News & Articles

I’d cringe when an upset oldster lectured “There ought to be a law.”

Likely some law already addressed their complaint. What they wanted was another.
If law A hadn’t done the trick why would law B (through all the other alphabet) do better?

Seems to me a law doesn’t stop violations, only what we might do about infraction afterward.

In the past those with high standing in the land of crotchety geezers were the ones most frequently calling for more laws. That’s changed.

Calling for new or more laws and reforms is no longer geezer terrain. It’s gone transgenerational, with a novel virus twist of requiring legal reform and more laws but with fewer enforcers.

That is clever, a tad idealistic maybe, but a bright and challenging vision no less.
Forgive me saying, but adding to law might be one of the more useless things citizens do playing the game of pretending to do something.

Ask this. What’s a greater deterrent for you? Is it fear of punishment or conscience? Do you let a nasty in-law live because you dread plea bargains?

Law does not stay a hand much as character and conscience do.

I personally refuse to shotgun people I don’t like because it’s too quick a death. Something agonizingly slow is more my style; that’s my character at work.

Any case, law usually enters after the deed be done and reams of wise folk looking to cash in start the wrangle over killing versus murder and lots of other shades you or I might never consider. This doesn’t bring back the dead. It does make living legals more secure in their prosperity.

Murder = death = execution becomes years of trials, hearings, re-trials, and stays. See, slow and excruciating just the way I’d like, but is that justice?

A sad limit on justice is the inability to execute a murderer more than once. I’ve heard only one exception to that, though the liberated mind dismisses it.

In past times some attempt was made to leap over the one-criminal one-death limit by double hanging. Hang till near dead, take them down, revive, then hang them again, though by then the evil criminal may be too out of it to appreciate the awfulness of their condition. (Haven’t some serial killers laughed saying they can only be killed once. In the end tally they win.) The Saudi model might warrant consideration. A grievous sinner (Saudi crime is often religious in nature or offense) will be sentenced a lethal number of lashes.

But, people after my own heart, their system will deal out a non-lethal number of blows then allow the sinner recover to continue the punishment at a later date.

There’s justice and mercy all in one roll. (Interestingly, there are groups, some with exceeding high numbers, who define “justice” as whatever they say it is. The same applying to truth, honesty and honor; all done wearing faces of great seriousness.)

Serious tones for serious times, I say.

How do we get to the bottom of things, to root causes, in a time of revolution?

Maybe you’ve heard the same I have lately. The times being what they are call on us to take that into compassionate consideration. A revolutionary climate is stressful, and stress will naturally lead to chemical means for relief. So far so good.

Knowing we should expect more drunks and strung out people we should be tolerant and act in accordance with the spirit of the times. What’s then seen as “law,” is attached to social climate or setting.

Used to be more of that at times people were cautious about leaving a home area where they were known. Go somewhere you weren’t known and you might be thought a criminal on the run, gypsy, or other undesirable outsider.

One change that catches the attention involves performers. As a traveling trade, musicians and actors were seen as untrustworthy opportunists. Makes sense, really, if we consider acting as dishonesty, of fakery. The greater the actor the greater the skill at deception.

That’s changed in our times. Has the actor’s craft altered or does an enlightened public have a finer acceptance of fakery?

It would be foul of me as a lowly Ranger to question revering a good faker for doing the things earlier generations held in contempt. You can think that through and decide for yourself.

As a society we have more important concerns over law and racism. For the most part (so we were told and thought) old discriminatory segre-gationist laws were rooted out.

In theory this should have dug up the systemic underpinnings of racial discrimination. Also in theory, so it seems, passage of equal opportunity and fair treatment measures has failed to fix the complaint of systemic racism.

Could there be limits to what law can do?

Maybe the fault lies in lawmakers. If motivated by electoral possibilities the actions of political leaders may show roots of an actor strutting the stage for approval. (I’m not above seeing politics as competing troupes of vaudeville clowns, but that’s just me.)

So what are we left with? If removing old laws, passing new ones, and the efforts of lawmakers have not fixed the problem what’s left?

Do we try again?

Is it time for reflection?  

Is it time for revolution?

I’m too ole to be practical as a revolutionary. Assaulting a barricade would be my end, but I can maybe add something.

Here’s how it seems: If racism hasn’t been scoured from society by laws and lawmakers maybe that’s because it doesn’t roost there. Racism does not cause itself.
If systemic racism is a fact it can only come from people; racist. Systemic racism points to lots of racists.

We’d need lots of enforcement persons (aka police) to root them out. Would be like looking for a Calvinist Terrorist in a Calvinist church; they’re everywhere.
Would be interesting to police people for what’s in their hearts. I wonder how that would work. Imagine new crimes; race addiction might be one.

Don’t scoff. Just remember vaudevillians are in charge and know just how to pack the clown car.