Should “police use of deadly force laws” need to be amended or just be legally enforced?

The continued and mounting incidents of a few high profile homicides involving non-White victims by White police officers has led to an ever-increasing chorus of calls to reform the criminal justice system. In WA State the shooting deaths of Native-American woodcarver John T. Williams and African-American Che Taylor has prompted social justice activists as well as concerned citizens trying to get the required 200,000 signatures for I-873 to be on the November ballot. This measure would amend the clause in RCW 9A.16.040 which pertains to the use of deadly force by police or any other such representative as authorized by the court. Specifically, the provision is to make police officers more accountable for any action resulting from discharging a firearm which results in the loss of life of another person [criminal suspect]. Proponents of I-873 want to remove the seven words which are: “without malice and with a good faith belief. . .  [RCW 9A.16.040/ Section 3].” The thing is, though, this so called “police shield” statute is not unenforceable as it is written, and it can stand judicial enforcement without the need for revision through the ballot process or the legislature.

Chapter 29 of the Substitute Senate Bill No. 4465, filed in the Office of the Secretary of State (April 2, 1986), relating to [the use of] deadly force; amending RCW 9A.16.010 and RCW 9A.16.040- creating a new section, is as follows:                         

DEADLY FORCE

9A.16.010                                                       Section 1

(1) “Necessary” means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of [deadly] force appeared to exist, and that the amount of [deadly] force used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful purpose intended.

(2) “Deadly force” means the intentional application of [deadly] force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death [chokeholds??] or serious physical injury.

9A.16.040                                                       Section 2

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is “justified” in the following causes:

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1) (c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of a crime, the police officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect(s) if not apprehended:

• poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer, or
• poses a threat of serious physical harm to others

Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace (police) officers as “a threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens the police officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction of serious bodily harm.

Under these circumstances [previously mentioned] deadly force may also be used [subjective determination??] if necessary, to prevent escape from the officer [i.e. Section 2 ii/iii], where if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such an act is “justifiable” pursuant to this section.

In order to get a clearer understanding of the most significant and crucial words in the statute, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary will be used as a reference.

Malice (syn) - Implies a deep-seated, often inexplicable [unreasonable/unjustifiable] desire to see (or cause) another to suffer [pain, injury, violence, or harm].

Desire (verb) - To cause pain, injury, or distress to another; (syn) - stresses the strength of feeling, often implying strong intention or aim (objective purpose).

Justifiable (adj)/justify (verb) b [1]; to show having sufficient legal reason [for an action??].

Reason (noun) 1 b; a rational ground or motive to act upon. c; a sufficient explanation or logical defense, esp.; something (as a principle of law) that supports a conclusion that explains a fact or a client’s action.

So, in those cases where a police officer uses deadly force resulting in the death of another person, the established standard as enumerated in this provision Substitute Senate Bill No. 4465 (Chapter 29) has precedent. To determine as a rule of law whether the action taken by a police officer is legally justified and lawful, certain prongs have to be satisfied, namely:

• Was the police officer attempting to arrest/apprehend [they were not free to leave] a person in the commission of a crime? And if so,
• Was there sufficient probable cause to believe that the person posed a serious threat to inflict serious physical harm to the police officer, or
• Was there probable cause that person committed a crime where serious physical harm was inflicted upon another [or was there an immediate/imminent threat of such]?
• Was the use of deadly force resulting in the death of another person sufficient and legally necessary because no reasonably effective alternative to the use of deadly force appeared to exist at the time, and that the amount of deadly force used was “reasonable” to effect the lawful resolution of the matter?

This article has provided concise information regarding the use of deadly force that the legislature has codified into the criminal law code for the state of Washington (RCW), and it is sufficient without revision or amending for any plaintiff that has standing to bring legal action for criminal prosecution against police who cause the death of someone unlawfully. The intent behind initiatives such as I-873 are certainly worth pursuing but the main thing is that instead of trying to create a new law the prosecution and courts should just enforce the law that’s already on the books instead of blindfolding justice.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
June 14, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Republicans want SCOTUS vacancy filled after Obama’s term ends

The Republican-controlled Senate must allow and even encourage president Obama to nominate someone to replace the late Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states . . . “that the President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for. . .” It would be a derelict of his duty and responsibility as president of the United States if Barack Obama does not name a successor to replace the vacancy on the nation’s highest court. Article VI (section c) states. . . The Senators and representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution. . . “In the latter part of section (b) of the same article it states that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, not either Houses of Congress or the Senate, in particular.

It is one thing to not confirm a presidential appointment by, in this case, the Senate Judiciary Committee but to threaten to do so just because is an abuse of power and not only that, but it dishonors the oath that every elected official has sworn to; of which this Constitution is the foundation of our Democracy does not recognize or give authority to do. The irony is that the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as a strict interpreter of the Constitution (strict constructionist/textualist) would have been agreement with the president exercising his authority under the Constitution, even if he didn’t agree with the judicial philosophy of the nominee. The Senate, by its very insistence that president Obama not put forth any person or that they would automatically block or fail to confirm anyone, dishonors the memory of one of the greatest jurists in the modern era as well as greatly tarnishes the name and respect due to highly esteemed members and august body of the United States Senate.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 24, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Why Hillary Clinton won’t be president

The history of America is rooted in the notion that you can be anything you want, as long as you play by the rules and compete fairly. This indomitable spirit, self-determination and grittiness had led to becoming one the greatest nations in modern history, and certainly it can be argued that the United States is the envy of the world. America likes to break the mold as far as social progress, and especially when it comes to its historical legacy. A nation that at one time subjected men of color to a lifetime of servitude has stepped forward out of the national Apartheid from generations  past to elect a Black man to be leader of this country; not once, but twice. Was this part of the reality leading to a dawning of the ‘Age of Aquarius’ and a post-racial America envisioned by MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech, or was it something far less substantial and enduring?

Before anyone ever heard of a two year junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama the country was run by George W. Bush, and needless to say it was as the old saying goes, “It was the best of times and the worst of times” and I would wager that an overwhelming majority of Americans would say that it was more of the latter. In fact, after 9/11, the Iraq War, Osama bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hurricane Katrina, the Patriot Act (Attorney John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez), Gitmo, FISA courts, Abu ghraib, and waterboarding, people have had enough. President Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union address, used the term “axis of evil” to describe the countries of Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea but some Americans considered his administration the “Evil Empire” that was run by the sith lord Dick “Darth” Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and other lesser officials from the dark side who siphoned off the ‘force’ (votes) from the electorate to achieve objectives that were not in the best interests of the American people.

The consequence of this invasion into our private lives as well as mounting threats to individual liberties, the road was paved for a rebel with a cause, one that people could believe in, a man who was not a warrior, a Jedi knight, or a fighter but rather a great orator, the “Chosen One” who came to give a message of “CHANGE” and hope we could believe in the midst of despair and apathy. In point-of-fact, the real reason that Barack Obama got elected as president in the first place is because of the acronym ABB (anyone but Bush). More importantly, he was essentially a sure bet to win the nomination because Oprah anointed him publicly as her president; much to the chagrin as well as surprise of her legions of White female supporters who wanted Hillary Clinton. So with this historical backdrop it is time to focus on the main topic, which is why Hillary won’t be president of the United States. Well, for one thing, her best chance was eight years ago when the country seemed to be leaning more in that direction; that was then, this is now. America is more politically Conservative and Republicans are under mounting pressure from more right-wing Tea Party members in Congress.

Also, Hillary Clinton suffers from, among other things, what NY Times syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd in her excellent Op-Ed pointed out regarding Jeb Bush, namely that voters don’t want a ‘trifecta’ political family dynasty occupying the Oval Office; the same rule applies for Hillary as the voters are thumbs down on establishment politicians or political dynasties, of which the Clintons are the Democratic Party’s standard bearers. Hillary Clinton mentioned during one of earlier debates that as president she would have some discussions with First Hubby Bill across the kitchen table but she would make her own decisions. It is rather doubtful that the experience, knowledge, and influence of a former president would not be a valuable asset in policy formation, and not only that, can anyone in their right mind picture Bill Clinton taking a passive role in running the government through his wife? Hillary Clinton has to prove to the doubters that she would not be continuing Bill Clinton’s third term, and since is such a polarizing figure, can she get any meaningful legislation passed into law against the intransience of a partisan Republican-controlled House and Senate?

Another big problem for Hillary Clinton is the perception of lacking honesty, integrity, and authenticity among the electorate. Hillary is a gifted politician and quite knowledgeable about the issues, but even with all of that, her track record as Senator and Secretary of State was unremarkable, and her tenure in both positions did not result in any significant accomplishments of note. On top of that there are still some concerns about her role in the embarrassing Benghazi fiasco, and in all due respects to Bernie Sanders, “what about those damn emails?” The FBI has reported that some Top Secret and classified emails were deleted on her private server, and not only that, why were about thirty-thousand or so that were destroyed or unaccounted for? That amount seems to me to be intentional and not mere random or occasional actions or normal practices. If this is a case of an unintentional oversight and essentially benign, then how can a president Hillary Clinton be trusted to handle matters in which a critical misstep could collapse financial markets, result in a government shutdown, or lead to a potential nuclear disaster? And Hillary Clinton’s usual core constituencies among African-Americans, Latinos, and liberal White women might not be enough to help her secure the presidency.

This last reason might be the simplest, and yet the most sexist and argumentative of all-she is not a White man. Forget Bernie Sanders; he is too old-looking. Here is the reality-the citizens took a chance and bet on a non-traditional candidate to run the country and it seems that many of them feel shortchanged. It is time for America to being led by someone who has the same face as the Founding Fathers, to get the country back on track, and that is for the White man to be in charge again. It is not racist to say this but political reality coming to terms with social reality, and to be honest, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio don’t stand a chance. If the country was experiencing economic growth and advancing in technological innovation, then things might be different, but with Whites becoming more ‘tribal’ living in less ethnically-diverse communities, America becoming less White and with sixty-five percent of them feeling that the United States is heading in the wrong direction, the only man left standing when the dust settles might be Donald Trump; and be careful what you wish for because you just might get it in spades.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
February 25, 2016
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Jesus gives a possible answer to the same-sex marriage question

 

The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marital unions has left a sour taste in the mouths of those opposed to it on moral and religious grounds. In fact, for many Evangelical Christians, traditional marriage advocates, as well as political and religious Conservatives, this new law is a bitter pill to swallow; but what would Jesus say? It appears that we might at last finally have a clue, and it has been hiding in plain sight after all. In the 19th chapter gospel of Matthew Jesus was asked a question regarding divorce by his religious antagonists, the Pharisees. In verse 4 Jesus said: “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator (God) made [them] male and female?” He continues with an explanation about the exceptions that allow for the marital bond to be broken, and the disciples say in verse 10: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, [then] it is better not to marry.” Jesus’ reply to them, found in verse 11, was: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only to those [for whom] it is given.”

Now, that should have been the end of the matter but curiously or inexplicably Jesus adds more, of which special notice should be given to the following statement found in verse 12: “For some are eunuchs because they are born that way from their mother’s womb; others because they were [have been] made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage for the kingdom of God’s sake [like celibate priests and nuns??]. Why did Jesus make this statement and include it here on the issue of issue of marriage, and more broadly, what does being a eunuch have to do with anything? According to Holman’s Bible Dictionary a ‘eunuch’ is a castrated male, or rather a male who does not have testes and/or male genitalia. The Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary expands the meaning of ‘castrate’ to include not only males, but females who have been deprived of their ovaries [and/or fallopian tubes??]. This condition could well affect or influence physical development, hormonal levels, and or gender identity which is opposite in orientation to the outward biological appearance. In the modern sense the person could be born into the wrong body. Coincidentally, In the book of Genesis (Cp. 37: 36; 39: 1, 6b-7) where the Patriarch Joseph becomes a servant of Potiphar, the Pharaoh’s “officer” and captain of the bodyguard, the Hebrew word for officer is the word s’ris/saris (“eunuch”) and it is the same word used by Jesus. This could very well explain the behavior of Potiphar’s wife in wanting Joseph to have sexual relations with her because her husband was incapable of performing the act. Be that as it may, the key point here is, I think, one of attitude where Jesus says, “The one who can accept this should accept it.” Can anything else more be said about the issue or could it be plainer than this?

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 27, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Displaying the Confederate flag is not the real issue

I might be one of the few Black Americans in America not overly agitated or outraged with seeing the Confederate flag; whether worn as a tee-shirt, hanging from a flagpole, or displayed as a decal on a car. As a side note, I confess to watching every episode of “The Dukes of Hazzard” with actors John Schneider and Tom Wopat driving the General Lee 1969 Dodge Charger. And who can forget the little southern darling Catherine Bach wearing those ‘daisy dukes’ shorts? It was as much fun as Burt Reynolds and Sally Field outwit and outdrive Sheriff Buford T. Justice (actor Jackie Gleason) in the 1970’s Pontiac Trans Am. I digress for the sake of nostalgia, now back to the point at hand. I am wearied to the depth of my soul from hearing the mounting calls for banning displaying the Confederate flag, especially when there is an incident involving racial violence, or more specifically, murder. The Confederate flag hoisted by General Robert E. Lee’s rebel army epitomized the brutality and inhumanity of human bondage known as ‘chattel’ slavery. The thing is, though, slavery wasn’t just a southern problem, but in the broader context it was an American problem- the South was just the favorite poster child of this despicable practice that was legally sanctioned. If one would read some of the slave narratives and other historical documents, the North wasn’t necessarily so hospitable and accommodating to the runaway slaves or Freedmen that came into their territories, either.

 

In one of my college classes I learned that the South unanimously outlawed slavery [not just the importation of new slaves], and the resolution passed eight times in the U.S. House of Representatives before being defeated in the U.S. Senate every time the matter came up. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Texas v Johnson that the U.S. flag is protected speech under the First Amendment, and I would think that it includes the Old Confederate flag as well. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion is insightful on this point, in which he writes that a flag represents a symbol with a determinate range of meanings- if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that the Government {State or Federal] may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society [or certain segments with it] finds the idea itself oppressive [morally objectionable], or disgraceful. To me this is the heart of the matter, even if I would like it to be otherwise. Actually, I am not concerned about the flag whatsoever because it means different things to different people. Not displaying the flag will not erase or eradicate this nation’s shameful legacy of slavery, change people’s hearts, or amend policies and practices that have disenfranchised people of color for centuries. I for one, want to see the Confederate flag displayed as a reminder of America’s shame that both sides of the Mason/Dixon line that each region is equally culpable in their exploitation of the blood, sweat, tears, and much more, of Black people, especially those from Africa. Let it be as an enduring symbol to the wealth and prosperity that have made America one of the greatest nations on earth, economically speaking, at the expense of cheap, slave labor.

 

A flag cannot hurt me but a group of White men wearing a white pointed hood, a white robe with the insignia of a cross on the front can; or a White male police officer with a badge on his chest and a gun on his hip can deprive me of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness whether I am approaching him from the front or running away with my back to him. It doesn’t matter which scenario it is because the outcome is almost nearly the same; the perpetrator of such a crime almost always gets away with it. The Federal Hate Crimes statute is almost a joke because the bar is set so high that it is very unlikely to get a conviction. I do not know why Prosecutors at the local level don’t just seek indictments for First degree Manslaughter, or if going the Federal Appeals Court route on Constitutional grounds, why not seek redress of grievances based on violation of the Fifth Amendment (part b) by being deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without Due Process? Anyway, I sort of got into some of my Law classes in college mindset so I want to tell all those ‘Dixiecrats’ to embrace your history, tradition, culture, and your personal truth, and be proud of it; that is, if you can with a clear conscience. I can at least have some semblance of respect for people who are out in the open about where they sit on the racial fence, at least,  than those paternalistic White liberal apologists who believe that opposing them is some sort of moral high ground, or one more step taken in the long march toward justice and equality-really? As a final thought, I am wondering if there are any leftover Union flags that General Ulysses S. Grant’s troops carried into battle against the Rebs, maybe they could be flown over the capitols in the Blue states.

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 20, 2015

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

 

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage not the end of the debate

The Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2015 affirming marriage equality for same-sex couples as guaranteed under the “Due Process” of the Fourteenth Amendment. Should have settled the matter, but did it? One could argue for all practical reasons that the 5-4 split decision has legalized same-sex union in all fifty states, and is a slam dunk for all gay/lesbian couples as well as their supporters. However, I think that there are other sociological, anthropological, psychological, historical, cultural and religious concerns that are beyond the Court’s authority to remedy a redress of grievances. For one thing, what becomes of marriage- or rather should it be redefined as a ‘genderless’ institution, and by what right or authority should it be thus rendered? Does or will this change the meaning of what constitutes a family? Let’s start our search into the dim past and work our way to the present, letting Nature be our guide.

In all or nearly all biological forms, especially in the Animal Kingdom, there are complementary pairings of opposites (male/female). The Plant Kingdom may be somewhat different because of ‘parthenogenesis’ as well as the cell divisions of certain organisms without a skeletal system. The process of reproduction allows for the continuity of the species and is an evolutionary survival mechanism. Humans are at the highest stage of brain development and organizing complex social structures (ants and bees might challenge the last point, though). Anyway, humans progressed from primitive hunter-gather nomads to more advanced pastoralists, and then agriculturalists, who banded together as clans, tribes, building villages, towns, city-states, kingdoms and empires. Resource allocation and labor became essential among groups who now had interests as members of the same family apart from and separate of the communal group. The continuity of the family as far as inheritance and property rights became of paramount importance and procreation, whether in marriage or not, became essential and this could only occur between a male and female. Of course not all women can have children as some were infertile (“barren”) and there were high levels of infant mortality. Some women had miscarriages, stillborn babies, and some men could not impregnate women because of some type of dysfunction (no Urologist back in those earliest of days).

So, where am I going with this? I am simply stating that it is consistent in Nature, with very little variation, if any significant measurable level,  that there is a mutual attraction or affinity between opposites which complement each other and leads to the species continuing to  replenish, grow, and exist. The entire human historical records has shown evidence of people who experienced same-sex relationships and gender classifications that were not strictly limited to binary constructs but were more diverse to include masculine females, feminine males, and even those who were  referred to as having “two-spirits” (Hermaphrodite??). There were doubtless some kind of ceremony of joining between two persons of the same gender identity (biology notwithstanding) in a lifelong commitment of love and mutual devotion. Now, let’s rejoin the discussion or debate in the present time. I think one of the reasons that make same-sex marriage or even the broader subject of “gay rights” is the religious dimension. All the biblical texts (ten or so), at least in the Christian bible, that seem to identify and condemn homosexuality, some of the best theologians and scholars are split on the interpretation of these passages as pertaining to the experiences, especially regarding marital unions, as the such are experienced in modern times.

It is rather dubious that the term translated “sodomite” or individuals engaged in temple prostitution to worship a pagan god (deity) with a temple pries/priestess of the same gender of the petitioner or supplicant, specifically refer to same-sex marital unions nowadays. The song by Lady Gaga “Born this Way” has some relevance in this matter, and a one-size-fits-all approach does not work as it is insulting, mean-spirited, and ignorant. Studies in Sex and Gender Sociology reveal that roughly 1%-2% of all births in America are sexually indeterminate- the non-clinical meaning is that the person is IN THE WRONG BODY. The population in this country is around 330 million people, so that amounts to about 3.3 to 6.6 million persons went through some kind of gender assignment intervention when they were born, or that certainly they will have to make some decision about their gender identity because of the way their body developed or will in the future, because such is not consistent with their biological appearance. Anyway, the best approach is that of compassion and understanding, not condemnation and ridicule.

 

It is not a choice and I certainly cannot process how a male can be romantically attracted to and fall in love with another male, and the same goes for a female- as well as seeing gay couples engage in PDA’s (Public Displays of Affection), but that’s my problem to deal with, not theirs. Having said all of this and to wrap up this article, this last part is probably the thorniest and most difficult to write but I would not be honest with myself and the reader if I did not include it- so here goes. I believe that marriage is ‘gendered’ and a judicial edict by the nation’s highest Judiciary in interpreting the Constitution cannot rewrite history, tradition, and sociocultural experience. When one thinks of marriage, it is the union of two persons (male and female) as bride and groom to become husband and wife. In a more practical sense the two become Mr. and Mrs., and as much as it is difficult for me to say this, two women and two men cannot ever have this experience; no matter how passionately or powerfully they want to. In a family structure where there are children, is having to mommies or two daddies as parents the SAME as having a mom and a dad?

This last part is even more sensitive because of the controversy surrounding gay adoption. Since this is a rather new and fairly recent social experience it will be interesting to see what social scientists and mental health experts have to say in about twenty years or so because I am not so sure that it will be the same as expert opinions deemed as harmless for the present time. The human brain doesn’t fully develop until around age twenty four and that don’t just mean intellectual faculties, but emotional and mental as well. I am not sounding the alarm about the negative influence on the physiological development of a child raised in a same-sex family or the Gay Rights Movement as a whole on American society and just because a majority approves a particular practice there is still no way to predict the future consequences.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 11, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Today's America is not the same one the Founding Fathers intended or would have supported

In the Friday, July 3, 2015 edition of the Tacoma Weekly, Section A, was an editorial viewpoint entitled, “Is this the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned”? After taking several political science classes in college, and one especially that was an in depth study of the Constitution, I think that I can answer the question in an academically competent manner. The system of governance that we experience in America today is radically different than the one envisioned by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and other Continental delegates. The draft of the Declaration of Independence echo with the unforgettable, awe-inspiring, and unimpeachable words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . . “There is a lot in that one line so let me try to unpack it. Did “ALL MEN” include indigenous First Nations men or those men brought from Africa to the distant shores of America with iron chains shackled around their necks, wrists, and ankles?

In reading the Constitution it seems that African slaves, or those subjected to servitude was of special concern to these great men, and for proof look at the following: Article 1, Section 2b (“Three-fifths Clause”); Article 1, Section 9a (“1808 Clause”) along with Article 5b; and Article 4, Section 2b (“Fugitive Slave Clause). The Thirteenth Amendment which freed the slaves was perhaps the most insidious, twisted, perverse and tricky piece of legislation ever passed into law. Most readers do not pay attention to the part that says, “. . .  except for [any] crime where the party shall have been duly convicted.” I have no doubt that ex-slaveholders and other White citizens found creative ways to exploit the legal weakness of this clause, and re-enslaved those who have formerly been heretofore freed. It must also be noted that many, if not most of the signees of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were slaveholders.

The last part of the Op-Ed pens exactly the words from the Declaration of Independence [as the entire article contains], but I want to focus on the words: “A new nation that would be of the People, by the People, and for the People. . .” but just who are these people under consideration that the Framers had in mind, because it wasn’t ‘All’ people?  These gentlemen did not even include [White] women in their deliberations, and in fact they were only granted the right to vote [“women’s suffrage”] in 1920; ironically fifty years after slaves were given the right to vote after passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. So, to reiterate, the Founding fathers DID NOT conceive of an America where  someone like Barack Obama would ever be elected president of the United States.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Our buying impulses may be more biological than due to slick advertising

Josh Sanburn wrote an interesting article called “The joy of less” in the March 23, 2015 issue of TIME magazine. It was an eye-opener got me thinking about why people like to accumulate and hold onto things. Elinor Ochs, Anthropology professor at UCLA sees a relationship between feeling anxious and buying or acquiring a lot of stuff. Stephanie Preston, Psychology professor at the University of Michigan, considers the human need to accumulate things as our “Inner Squirrel.” She takes a sort of anthropological or evolutionary approach by saying that early humans gathered just enough things [nuts] to meet basic survival needs and a place to keep them secure [dry/fresh]. The development of tools was a game changer because items were no longer disposable, or had to be consumed right away, but could be taken along and reused later. Preston goes on to say human beings have a need to be validated, appreciated, acknowledged and expect to be supported by others. When this does not happen then anxiety sets in and as people feel socially rejected or undervalued, they become selfish and start to get their hands on as many things as possible; as a remedy for the emptiness or space that is not filled up in their lives. She concludes by mentioning that anxiety is associated with uncertainty, a sign that there might be a scarcity of resources and it is time to start stockpiling (“hoarding”) stuff.

Randy Frost, Psychology professor at Smith College sees it this way: “Objects have meaning about your past that you are still connected to, cherish, and don’t want to let go of.” These possessions evoke real and powerful [pleasant] memories of a certain time that has special meaning and significance. It is a way to forestall, transcend, and pretend that we are able to struggle against and prolong the inevitable- that we are finite and that we are going to end. About 1 in 6 Americans suffer from anxiety disorders, and shopping is seen as one way to alleviate or manage it. The experience has the tendency to release “dopamine” [a neurotransmitter that helps control the brain's reward and pleasure centers] into the brain, giving a sense of euphoria. It is a sensation that those who are susceptible want to relive it over and over again, like a drug habit. All is not lost however because there are some new generation consumers called disaccumualists (“minimalists”), who have gotten rid of their excess stuff and only keep and use the essential things. Thomas Gilovich, Psychology professor at Cornell University sees this change as a sort of ‘existential’ awakening [epiphany], and his research has found that it is life’s experiences, not the accumulation of things, that brings true feelings of joy and happiness. It is our fondest memories of those experiences that stick with us in the end because we get used to and/or discard things; but memories last forever.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

A layman’s account on the cause of Global Warming

Before the reader dismisses this article as just another one of the many similar authored writings on the subject, I ask you to suspend judgment and hear me out; and try to keep an open mind. I do not claim to be an expert and this opinion is just for information purposes only [doesn’t this sound familiar??]. If after reading my presentation of some personal reflections you are still not convinced of my assertions, then I thank you for your time, and by all means hit the ‘delete’ key. Now, after my disclaimer it is time to start this journey and dive right in. I think there is a difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. As I see it, Climate Change has more to do with periodic fluctuations in temperature that the planet undergoes, or has experienced since the earliest prehistoric times when the glaciers melted. Afterwards, the process reversed when the planet got cooler and the Ice Age resumed. This dance of nature has been going on for millennia but Global Warming is something different altogether and unprecedented in the history of planet Earth.

 

What I am talking about is that today there is a gradual and constant worldwide temperature rise, even taking into account temperature inversions and fluctuations here and there over the past several centuries, and the only rational conclusion is that it is caused our activities since the Industrial Revolution at the very least. The evidence is based on taking samples of ice cores and tree rings using scientific methods to determine the temperature rate of increase as well as the average temperature now as compared to thousands of years ago. Even if a panel of distinguished scientists, climatologists, and environmentalists did not agree on this phenomenon, the cause(s) should be self-evident; which I will introduce now. The first cause is people (we, us) or to be more specific, a planetary population of over nine billion humans; not accounting for all the members of the animal kingdom. All biologic forms as well as their waste by-products contribute to the overall heat index. The average human radiates a body temperature of roughly 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and if you don’t think that’s warm try riding as a passenger on a crowded bus without air conditioning.

 

The second cause is the overuse of fossil fuels, namely the carbon monoxide (CO) pollution of gasoline-burning engines from automobile exhaust, but that might be an oversimplification. It would be more accurate to say that it is hydrocarbons from Petrochemical refining, fractionation, and manufacturing processes that make billions of metric tons of nearly indestructible plastic or related components that do not break down in the environment. It requires a lot of energy to manufacture these products but these products also contribute to the overall planetary heat matrix. Besides, remember Einstein’s famous equation: E=MC² (basically, energy is matter and matter is energy; energy must also have something to do with generating heat when it is expended). This presents a nice segue into the Third cause, which is that very piece of equipment, machinery, or thing (including us) consists of matter, and matter is just a form of congealed energy. I know this is getting a bit too esoteric but just hang with me a little bit longer. Energy is released when something is made and not only that but what device do you know that doesn’t get warm when you use it long enough? Every system is powered by some energy source and as such, heat is produced in the operation of it; maybe unless it is some kind of cold fusion process in a nuclear reactor, I guess.

 

A fourth cause is all this stuff that we accumulate, billions if not trillions of metric tons of heat-producing inorganic disposable waste, junk, demolished scrap material from buildings, roads, bridges, discarded metal containers, rusting and broken machinery, equipment, vehicles, and you name it. These objects overflow landfills and litter the bottom of oceans and collectively with everything else, warm the planet. This fifth and last cause is something that I learned in elementary school about the primary colors- white reflects heat and the other colors absorb heat. How many buildings have their rooftops painted in a coat of energy-efficient, heat-reflecting white primer? Even the beautiful clothes we wear with all the wonderful color combinations and patterns absorb heat. There are only two aspects to this issue- either we use or make things that reduce the amount of heat produced globally or we add to it. As a final point I find it quite amusing when politicians among the Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, Independents, skeptical scientists, and even a few Evangelical preachers weigh in on the who is right side of the debate-but all they do is just add more hot air from all their talking. President Obama and members of Congress just don’t get it-Green Energy initiatives to support Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal or nuclear technologies will not work because they would have to replace all the existing old and least energy-efficient industries already in place. The Cap-n-Trade policy doesn’t work because it just allows one polluter to buy credits from another company that doesn’t pollute as much, thus avoiding the cost of upgrading to more energy-efficient systems; or the company might just pay the fine for polluting because it might be less expensive in the long run anyway. Besides all that, the ideal of zero emissions isn’t practical for the simple reason that it means no output, and that translates into no job; because that is the only way to not pollute at all is to not produce anything. So, in a nutshell, Global Warming is here to stay and unless scientists discover a new form of matter where the energy source does not emit heat when it is used to power our needs, then I am afraid we have very few or greatly limited options available to us at this point. You may hit ‘delete’ now.

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 6, 2015

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Same-sex marriage is now legal in the United States

The nation’s highest Court issued its much anticipated ruling which made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. In a 5-4 split decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor to reach this landmark decision. Justice Thomas angrily took issue with Justice Kennedy’s emphasis on the word “dignity” in writing the majority opinion. He goes on to say that slaves didn’t lose their dignity and those placed in internment camps didn’t lose their dignity because the government cannot bestow or take it away-huh? Justice Thomas’ line of reasoning is not based on any legal or constitutional basis, and it is insensitive, incoherent, irrational and utter nonsense. He misses the point entirely because when someone is deprived of a fundamental right that others enjoy, such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or when their self-worth is diminished or devalued, how can it not be said that the person is not robbed of their dignity? There is a level of harm done, and as such the person has the right and the government has the obligation to make the plaintiff whole.

The verdict turned on applying the “Due Process” of the 14th Amendment, not to mention Article 4, Section 1a of the Constitution (the right of Contract). The state, in arguing against same-sex marriage could not put forth a compelling reason, at least from a constitutional standpoint, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The state’s contention that it was in the best interest of children to be reared in a heterosexual [traditional] family environment was not deemed a compelling enough reason to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage among some of the states. Chief Justice Roberts expressed his displeasure by uncharacteristically lambasting his colleagues on the bench by referring to them as lawyers who imposed their own personal views on marriage as a matter of Constitutional law. He continues in a judicial tirade by saying, ‘I find the majority position indefensible as a matter of law. It sounds more to me like sour grapes, a tyranny of the majority if you are on the losing side. In a somewhat taunting tone Justice Roberts told the victors, “Celebrate today’s decision-celebrate the achievement of a desired goal-celebrate the expression of a commitment to a partner-celebrate the availability of new benefits; but do not celebrate the Constitution. Justice Kennedy however, sees it differently-to him, “Petitioners seek ‘equal dignity’ in the eyes of the law and the Constitution grants them that right.”

Of course in any legal decision there are winners and losers, and some of the big winners are same-sex couples and their supporters. Additionally, according to the latest Gallup and other opinion polls, roughly 60% of Americans support same-sex unions. President Obama finally came on aboard regarding this issue over the last few years and is on the right side of history, so it seems. Now for the biggest losers, and I am not talking about weight loss. The list includes: the Tea Party and GOP, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Michael Medved, Kirk Cameron, Arianna Huffington, and last but not least, Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor, Baptist preacher and GOP presidential candidate, after this crushing defeat tried to rally the Conservative, mostly White Evangelical Christian base by channeling the Founding Framers refusal to acquiesce to the imperial British monarchy-he told supporters, “We must not retreat but instead we must resist the imposition of judicial tyranny.” I bet the Red States are really seeing ‘red’ now. This ruling by the Supreme Court should not have come as a surprise because of earlier court cases like Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas, which superseded Bowers v Hardwick.

Since religion seems to play a part in politics, I want to close with a little pun or parody for those who are stuck in the muck and mire of the fire and brimstone judgmental Old Time Religion of the past. Using the example of “Little Red Riding Hood”- the big, bad, evangelical wolf (preacher) says, “I will huff and I will puff (condemn) and I will blow your [presumably immoral, liberal, abominable, secular, humanist, and demonic] same-sex union house down. The theological rains came down, the fiery winds of sermons came and blew against the house, but it did not fall because it was built on a [Constitutional] rock (excerpted from Matthew 7: 24-25 . . . emphasis mine).

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 2, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

America does not have a race problem?

William Johnson wrote an interesting article in the Tacoma Weekly newspaper on June 26, 2015 in Section A page 8, under the heading RACE IN AMERICA: LET’S TALK ABOUT JOBS. According to the writer, the United States does not have a race problem and race is the ugly collateral of an economic problem. Mr. Johnson starts off by mentioning slavery briefly as more of an economic engine but little else. The thing is, though, slavery had everything to do with “race” and slavery was just the institutionalization of human bondage and cheap labor. Before the Africans were subjected to the cruelty of slavery they had to be declassified or reclassified as sub human, closely linked to the family of primates, who although having human features and social relationships, were not truly human in the same way a White person was. This attitude was ingrained into the mentality of White society by so-called scientific or taxonomic classification systems as well as religion. Normally science and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum but when it came to the African person; both disciplines were apparently on the same page in this matter.

Another point included in the article was “White Privilege” where there is an imagined dialogue with the Black community where the writer asks, “Do you people believe that society just [merely] hands everything to White people because of their color?” The short answer is, “No we do not.” I found that mock query to be the most insulting and infuriating part of the entire article, and betray a kind of intellectual dishonesty because I doubt that any Black person with an ounce of common sense believes such nonsense- let alone have ever thought it, or said it and meant it in any serious way. Following that point Mr. Johnson includes the rejoinder about Blacks who decry  the discrimination they face in housing, bank loans, employers, landlords, public accommodations, etc. “except” when under-qualified minorities are hired over more qualified Whites due to government-sponsored affirmative action initiatives [quotas, set asides,  or preferential treatment programs]. What about the many White females who benefitted from such programs to gain employment in non-traditional male-dominated industries/occupations as well as allowing them to attend college? Not only that, but hardly anyone [White] wants to acknowledge the numbers of Blacks who were denied jobs or promotions when they were just as qualified, if not even more so than their White counterparts. Since in his thinking, ‘affirmative action’ means “incompetence” then it must apply to every White person who receives government assistance, because they did not have the ability or the resources to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Here is the real ‘zinger’ in the article when Mr. Johnson mentions his minority friends, many of them military veterans; a “Band of Brothers” who despite their color, were equal in status because of the job-[I wonder does he really believe that]. It gets deeper because, drumroll please, they had the economic opportunity or ability to live and work in the same places and community. I guess the writer never heard of “redlining,” spatial housing segregation, restrictive covenants or the “6 percent RULE” where if more than a certain number of Blacks or racial minorities move into a White neighborhood FOR SALE signs spring up in front yards of homeowners as Whites move to another ‘Whitetopia.’ As a final thought, the only thing I am in agreement with is that American oligarchs have the working classes, especially those in the bottom 80% fighting each other [White and non-White] over the table scraps of limited resources, and who will work for the cheapest labor cost, and along with shrinking benefits.

So, to reiterate my earlier disdain, the notion that America doesn’t have a race problem but rather an economic or class-based one is ludicrous and ignores any rational experience with reality. As a last point, if America is post-racial or race neutral then why has Barack Obama, president of the United States been called the “N Word” not only in a few newspapers but by a couple members of Congress as well.

Does America have a race problem- as Sarah Palin used to say, “You betcha!”

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
June 26, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Do Black lives really matter?

Michael Brown- Eric Gardner- Oscar Grant- Tamir Rice- Akai Gurley- Freddie Gray; these names and others are etched as a memorial on the wall of shame in the corridors of America’s Criminal Justice System’s buildings. One might even call it “ INJUSTICE” or in the popular vernacular, “JUST-US” because it seems that African-Americans are on their own when it pertains to getting a proper legal response from continual impassioned pleas for a ‘redress of [our sore] grievances.’ Be that as it may, the late rapper Tupac Shakur would remind us to pour out a little liquor for our dead homies- R.I.P. rest in peace, you’re dead; deceased. With that being said, now it’s time to get real and call these deaths what they really are- acts of “terrorism.” This word has entered the national dialogue since 9/11 and continues to be favored among the political Right, quite a few on the Left, and religious Conservatives when it applies to Muslim extremists, jihadists, radical Islam, ISIS, the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, but not applied to any American citizen unless it is Timothy McVee bombing the Federal building in Oklahoma City; or more recently the Tsarnaev brothers at the Boston Marathon.

What I am talking about here are the uncivil actions of a small number of police that although their sworn duty is to “Protect and Serve” and one has to wonder who they are trying to protect and in whose interests do they serve because it certainly isn’t for Black folk. Is this any worse than some of the members of the White Citizens Council or Ku Klux Klan when they targeted Black neighborhoods with the violence of fire bombings and murder after the Civil War ended? As KRS-1 asks, “While the white robes and hoods are in the laundry hamper or at the cleaners, who dry cleans these uniforms?” A short answer is they wear the blue police uniforms of LA, NY, Detroit, Ferguson, and Chicago, Philadelphia or Baltimore’s finest. As comedian Chris Rock said the most terrifying thing for a Black man is when a White man approaches him with a badge on his chest and a gun on his hip; even more so if the gun is drawn and nervously pointing at his body. Black men are dying at the hands of the P-O-L-I-C-E (Five-O) without apparently the constitutionally protected benefit of “Due Process.” Maybe this is the New World Order of policing depicted in the movie “Judge Dredd” where the officer is: Judge-Jury- and Executioner.

Getting back to the main idea from the title of this article, I must admit that when I see protest signs that read, “Black Lives Matter” it causes me to ask the question, “To Whom?” Clearly, Black lives don’t matter to some people in our society because the same value or worth is not placed on Black lives as it is for White people. This should not be too surprising considering this country’s legacy of slavery and these events are occasional reminders of the power relationship between slave master and slave. Perhaps just as insidious and intentional is the psychological as well as physiological change on the psyche of the Black man. I see it as the emasculation, marginalization and feminization of the Black male and one of the main reasons for the feeling of hopeless, impotence, and powerlessness. There is the seething rage that erupts in rioting, looting, and arson of property in the Black community because what else can someone do when they have no power. This also leads to dysfunctional relationships and a loss of identity and self. It means that the Black community incurs a stage of siege mentality and lives in a constant state of anxiety, fear, and uncertainty leading to depression and displaying various symptoms of mental illness. No wonder there is an almost epidemic rise in stress-related illnesses, neurochemical substances that produce imbalances in our nervous and immune systems, leading to diseases such as heart disease; which is the number one killer among Blacks- more than HIV/AIDS, cancer or diabetes. In a word, “Black Lives Are Disposable.”

Hopeful Future:

I think a reasonable direction to head in is to attack the problem indirectly. Instead of using “race” as the main issue as far as seeking legal remedy for mistreatment and disenfranchisement, why not expand it to the broader contextualization of the matter of “human rights” violations which draws in a larger international audience. As I have mentioned previously, black lives may not evoke the same sympathies but ‘human rights’ should matter to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, ethnicity, or religion. Instead of being reactive when someone is once again deprived of their right to the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as eloquently described in the Declaration of Independence, it is past the time to go on the offensive and be proactive. We cannot afford to sit back and wait for the hammer to fall again or in this case for the trigger to squeeze and another Black man’s body is seen outlined in chalk on the sidewalk.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
May 19, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Bill Cosby is apparently not Dr. Cliff Huxtable

Pardon me for the (‘ahem’) pun, “The proof is in the pudding” as Bill Cosby, the voice behind Jell-O and several other popular consumer product brands of the 1970’s, faces an increasing number of women who have come out from behind a decades-old curtain of shame and pain to accuse the celebrity comedian, entertainer, actor, moralist and Black “Father Knows Best” from the Baby Boomer Generation of being a serial rapist. In Mr. Cosby’s case, silence is not golden and statements by his attorney that he hasn’t been prosecuted or found guilty of these heinous accusations does not necessarily exonerate him of having done something criminal or improper of a sexual nature. Even Mr. Cosby issuing a brief statement like he refuses to dignify these [absurd] allegations by not answering them or telling people to do some fact-checking does not help his cause.  It’s like one of the classic oaters [Westerns] called “Shane” where the hero (Shane) played by Alan Ladd tells his protagonist, the gunslinger dressed in black (Jack Palance), “You’re a lowdown, yellow-bellied Yankee liar” to which his adversary (Palance) said, “Prove it!” So, isn’t this basically what Bill Cosby is saying, “Prove it?”

The ‘Coz’ knows that the statute of limitations has expired for the crime of rape and there was no forensic testing done forty years ago for fibers from clothing, or DNA samples collected from a rape kit after his accuser contacted the EMT or police and went to the hospital where an invasive exam could be performed to collect the evidence resulting from an exchange of bodily fluids or indication of vaginal penetration that would be used in a criminal proceeding. The only thing is that for women making such a charge means that their past sexual history could be introduced as evidence in court, whereas for the defendant [male] it is not required; and this is exactly what happened in the rape case against Kobe Bryant, so this is what keeps many female rape victims from not coming forward because they don’t want to go through such an ordeal and have their private and intimate sexual history exposed to the public                                                                                          

What is strange and weirder is that Bill Cosby used to have a comedy routine where he talks about drugging women and then having sex with them, but something like that could not have evoked much laughter from the audiences back then and it sure isn’t funny now. Come to think of it, was it life imitating art and these performances were just his way of bragging about or celebrating his criminal misdeeds and getting away with it right under peoples’ noses? As Arnold (Gary Coleman) from “Different Strokes” would say, “What you talking about Willis (Todd Bridges)”? Is it possible that the clean cut, respectable All-American dad, Dr. Cliff Huxtable was in fact a Gemini personality like Dr. Jekyll masquerading before the public, while at the same time keeping his Mr. Hyde inner psychopath or sociopath  nature from being discovered and exposed; until now? “Say it ain’t so” or is it so, really and truly? Bill Cosby is a role model and represented the  example of what a good dad could be and a responsible husband should be for legions of his fans; probably more Whites than Blacks because Blacks know better than that because it was unrealistic, at least the Dr. Huxtable portrayed on television. In fact the entire show was the White ideal that for all intents and purposes, very few educated, White upper middle-class families could live up to such high standards. Maybe there is an object lesson in all of this because after all, Hannah Montana is definitely not and was not Miley Cyrus, but at least in her case one can attribute her recent outrageous behavior to coming of age, growing up into early adulthood, and raging, post-adolescent age hormones.

As far as the African-American community is concerned there are so few moral authorities, especially among Black men and although comments that Bill Cosby has made about young Black males clothing, rap music, and other adverse stereotypical behaviors which delighted the ears of religious and political Conservatives, this fiasco may undue whatever credibility and respectability that he has left. I mean, this is way more serious than how many women Tiger Woods had sex with or indecent sexual behavior and innuendo by former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s female accusers, or even Anita’s Hill’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee at Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination hearing about his indulgence in reading or watching pornographic material and other sexually explicit and lewd descriptions of genitalia as well as other interests of a prurient nature. Pertaining to Mr. Cosby’s troubles, this is one skit that “SNL” will never perform, even if writers are chomping at the bit to use their creative imagination and genius to come up with a racially and gender provocative routine because this is not something that can be trivialized into a comedy format, and it would be professionally irresponsible as well as grossly insensitive to the female victims, of whom all of them can’t be lying, nor even to Bill Cosby because, until proven guilty he has to be given the benefit of the doubt; even if that doubt of innocence increases with each passing day.

In America there are at least two crimes that you cannot expect to apologize for and receive forgiveness: one of them is rape and the other is being a pedophile. So, while we may never know exactly what happened between these women and Bill Cosby, one thing is for sure, something did occur and the bigger question that seems to get lost in the debate is whether Camille will, like Hillary Rodham-Clinton, “Stand by her Man” because at this point, his career comeback and social as well as moral legacy just might be going up in flames.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 25, 2014
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

 

Republican control of Congress is mandate on Barack Obama's presidency

Super Tuesday’s mid-term elections might just have well been Blue Monday for president Obama, as Republicans gained control of the Senate after election results were finally tabulated. Candidate Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 as an agent of “Change” and the irony is, he accomplished that very thing; but not quite the way he expected. In president Obama’s first term, Democrats lost the majority leadership in the House of Representatives, which had been that way since the Clinton administration. After last night, the GOP gained six seats in the Senate, which had formerly been held by Democrats. This is a resounding defeat and repudiation of president Obama’s leadership and policies. Since Harry Reid will no longer be Senate Majority Leader, many of the bills signed into law by president Obama and those issued by Executive Order will probably be declared invalid and overturned; principal among them all is the controversial Affordable Care Act (ACA), or as it is derisively known as, “ObamaCare.”


This power shift in the nation’s capital will have implications for the state of Washington in particular, because Sen. Patty Murray would no longer head the Budget Committee and Sen. Maria Cantwell would have to step down as the Chair over the Small Business and Entrepreneurism Committee. However, the Republicans shouldn’t celebrate too soon because they still have to tackle the daunting issues of immigration reform, a sluggish economy, the budget, social security, the environment, global climate change, national security, and foreign relations; to name a few. For president Obama, will he erect a political wall around himself of Executive Orders and veto power, or instead, give in a little bit and make concessions by working with Republicans to get some meaningful legislation passed into law before he leaves office? Another interested spectator in the electoral outcome is none other than Hillary Clinton, of which, the results are undoubtedly the final nail in the coffin for her plans to run for president. It is unlikely that Hillary Clinton wants to be president with both Houses of Congress under Republican control. After last night’s results, not only is Barack Obama truly a “lame duck” president, but you can stick a fork in him and turn him over because for all intents and purposes “HE IS DONE.” President Obama likes to say, “The buck stops with me”-well, indeed it does.



Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
November 5, 2014
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Some thoughts on Marriage from someone who’s been there

This article is not a primer or guidebook on marriage, so if the reader is seeking marriage advice might I suggest Dear Abby, a member of the clergy, or perhaps Dr. Phil McGraw. Indeed, there are many sources to choose from on the subject and I am sure that close friends or relatives are only too willing and eager in most cases in offering their two cents; and “For Free” on top of that. What I am sharing is an unsolicited perspective based on what I know and have observed, and I certainly do not claim to be an expert because I don’t claim ownership to the answer of marital happiness or success; but I can give my opinion on some aspects of the experience. Let me start off by saying that I think an individual should not marry until later in life. Of course someone will mention their parents or good friends who married in their teens to a childhood sweetheart and are happily celebrating a 50th wedding anniversary, or have renewed their vows as senior citizens, and all that. Yes, there are many couples who have done such a thing and I do not mean any disrespect to the marital bond, love and commitment that have kept them together these many years, and I am sure they do not see themselves as the exceptions to the rule but rather just an average couple who found their soul mate, fell in love and got married. Even more interesting than that are the people who are totally opposite from the other, and yet in spite of these differences they are very happily married and wouldn’t have it any other way.

I wish that all marriages were like these but unfortunately such is not the case. There are of course socioeconomic factors at play that affect marital relationships, and the one thing that I have pondered about is that social science reveals the human brain is not fully developed until around the age of 24; so what does this have to do with marital longevity when millions of people marry young and stay that way until severe physical/mental disability or the death of one spouse end the marriage? I think when one is attracted to another person in many cases it is based on physical/sexual attraction and saying you are in love is a convenient culturally acceptable gift wrapping meant to satisfy certain social expectations reinforced by the established religious institution of holy matrimony as well as civil/moral authorities and through cultural/ethnic religious traditions. I mean, how many betrothed or engaged couples would not say they are getting married because they “love” the other person as opposed to saying they are taking the person off the market, or honestly admit to the sexual attraction first and foremost?  Is it possible that someone could be in love with the idea of being in “LOVE” or in love with the idea of being “MARRIED” because of the societal value placed on the experience and influence of the Christian Church that condemns illicit [outside of marriage] physical contact of a sexual nature?

Marriage is serious business involving a lifelong commitment that many younger people and quite a few older ones might not be able to fulfill, despite trying their best. The older teenager or early twenties person has just barely been emancipated from under the authority of a parent or legal guardian, and yet think he/she is able to take on the responsibility of marriage and raising a family with another person for the rest of their natural life, that is quite a leap of faith. Let’s face it, most of us weren’t thinking about the future but only the present-what we look like or how we are now and not about 40 years from now when the gray hair or bald areas appear on our scalp; the body is not toned, firm, and athletic and there is a bulging stomach, sagging breasts, varicose veins in our legs; flatter hips, our chest is not the ripped six-pack abs and that low BMI (Body Mass Index) of around 10% is now30%  or higher and our triglycerides and cholesterol (HDL) levels are high and we have plaque clogging our arteries, and most of all, the sex that used to be what we wanted to engage in everyday is almost nonexistent now.  This is the reality awaiting someone contemplating marriage that needs to look-into the future, your future. Also, if you think about it seriously, since each person sleeps approximately 8 hours daily on average, a 24 year old has spent 8 years of their time with their head on a pillow asleep and have enjoyed a mere 16 years enjoying life; that is surely not enough time to mature physiologically, socially, mentally, intellectually, mentally, and almost every other way to make such decision regarding marriage.

The American cultural lifestyle experience worships youth, beauty, physicality, sexuality, virility, instant gratification and not so much the qualities and benefits associated with age, patience, time and wisdom. We want to enjoy what is deemed the best NOW because later in life that treasured opportunity available at the very moment won’t be as good later and has no or limited usefulness. Love is for the young and NOT for those “young of heart,” which is just old age sentimentality; if one is really honest. Perhaps some of the reasons contributing to the high divorce rate and marital infidelity is because the individuals were not ready to give up their independence, freedom and autonomy but because of external pressures and expectations went ahead and got married anyway. There are countless examples of married couples who were right for each other but they married to soon instead of waiting until their heart [feelings] matched up with their head [intelligence/maturity]. There are many thousands who married early than they should have who are bitter, filled with resentment, anger, and regret- playing those old tapes over and over again in the minds, “If only I could do it all over again, I would . . . “

Finally, adding to that, marrying someone before both/either of you experience PMS (Pre-Midlife crisis Syndrome) just might be headed for a marriage on the rocks. Since the brain and all other high level functions don’t fully develop until the twenties it would seem prudent that it should take just as many years to understand the social world you live in, and plan a life as well as career where becoming an adult with family responsibilities would be much more realistic and enjoyable.

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St. #B-11

Tacoma, WA 98402

October 13, 2014

robertrandle51@yahoo.com