Your Solutions To America's Rate Of Violence?

This blog first appeared on 2/2/2014 in DelawareLiberal by ProgressivePopulists
 

We read nearly daily of mall and school slaughters in our country?  Our prisons and courts are brimming with violent offenders.  Petty garden variety shootings are an everyday occurrence on our city streets.  New and better data on physical violence within families and rape and molestations in the military  suggests we're just discovering the tip of the iceberg on violence in our society.  In this the richest country in the world?  What are your solutions?
What got my notice was a 2012 report from the U.N. suggesting the the USA is #15 of our 85 countries studied for its rate of homicides per 100,000 population.  Our rate, 9.4 per 100K.  We are exceeded by countries and territories  like Columbia, Armenia, Brazil, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Latvia and Russia, all well into the double digits and above.  Homicides are not the only violence indicator per my opening comments but a pretty good start at understanding the level of our problem.  Yes, the data collected from 85 countries may be suspect in terms of the accuracy of their reporting and measures but the homicide rates are most likely actually higher, not lower; under reporting of bad news is pretty endemic, even here in the USA.
What are the common elements between these high rate countries?  The homicides are committed overwhelmingly by young, undereducated, poor men.  What do you think this tells us?  Here's my take.  I'd like yours.
We live in a country with a history of the institutional use of violence, per the "taming of the west" .  Our early history indicates its use not only to acquire control over the land, but also as a means of "taming" offenders, both native people and the euro-Americans. This is still a country that loves the death penalty for violent offenders such as the recent report on the Boston bombers federal charges levied by President Obama's Justice Department.
Yes, the Spaniards and Mexicans share similar violent histories with us on this land.  But the dozens of wars launched by the USA in the lifetime of our country, rationalized as a means to protect our freedom supports this take on our institutional history.  Almost always there was land and property, ours or others that we claimed to be protecting.
On an individual basis, turf,  personal prerogatives or possessions or means of generating self-supporting income are the described motives for these homicides.  Sometimes, often the motive is further shaped by mind altering substances or mental health issues.
So, my solutions.  Education, poverty relief and intense support to teach the very young, especially young boys and men appropriate means of solving disputes and provision of alternatives to drugs, such as recreational outlets and mental health therapy.  And major changes in our public policies in managing international disputes.  Yes, and removal of easy possession and acquisition of firearms, our major means of rendering homicidal violence.   And damned good research to better understand potential causal connections, if any  between on the ground violence and violence depicted on t.v., movies and video games?  And while were at research, also definitively understanding whether the death penalty, and yes, hunting and killing of animals (hunting)  actually deters violent criminal acts or models them.  Expensive?  you bet.
I'd like to know your solutions or whether this issue requires solutions.

President's Election Reform Commission: Small Ideas

Published in Delaware Liberal on 1/28/2014 by ProgressivePopulist
 Last week the President's election reform Commission published its report with their ideas on reforming our election systems.  The ideas seemed to be to improved voter participation, particularly in national elections.  Because it was intended to provide a bi-partisan answer to our obvious electoral deficiencies, the solutions proposed, while mostly helpful, were incremental and did not offer answers to our long-standing crisis in our so-called participatory republican democracy.
The crisis has as its root cause the total absence of voting as a right in our U.S. Constitution. This omission historically stems from the compromise necessary to facilitate our nation's founding to address the needs of the factions demanding that rights of the states be upheld, including those states dependent on slavery to fuel their agrarian economies.
It was heartening to note that the Commission cited Delaware's voter registration system as a best practice in that area.  As a new resident, I was blown away with the efficiency and convenience  of this system when I registered my car, had it inspected and secured my driver's license and voter registration in a one-stop-shopping experience.
Delaware also stood out as among the higher voter turnout states with 62.7% in the 2012 election, compared to the national average of 58.2 %.  Delaware also was one of the few states with higher participation than in the 2008 national election.
The Commission report had as its greatest emphasis the need to limit the time necessary to cast a vote to 1/2 an hour.  It cites best practices of those states enabling a comparatively  speedy voting experience in the 2012 election to assist those states actually desiring to improve the time required to cast a vote.
The Commission also advocated states providing online voter registration and the transfer of personal data from driver's license records between states.  Further, it argued for the positive impact of so called "early voting" and the updating of now obsolete electronic voting equipment, the purchase of which was funded ten years ago or more with federal tax money.
School voting locations were suggested as optimum as well as easily accessed "voting centers" in early voting systems.  The wide distribution of sample ballots well in advance of the beginning of voting periods and shortened ballots for Presidential elections to speed up the voting process as well as electronic poll books to simplify verification of voter eligibility.  These are all useful improvements but very incremental solutions to our very low participation rates compared to other democracies around the globe.
Unaddressed in the report are the macro-issues which drive our low participation endangering our democracy:
.  The absence of national constitutional validation of the concept of voting rights for all qualified citizens, at least for federal elections.
.  The plutocracy which empowers corporate and elite domination of our governing bodies, including our judicial, executive and representative bodies of local, state and national levels.
.  The funding of campaigns by corporations and elite which overwhelm individual citizen participation and drive the apathy apparent in the electorate.
.  Gerrymandering of legislative districts, both state and national resulting in our elected officials picking their voters rather than the reverse.
.  The electoral college system in federal elections which dis-empower the popular vote.
.  Winner take all runoff systems, prolonging the election process vs. instant runoffs.
.  Opt in voter registration systems in contrast to opt-out registration which would enable universal registration of qualified citizen voters.
.  Limited mail ballot options which greatly increase participation rates.
Until these issues are addressed, participation rates will continue to be a national embarrassment and non-participation advocated by the likes of Russell Brand will appear to be warranted.  Will it take a revolution to achieve a real participatory democracy in America?  At the current rate of improvement along with the relentless challenge to voting rights for minorities and the poor by Republicans whose long-standing advocacy for voting rights only for the elite in this society , it would appear revolution may be the only option. The only good news in this area is the courageous turnout in recent federal elections by oppressed voters, overcoming systemic voter discouragement and such anomalies as Seattle and Vermont.  These signs of life in the electorate  argue for me that participation is a better option.

NSA/Surveillance State: A First Step In Reining It In

Appears in DelawareLiberal, January 18, 2014, by ProgressivePopulist



The President's speech on Friday, pre-empting the final report he commissioned  on NSA restraints, is a good first step.  So, we applaud a  beginning in rolling back the Surveillance State aimed at the American people.
The civil liberties community appears vigilant on keeping the heat on the Administration to maintain a sharp eye on overreach by NSA and other intelligence agencies.  This can only be good for the U.S. and our constitutional republic.  Hopefully  the public discussion on our security and constitutional protections against a tyrannical government and the over-emphasis on protecting the "homeland" and our so called exceptionalism will be expanded and a continual process.
Of particular note is the March 28 deadline for reauthorization of the Patriot Act by congress.
In my opinion, there is way too much emphasis on protecting  us against "terrorism" compared to protecting our constitutional rights which has created our exceptionalism, if any really exists compared to other democracies around the world.
There is now much media parsing of language in the President's speech, seeking clarification on many vaguely worded statements on possible surveillance reforms and this too is good.  I prefer to leave this task to the lawyer class reviewing the initiatives and proposals.  Here's a quick review of major elements in his Friday statement.
l. He proposes an annual review of privacy implications of surveillance undertaken by federal agencies, including NSA, with a report each year delivered to congress.
2. Congress will be requested to authorize a panel of outside civil liberties advocates  to argue in  "significant" cases before the FISA court.  This is new and very hopeful.
3. The Attorney General is to institute added restrictions on the government's ability to retain, search and use communications between citizens and foreigners: section 702 of the FISA regulations regarding surveillance of suspected terrorist actions.
4. The FBI will be required to make changes in its national security letters regarding data searches on persons it is scrutinizing.
5. On phone records collection by NSA, the government will transition away from scrutinizing communications three steps away from subjects under scrutiny for potential threats against the U.S. to two steps away and only after a judicial finding on a "true emergency".
6. Intel agencies, including NSA, will stop "spying" on U.S. allied world leaders.
What seems unaddressed at this point is the absence of whistle blower protections for employees of national security or intel agencies and their contractors.  Snowden would fall into this category.
Clearly, pressure needs to be mounted on the Delaware congressional  delegation  on advocating for our civil liberties protections while  considering the "protections" addressed in the Patriot Act reauthorization by March 28.