops up you hit it, but there are always another dozen waiting to take its place.

There is no shortage of opinions on how we should target the enemy and solve the problem.  Each new campaign meets with initial success the leadership can feel good about, but as the enemy adapts or the political interest wains the campaign slowly draws to a close.

Finally, in both cases, as long as there is a population willing to tolerate the existence of the group, and not raise up at the grassroots level, the drug cartels and terrorists will continue to exploit society and kill our citizens.  

The best advice on drugs comes from a blues classic.  “Mothers, tell your children not to do what I have done.”  Unfortunately, too few children listen to this advice.