Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Cop slugs woman

Bear with me here for a minute so I can make my point.
I apparently don't quite understand this whole new equality of the sexes thing. On one page I read all about how pleased equal rights advocates are because women can now be up on the front lines in war zones shooting at the enemy, and also being shot at by the enemy. Equal treatment. Next page explains how a woman is granted a large sum of money because she was discriminated against and paid less than her male counterparts at work. Same work, same pay. It's all about equal treatment for all. The courts back it up every day. The legislative branches pass laws to clarify it and make it enforceable. That's the way it is. Then I turn the page and read a completely different approach to this equality between the sexes. "Cop slugs woman" the headline read. It seems this woman grabbed the cop while he was attempting to do his job and interfered with is ability to do what he needs to do. In order to continue without being interfered with he felt the need to slug the woman so she'd leave him alone. Police officers have a job to do and it is difficult enough even without anyone getting in the way and holding them back. If I understand the wording correctly, it is against the law for anyone to interfere with a police officer during the completion of his appointed duty of enforcing the law. The law in this case does not discriminate in any way, at least in my opinion. So that brings us full circle to the equality issue. Why did the headline read, "Cop slugs woman."? And infer that it was way more traumatic or unacceptable because a woman was involved. If a woman is in fact equal, then the woman gets to participate in the consequences of their behavior from both sides of the spectrum, right? equality means that no longer is special treatment given to someone just because they are the "fair sex". Equality means no more "fair sex"! What would the headline read if the cop was also a woman? I believe it would not have even been a news story.

I don't know the right or wrong of this particular incident. That will be played out and taken care of in the proper, lawful way that is laid out. That is not my concern. Nor is it my concern about the equality concept. Women are getting the rights they have long fought for. It is simply my opinion that everyone across the board should face the fact that if one wants equality, the whole idea of "special treatment" goes out the window. No one has the right to grab a cop and not expect to get slugged for it if need be because they are 'special." I don't particularly like that, but I guess that's what it's become. I just hope I don't have to slug some woman. Nope, don't like that idea at all. Coming from a time when women were regarded with respect because they were fair, gentle and special and often were considered to be peacemakers, it's hard to shake those concepts.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Controlled substance/surprising

Throughout history those in the know have taken steps to protect those of us who need protecting. Laws are the modus opperendi (or however you spell it), both good and bad. Laws have been used to maintain slavery and then to abolish it, take private property and protect it, take our earnings away and spread them around, more recently, protect gun ownership and restrict it. Not taking any stand on  these mind you, simply stating facts. Around this part of the world people are voted into positions of power to carry out our wishes as far as freedom and quality of life. We put our trust in those elected folks to make sure this great country is not taken over by some sort of  dictatorial hierarchy. Now, the reason I bring this to light if you are still interested in my little observation.

Yesterday I was struck with a brilliant idea: Reports say that if a person is overcome by Carbon Monoxide poisoning the sooner they are treated with oxygen, the less chance they will suffer death or sever complications. The same with some other critical, life threatening situations. Thinking that it may be a good idea to be prepared for just such a situation I proceeded to check out the availability of emergency oxygen equipment and supply. Now comes the surprise: It was explained to me that I needed a doctor's prescription to get oxygen, oxygen it seems, is a controlled substance. Huh?

I'll delve further into that today but I have to say that I was totally taken by surprise when I was told that even the air I breath was being controlled. Yeah, really I was.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Do laws work?

In reading and hearing about certain events lately the thought occurred to me that many laws are only laws for some of us. Depending on who we are and how much influence we have makes a lot of difference in the enforcement and consequences of breaking the law. Not being judgemental or whether their actions are right or wrong I look at certain striking factions. From what I understand, they are conducting illegal strikes. As long as I can remember it has been illegal for school teachers to strike. Right now teachers are carrying on strikes in certain school districts. I haven't read anything regarding prosecution or sanctions resulting from those illegal strikes. The students look to those teachers for instruction of course but as teachers they are also a moral guide towards being an upstanding citizen. After all, we certainly don't want criminals teaching our children do we?

So anyway, I simply don't understand the law when it comes to a huge voting block of professionals with almost unlimited cash resources for lobbying and political influence. A legal strike is an important tool in maintaining a level bargaining position improving the work place through cooperation between those bargaining factions. Necessary and useful. However, because the educational system is funded by tax dollars, and technically teachers are civil servants, it is my u8nderstanding that teacher strikes are against the law. If that is indeed the case, what is keeping the government agency in charge from disciplinary actions? I'm just asking? I think kids should be in school without worrying about whether the teacher is a criminal or not. Being taught by someone who has disdain and disrespect for the laws of this country. Who decides which of us has to be law abiding and which does not? But, maybe that's just me.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Laws, how many is too many?

I wonder sometimes if the often spoken statement about the U.S of A. becoming a nation of unenforceable laws is true. We have local, district, state and even national police, hard working and dedicated roaming around with a ten inch thick book of laws to enforce. My Gosh! How can they function? Silly laws, important laws, short laws, rambling laws, laws with so many technical aspects even the lawmakers don't understand them. I guess the case could be made that an officer could designate most anything as illegal and be close to one law or another. You can't fly a kite or ride a bike, utter a name or remark, drive a car or go fishing without fear of breaking this or that law. Getting through a day without doing at least one thing wrong is almost impossible in my opinion.

Oh, the heck with it! I'm probably breaking a law right now. That's probably why it's so difficult to publish my postings. Here goes again.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Fishing, hunting and canoodling

Reach under a dead log in the river and pull out a catfish! That's what canoodling is all about I guess. At least according to a news feature on TV in the twilight hours this morning. I thought I was dreaming but there it was on the screen. Some guy reaching down into the muddy waters of some river in the South somewhere. He pulls out this huge cat fish he grabbed by the bottom lip. Of course that fish was not wanting much to be made into dinner for this guys family so it was squirming all over the place, but to no avail. He's probably cut into a hundred nuggets, deep fried and digested by now. I think you've got to hand it to those folks for figuring out how to still get fish when they aren't biting on a fishing line in the middle of the hot summer. Downright ingenious! In my opinion. Short of the fact that copper head snakes also lay in the places too that is. The same program covered shooting feral hogs from a helicopter too. I thought there must be too much expense involved in that one. Grabbing a fish is free. I like the free part, that sort of thing we can all participate in.

Over the years the things we are able to do around this neck of the woods has changed. The TV news I just mentioned was mostly concerned about how the laws in the South that were changed to allow those two pursuits. People have done them for years but now they are legal as well. Up North here the laws are usually made to restrict what we do. I used to be able to herd cat fish and suckers up a creek and hit them onto shore with a baseball bat for harvesting for food or fertilizer. We didn't have to worry about grabbing snakes either. I'm thinking that would be way outside of the law these days. I wouldn't necessarily be the one canoodling anywhere but I'd really like the fact that it was legal. I honestly don't know what exactly is legal and what isn't any more when it comes to putting some fish or game on the table. I wonder if some of those folks that make the laws ever did any fishing or hunting of their own.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Your dog, not mine

To me, all this to-do about dogs running loose and harassing us is a very interesting exercise in human behavior. Not being judgemental is rather difficult because I was directly involved but I am trying. In attempting to sort out the facts with as little emotion as possible:
All of us connected with the traumatic episode, to me anyway, are all nice people and otherwise good neighbors.
Absolutely no one feels inconvenienced or endangered except the two of us who were approached by "Buffy" and "Cuddles", two dogs running loose on public property.
From what I have heard and observed the two dog owners appear to have no remorse or accept any responsibility for the attack.
The premise is that the two offending dogs are only "yappers" and have never bitten anyone.
The general consensus is that I am taking offense for something that could have been easily avoided by not walking on the sidewalk in that area. In other words; I caused the altercation. Not only from the dog owners but several other people from the area that either witnessed the event or heard of it.
Those dogs are well loved by everyone and I am actually treading on thin ice by insinuating they are dangerous in any way whatsoever. It's almost blasphemy.
The police have chosen not to be involved any more than the possibility of a phone call. It's not their job, said the officer.
If a person sees an illegal act that can cause injury to another human being and does nothing, the law states that they are legally liable for any resulting injury.

So, what to do? From these observations I have concluded that:
We have the law and common sense on our side because our rights have been violated and our health and safety put in jeopardy due to neglect on the part of the dog owners.
According to city ordinance it is a violation to allow a dog to harass or approach or cause anyone to fear for their safety on a public sidewalk. There are legal and civil consequences for not restraining your dog.
If I push this further or press any charges, the entire neighborhood will shun me.

There is no apparent physical injury, I should be over the anxiety and able to sleep sometime in the near future. How important is it? Do I want harmony in the neighborhood I've lived in for 30 years or do I want to make sure we can safely walk our streets without fear from these and other dogs? Should I let "sleeping dogs lie"?

What is it that I hope to accomplish here? It is my practice to take at least 3 days to make major decisions whenever possible. We're all good people here so being the immediate threat is over I will do just that..........

Thursday, August 11, 2011

People and their dogs and other people

No big deal!............ Get over it!.......... Get a life!.......... Leave it be!................ Forget about it!

I am finding it very interesting to observe the reaction of individuals when it comes to certain events which may or may not result in catastrophe. No, there were no apparent, lasting consequence's following the barking dog assault. Of course, some things do not present themselves immediately but we'll assume everything is OK for now. At the risk of repeating myself, here is what happened in a nut shell: We were walking on a public sidewalk, two illegally, unrestrained, unsupervised, agitated dogs ran at us barking aggressively and acting in every way that they could and quite possibly would bite or jump on us. I jumped in between us and them and by yelling and flaying my arms defensively and kicking, scared them away. The most aggressive and most unpredictable dog had come within two or three inches of us before backing off. In my opinion this was an experience to give anyone pause as to their safety. If it had been a child or a less defensive person than I there may well have been blood drawn from the overall scenario. I found it upsetting.

The part I find interesting is how those people responsible handle the situation: Otherwise a nice guy, albeit sometimes very opinionated and outspoken, One of the offenders chooses to deny any responsibility whatsoever and shift the blame of the whole thing onto my shoulders by pointing out that he owns his home, pays taxes and as long as he does it is his right to allow his dog to roam freely on his part of the street. I knew he did and the reason it all happened is because we were walking there........?.........Now I better watch my step because he is going to watch my every action and report me to the police every time I commit an infraction. I'm still trying to work all that out. I'm am not angry you understand, I just want to understand how to prevent this sort of thing in the future. So far I think it means that I should stay clear of where he chooses to allow his dog to roam or suffer the consequences. Whatever they may be.

The other appears to ignore that it ever happened. Also a very nice, hard working and friendly person. From what I can gather the offense simply did not happen. Nope! We didn't go for a walk, we weren't confronted by her dog, there was no yelling, or barking or anything. There is no reason to talk about it. No reason to apologize. No reason to inquire if everyone is OK. I guess the reasoning behind that thought process is that: If you deny it ever happened, then it didn't and you don't have to face any responsibility of ignoring the law and the warnings and pleas of your neighbors for over 4 years. Everything will go back to normal eventually, right?

The other thing I am mulling over is the reaction of the police officer I reported this incident to. I have received no notification as to whether they contacted the dog owners or not. No one let me called to let me know. Another part is what he explained to me: You must understand that the police have no way of handling an unrestrained dog. If a confrontation happens again I need to capture the dog and call animal control. If I understood him correctly there is no law against allowing your dog to harass passers by on a public sidewalk or road. I know that to be incorrect because I received a copy of the city ordinance in the mail from someone else that obviously has a problem with this batch of free roaming, barking dogs.

I've gathered that the consensus seems to be that in some way I caused the incident by taking a walk in my own neighborhood, less than 300 feet from my own front door, on a public sidewalk, with the knowledge that some people allow their animals to run free and harass their neighbors. I should have known better. That's the attitude I seem to be getting so far. I guess I'm a real trouble making jerk here for asking folks to abide by the same laws as I do. Yeah, I should have known better. I'm starting to think I need a dog so I better understand the situation. This is all quite interesting and I'm learning a lot about people and how much they care about the health and welfare those around them compared to their dogs. Even if it is a little disappointing.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Fremont Nebraska and illegal immigration

Fremont Nebraska has a new law regarding illegal immigrants. Big news! Arizona has a new law regarding illegal immigrants. It's getting to be a little less of a big story. Everyone is getting used to hearing it aren't they? Most of the news stories center on the hardships those laws are causing to immigrants in general. But, the root cause of these laws is being dismissed as inconsequential and trivial. I wonder why that is? Laws are designed to protect us from eminent danger of something aren't they? Robbery, reckless driving, injury or murder, property rights, stuff like that. I think we all agree that we need to be protected from danger by our laws. It sounds like the protesters against these stiff illegal immigration laws don't see any danger in illegal immigration. I guess their question is: Does illegal immigration actually pose a danger to our safety and way of life? Let's see.

In the black and white words of the law: Anyone, if not regulated good or bad can sneak across the border. Anyone, if not regulated can sneak across the border with illegal drugs. Anyone sneaking across the border into this country unregulated is breaking the law. Therefore they are a criminal. The federal law is very explicit in that. There are just so many people our country and it's already strained welfare and health system can support. If someone uses any of our social benefits illegally they are taking them away from our legal citizens. In other words, our citizens are having their way of life altered and deteriorated by 11 million illegal immigrants. Our benefits are being stolen from us illegally. Our lives and safety are being jeopardized by drugs and gangs and criminals who are here illegally.

Are all illegal immigrants bad people, criminals, robbers, murderers, or drug dealers? No, some of them are very likable! However, they are all illegal. If they got here by breaking a huge federal law with no consequences what is there to encourage them to honor any other law, big or small? We are a nation of laws. Take them away and we cease being a nation at all. I wonder if Will Smith will star in a movie that shows us how to solve the problem?........Joe

Monday, May 17, 2010

ACLU, Public Profanity and free speech

Call me old fashioned but I believe that respect for others is important in our civilized society.

The airwaves are filled with news about police in Pennsylvania ticketing people (probably mostly guys) for public profanity. The ACLU is checking in on fighting the tickets because of our right to free speech. A few years ago some guy on the Rifle River in Michigan lost his temper and yelled out a string of filthy profanities in front of a woman and her children. A police officer in the area ticketed the guy for public profanity. The courts took over and, in their wisdom decided the jerk didn't do anything wrong. I guess that in the name of freedom of speech we can verbally abuse anyone within earshot. Even if it means scaring and intimidating women and little kids. The guy on the Rifle river must be proud and his parents too.

The ACLU is supposed to protect our rights. If they feel that the right to blast away with any means of profanity we see fit at the time, I believe they are dead wrong! In my mind there is no other reason for profanity than intimidation when it comes to speaking it in front of those who are offended by it. Is free intimidation a right? I don't think so!

That's why I say that I may be thinking i an old fashioned way. Up until a short time ago it was against our core beliefs to use profanity in front of women and children as both a sign of respect and also it was against the law. Men or more accurately anyone who had any backbone at all refrained from filthy language unless they were in a select group of personal acquaintances as a sign of good manners and to avoid the wrath of the law. In the past few years I have been subjected to some of the worst language I've ever heard, more often than I care to count from women and teenage girls. My question is: Where has our sense of personal dignity gone?

Just who is winning this battle of a free society when we can't go anywhere and be free of verbal intimidation. And people wonder why our children fail to adopt normal behavior. I say to heck with the ACLU and those spineless weasels they are trying to protect. That's my opinion on this issue. There is no useful purpose in talking that way in public. (Are you picking up what I'm throwing down Mr. Biden?)..........................Joe, the old fashioned guy.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

right or wrong, I just can't say

You can't tell anyone they are wrong anymore!

Recently it appears that, other than a select few exceptions the lines between right and wrong have become so blurred that telling someone they are wrong is almost considered assault. In schools kids are passed from one grade to the next, regardless of achievement levels, in part because telling them they have to repeat a grade may harm their delicate self esteem. Firing an employee because they can't keep pace is a no no. Firing someone may destroy their entire future. And, heaven forbid an employer ever say anything negative about a past employee without setting themselves up for a law suit. If a child is misbehaving in a retail store and an adult other than the parent attempts to correct him, well he/she just better be prepared for a verbal lashing about how it's none of their business. If a parent tries to discipline their own child with some sort of firm/corporal butt paddling in public and in some cases in the privacy of their own home there just may be a knock on the door from child protective services. When a person of low integrity starts blasting away with a barrage of filthy language in front of anyone, including children any offended bystander best keep their mouths closed about it lest they interfere with freedom of speech. Freedom from oppression be hanged. If a reckless driver puts others in danger causing stress and fear to others, no one should express their fear because then they are considered to have caused road rage. Don't you dare suggest that someone needs a bath, they are entitled to their own opinion of hygiene regardless of it's eye watering affect on you.

Those are only some examples but I think you get my drift here. However, there are a few favorite subjects that are completely opposite. If you wear after shave or perfume you better be ready to be ostracized for polluting the atmosphere. Don't pray on public property either, you may cause good to happen and we all know what that does. You, as a taxpayer are admonished for resisting exorbitant taxes that reduce your quality of life. Don't mess with the pay and benefits of government employees, those involved in education or elected officials or you'll be accused of conspiring against the government and just plain mean.

I read in the paper and heard on radio and TV that the authorities can't tell the difference between a pop bottle prank with dry ice and water by some not too bright college students and a terrorist bomb attack. That's what I mean. Kind of interesting isn't it? One guy calls it being wrong without any consequences, unless you are right in the first place but then you're wrong to express it which makes you wrong all over again but being wrong is quite OK you understand, don't let it hurt your feelings.

It looks like rain but I'm probably not right or wrong about that....................Joe

Friday, March 26, 2010

Government censorship

One of my older, retired mentors, John called me yesterday to offer advice on something I didn't even know I needed advice on. That's the way it is with him sometimes. He lives alone, has almost no friends, family or other social contacts. Then there is me. But, that's fine with me, if all it takes to make his day is to listen to him for a short time. This time, after explaining how I could make a million dollars selling some super vitamin he just saw on TV, he ventured into his take on this smoking ban scheduled to start here in Michigan. He's a veteran. He doesn't smoke. He thinks the government should keep their nose out of his local VFW club. John says he's getting pretty tired of government censorship. He said he didn't put his life on the line to protect government censorship. He had my attention.

John believes that a smoking ban in private businesses, let alone private clubs like the VFW amounts to nothing less than government censorship, limiting freedom of expression illegally and unnecessarily. He says that the right to smoke in certain areas of private clubs is a private matter. No less important than the right to speak. he's ticked off that pornography and profanity is protected while all the do gooders are censoring smoking. John is doing his best to get signatures on a petition to get the supreme court to look at the legality of this smoking ban. He believes that when all is said and done, the government doesn't have the right to censorship of smoking while it protects pornography, profanity and certain types of murder. He was hot on the issue. I just let him talk. He made me think...............Joe
Authors Blogs Literature Blogs - Blog Top Sites Literature Blogs - Blog Top  Sites