A Sweet Deal if You Can Get One

Abuse of Trust

Do you really believe that if Officer Steve Molen had been a regular person instead of a police officer he would have gotten the sweet deal his attorneys were able to negotiate? I sure don't and there are some costs to be weighed with this deal. Already the Eastern District Federal Judge that was to hear the charges in his district has weighed in with his criticism. The cases that were to be heard in his court were plea bargained away for Officer Molen's guilty plea to one count of violating a person's civil rights. He will serve 6 mon6hs of home incarceration and eight years of parole rather than the ten years possible on each count. The Federal Prosecutors said that their goal was to get Molen out of the police force and prevent him from working as a law enforcement officer and that was accomplished. That is a specious and farcical statement the principles of which would never be available to a person not well connected.

The appearance of a miscarriage of justice can often be just as far reaching as actual miscarriage. While it appears that an actual miscarriage occurred here it does meet legal requirements but only due to the often symbiotic relationship of prosecutors, police and judges. It is no secret that all too often the different agencies work together to assure either conviction or prosecution. That is often not a miscarriage but sometimes that relationship can have the appearance of favoritism and that is deadly to the faith in our exercise of what should be blind justice. That is why the use of plea bargaining must be transparent and not be misconstrued by tongue in cheek justifications by those who are charged with the unprejudiced application of the law.

In theory and in practice Officer Molen was innocent until proven guilty of the charges brought against him and that is what we must believe. However, the preponderance of evidence can weigh heavily enough that one must act cautiously in the observance of that benefit of doubt. Officer Molen was kept on the Sheriff Department's payroll as an active officer from the time the accusations came to light until his resignation. At the very least Officer Molen should have been removed from active duty and suspended with pay. An internal investigation should have been conducted and executive departmental action taken. Since his accusers included some other police officers the veracity of those allegations should have carried more weight.

I presume the Sheriff's office has protocol to deal with situations like this and if that is so then either it was not followed or it should be reevaluated. The appearance is that a good old boy network exists and police officers must not be bothered with a little thing like trampling on one's civil rights in the pursuit of exacting vengeance against an offender. The mantra of law enforcement is “to protect and to serve” but allowing those entrusted with that charge to escape the results of failure to strictly adhere to legal requirements causes citizens to lose trust. That trust is a gift given by citizens to people who are allowed to use extraordinary force to protect the rest of us from harm. If it is perceived that the citizenry is at risk by giving that trust then that trust is withdrawn and the job of law enforcement loses its most valuable tool. It then becomes just a paramilitary organization that forces obedience rather than a civilian police force that can engender compliance and foster trust. I fear that many officers see themselves as the former rather than the latter.

It is a noble thing that we here in the United States have in our voluntary submission to legal authority. It is necessary to the existence of a free and democratic society. Many countries around the world do not enjoy that presumption that the police are our protectors and are seen largely as enforcers and they are feared. We should never be in unreasonable fear of our duly appointed officers because they should be seen and should see themselves as servants to the people. If that lack of fear and the trust is abused then the job of law enforcement falls on a slippery slope to tyranny.

It appears that the trust of the people in our law enforcement and judicial system has been weakened. It must not be so. I do believe that mercy is a key component of our judicial system but it must be seen as mercy and not favoritism. It must also be that law enforcement officers be held accountable to at least as strict a standard as the general public and one could argue a higher standard since they are placed in a position to cause more harm if that trust is abused.

In many parts of our state it is just accepted that certain individuals and officers will be treated differently than the general public. We have seen entire county governments shot through with corruption and illegality. The openness of it can only be construed as favoritism and injustice. Locally we are fortunate that we haven't seen a lot of such behavior but it is not hard to find a person whose civil rights have been trampled on by powers that be. That must not be so. Those enumerated rights are the most significant thing that sets our legal system apart from much of the rest of the world.

My take is this. Police officers should not act in a way to demonstrate disdain for the people they serve. If accused of such behavior they should be dealt with as swiftly and surely as the people they regulate. An enforcement officer, prosecutor or judge should always act without prejudice and with temperance and must always be subject to action if found to not be doing so. We must sincerely appreciate their actions on our behalf but abuse of that trust is deep and long lasting.

Wisdom and the Humanities

Malcolm Gladwell

A statement I heard from Malcolm Gladwell resonated with my because I have often lamented the lack of understanding of the political theory that influenced the formation of our country.  One has to have a working knowledge of the great philosophers to make sense of what the people who wrote our legal framework were thinking.  Gladwell's statement went like this:  "we are a society that is information rich and theory poor."

We are flooded with so much information and we often mistake it for wisdom which it is not.  Wisdom involves understanding knowledge and, for political theorists, it involve how that knowledge can act as good or evil for societies.  It seems that with the advent of the internet that a tipping point was reached at which point knowledge and information overwhelmed wisdom and theory.  Theory is even a disparaged word by those who lack the wisdom to understand the difference.

Think of this.  In the world of our founders a good education consisted of being well read in classical literature and the great philosophers.  The grounding in Aristotle and Socrates led to the reading of more current philosophers such as Hume, Descartes, Locke and Paine.  The condition of mankind is the prime focus of most philosophy and that naturally leads to the conduct of societies.  These people (Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Franklin. Gerry, Jay just to name a few) were all classically trained.  Franklin maybe less than most.

Now everyone has access to information and knowledge but few have access to the theory with which to bind the knowledge into a useful amalgam.  In some ways it is more like the theory of natural man in which self interest drives everything.  I think this is why we see such selfishness and lack of consideration in our current society and our politicians are, in a large part, natural men and women at their best, driven by self interest and lacking any compunction to lead toward a greater vision.

This is the point.  Without the study of the humanities we lose an essential part of our humanity which is typified by our joining in societies.  Most societies are joined by external forces but our society is more driven by internal forces such as cooperation and compassion.  That is in danger.  People bemoan the loss of math and science skills and that is important in a competitive world but without the humanities to bind us we are at risk of becoming a self-serving technocratic society, bound together only by financial constraints.  Society as we know it deteriorates until it dissipates into oligarchy, plutocracy or totalitarianism.

What am I saying?  GET A GRIP!!  We need our theorists and philosophers to speak out more loudly and to command a presence with their visions.  The essential part of humanity is not our ability to make stuff but our ability to expand the human race in ways that we have not yet found.  The unwise may shout louder but the philosophers must speak more firmly.  The philosophers and theorists must use wisdom to educate and to lead.

I am going to recount to you a story I heard first hand from the person to whom this happened.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this account of his.

The other evening I was working on a heat pump and the resident there was not in very good health.  After I left he was taken to Lake Cumberland Regional Medical Center having seizures and was kept there for about two days.  Then LCRMC discharged him and because there was no one there to take him home (where there was no heat) they were kind enough to send him home in a cab.  He got out of the car and fell in the yard and could not get up.  The cabbie was nice enough to get him up and put him on the porch and some relatives who lived nearby came and took him home with them.  When I saw him yesterday they said he was just beginning to take solid food.  Who on earth would dump a person with seizures in the yard with no one at home?  Question answered.

It is difficult for me to imagine that a hospital would treat a person like this but if you can't pay the bill or if you can't pay enough they have no use for you and only want to get you out to make room for paying customers.

One hospital I heard of in Eastern Kentucky gave notice they are not going to take patients through Emergency unless it is a true emergency.  To them a real emergency is something life threatening.  The next nearest hospital is 30 miles away.  Now, this is the way emergency rooms should be used but many are aware that the ER is the primary care facility for many.  For this one, no longer.

The detractors of the ACA claim that no one goes without care.  To this I say, "really."  Have you kept your head under a tub or what?  At last millions are actually going to have access to a primary care physician and will not have to rely on the ER for minor ailments.  Everyone should remember that a minor ailment is only minor as long as it is happening to someone else.

And you're ticked off because your insurance company no longer wants to provide you with the policy you have.  Try a mile in this guy's shoes.

Are We the Patsy?

Self-Destructive Disparity

Let's talk about Israel for a minute. Recent news is that a famous movie director has been responsible for procuring the materials that were necessary for Israel to successfully build a nuclear weapon. This is the same thing that we are all up in arms over Iran doing. Both are from the same part of the world but Israel is never castigated for its nuclear arsenal (which it refutes) while Iran is driven to economic disaster while it attempts to develop nuclear energy for (it says) peaceful purposes. I have to tell you that I don't believe Israel when it says it does not have nuclear weapons and I don't believe that Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. That really doesn't bear on my point. My point is the great disparity in the way we treat the two countries that, for some reason, people find hard to discern.

I wonder what it is that requires the United States to support Israel in the way that we do. Our support for that country is such that it often seems that Israel is the only country in the world that is able to write our foreign policy. It is widely recognized that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the root source of a large percentage of our difficulty with entities in the Middle East. If the United States could influence Israel to come to some sort of arrangement with the Palestinians most of our problems would disappear. When that happens we would be able to promulgate a foreign policy that would be driven by the needs of our country and one that would be more equitable in its treatment of the rest of the world. It would relieve us of many of our military assignations and allow us to focus on more peaceful pursuits and economic redevelopment. It would also strengthen our voice when we hold ourselves up as an example of democracy in action.

Israel is in a dangerous location. The circumstances that led to the creation of the Israeli nation out of what was Palestinian territory could hardly have been expected to foster amity between the two populations. But then Israel set out upon several wars of expansion which seem to be a part of the goal of expanding Israel all the way to the Jordan River. Many believe that since God gave this land to Israel some 3000 years ago that they are justified in seeking to reclaim it and we are justified in helping. That is a precept that is set in stone for some and therefore not open to debate. Not everyone feels that way and we can argue the theology of that at some other time. Suffice it to be said that Israel has faced an existential threat ever since its current incarnation and still does. There are no shortage of foes who have tried to extinguish Israel from the map and some that still do. It is right that the United States consider Israel as a strategic ally and cover it with our mantle of protection. On the other hand we should be able to expect Israel to do some things that would make it a little easier for us but Israel has hearts of stone when it comes to the needs of the United States. Israel wisely allows for dual citizenship which allows people to be citizens of that country while at the same time being citizens of another. That allows those in other countries to be influential in matters that benefit Israel and the American Israeli Political Action Committee is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. For instance, on the occasion of the negotiated loosening of sanctions on Iran and the vociferous complaints from Israel the Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, goes on record as being opposed. Senator Schumer is on almost every issue a firm supporter of the administration but New York has a large Jewish population.

It is without doubt in the interests of the United States to avoid becoming entangled in another war in the Middle East. Our previous ill conceived adventures have cost us trillions in treasure and many thousands of deaths both of our own and others. No, we would prefer that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, most of us earnestly desire that no one had such weapons but the United States, Israel, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India all have such weapons and the fear of them has kept us from using them. The assured destruction that would follow largely make them a weapon of self destruction. We could probably expect the same to apply to Iran. While they may seem incomprehensible to us they are not insane. Indications are that they would really prefer larger integration into western society. We would do much better by adopting the method used with China which was active engagement. Mold that society through the use of our economic strengths.

Iran has proven astonishingly resourceful in developing its nuclear program in the face of adversity and it is unlikely we can prevent them from developing nuclear energy to whatever level they choose. Short of a devastating war that is and that would likely do us in too. There are those who would be ecstatic to see the United States develop into a military state on a constant war footing which is about where we are now. We desperately need to turn from that path and focus our energy and talents to efforts that would benefit the American people and the rest of the world. Peace in the Middle East is the key. Some will say that it is impossible since they have already been fighting for thousands of years. My answer is that almost everyone desires peace. It is nations that desire war.

My take is that Israel should be more agreeable considering our sacrifices for that nation. Those countries in that area (Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain and some others) want to manipulate the United States into providing military might while they feast off our dollars. It's a good deal if you can get it.