The problem with the law as it is

I got pulled over for tint today. Too dark on the front windows the CHP officer said. I told him that I did it to prevent theft and constant breakins on my car when I park it overnight, on call at the county hospital where I work. He said, he didn't care - and said he hears all sorts of excuses.

Thats how my day started. Since it is the law, I will abide by it and remove my tint. That said, who's to say the law is correct? Why can't we have tint on our cars? Is everything going to be legislated ad nauseum? And who decided this law and why was it decided that way?

The problem with these laws/ordinances as I see it is that it claims to be grounded in safety for officers. Tint prevents them from seeing into the car. The problem with this argument is that the law says its okay to tint the rear windows. The counterargument is that the front windows need to be free so the officer can see into the car as he/she approaches. While certainly logical, I tend to think that if someone wants to hurt an officer, they will do so, tint or no tint.

But anyways, I don't mind the law. I'll abide by it. That said, I saw 4 or 5 cars drive by this morning that had darker tint, were driving erratic, and speeding. The same cop passed them by.

Which brings me to the next point. If it is not enforced uniformly, than how can it not be subject to criticism? One can easily argue that the cops see an easy target and ticket it seeing that it was a quick revenue stream. 10 minutes to write a ticket, 100 dollars in the bank for the city. Otherwise, he'd have to go chase after the other erratic driving guy and pull him over.

I can't even count the number of times I've called the police to report drunk/reckless drivers and how they never get pulled over despite me following them for 15+ minutes. So why is it that I get pulled over driving to McDonald's?

The problem with the law as it is lies within the reward. For the city, there is no financial gain for arresting and prosecuting a drunk/reckless driver. There is, however, an easy financial gain for speeding and tint tickets. This is a cynical view, yes. But are we naive to think that that does not underly some of the thought process? In our society, moral righteousness seems to have taken a back seat to personal or monetary gain. So while we sit and watch 100s of our youth die in inner city struggle, we tell the cops to pull people over for tint and going 3mph over the limit.

In the end, I'm not protesting the ticket. I broke the law, I pay the consequences. But I am protesting the injustice. Why are we struggling to put cops in the street in Oakland, yet somebody pulled me over for tint at a McDonald's drive thru? I hope we figure it out soon - or else the veil of justice that is barely holding our urban society together will disintegrate.

Lawlessness of the Bay Area - The Common Sense Cure

I really can't take it. There is something very wrong with what's going on in the Bay Area. From the completely health hazardous conditions of the poop-ridden, vomit stained urinal we call some areas of San Francisco to the unregulated warzone we call some streets of Oakland, something is not being done right. The solutions are out there... but they require a community to embrace a combination of liberal and conservative solutions - that's right a moderate solution. But in this polarized climate blessed place we call the Bay Area, being reasonable never seems to amount for much.

Being that I live on the Peninsula and work at the Oakland County hospital - I have a pretty unique position to observe both sides of the bay. Having two brothers in SF also gives me a good (but clearly not all-encompassing) look at the place that at one point was considered the best place to live. I pronounce deaths of homicides at the hospital I work at enough to know that its gotten much worse in the last 7 years I've worked there. More blatant shootings in midday, more innocent bystanders getting hurt, more kids getting shot. Its sad and angering all at the same time. What are we doing wrong to not help this group of young men who kill each other so often?

In SF, the streets have gotten unsafe from not only the crime perspective, but the health perspective. People routinely defecate, urinate, and vomit on themselves or the streets in broad daylight - with no concern for the impressionable toddlers walking the streets with their families. Let me be clear, I don't think its a homeless/poor people problem... its a bum problem - people who do not care about being humane - they are just selfish and dangerous all the same. My parents were poor - 13 people lived in a trailer home in Wisconsin coming from Vietnam with little money. They pulled themselves up with hard work and respect.

So what's gone wrong? Why are we even at this point?

I point to three basic problems.

ONE.
Lack of leadership. Pure and simple - no one is stepping up to the plate to do what needs to be done. Both Gavin Newsome and Dellums are trying to please idealists and constituents and not doing what is best for their respective cities. Newsome is busy cheating with his employee's wife and going on drinking binges. Dellums barely shows up at all and puts his wife on committee's that benefit monetarily. Both point to the age old, simplistic explanations of "Its a poverty problem!" or "Its racism still!" I'm not right wing nut. In fact, I've always been on the liberal side of social things - but its not that easy.

I'm not suggesting that they are bad human beings. Both, I think, have the interest of the people at heart. However, they lack the leadership necessary to do what leaders must do - convince their followers that their agenda is good for society as a whole - even when it'll rankle the feathers of a select groups of people. They need to lead with their own agenda and not follow the multiple special interests that dominate Bay Area politics.

TWO.
Lack of negative reincforcement. Its not the cops fault. Let me say this again. Its not the cops fault. Oh yeah, and do you know... its not the cops fault. While most of us live in the relative safety of work the cops job is to go out and deal with the people you least want to see at work. Take that asshole you hate at work, add violence, drugs, and lack of decency to the fray and mutliply that x 100. Thats what cops deal with on a day in, day out basis. I've taken care of enough cops who get shot, hit by a car, or beaten that I can safely say that they have one of the MOST thankless jobs in the world. I would say that 95% of the time, when they shoot, beat, or punish people physically its justified - they're protecting themselves, their family, and their society and not necessarily in that order - which I don't mind. But now, a few idiotic lawsuits later, the OPD and the SFPD have to constantly have in the back of their heads - hmmm if I protect and serve today, will I be served with a lawsuit later? Is he pulling a gun from his coat or is he pulling out a doughnut? And if he is pulling out a gun, if I shoot will I get sued? Why in the world must a cop think of this? They need the community's support in the face of all the negativity they see and hear on a constant basis. I respect them all.

So back to the paucity of punishment. Let me just say it straight out - we're too easy on criminals. Jail sucks - if you get tossed in, you could get raped, beaten, stabbed or worse. But how different is that from streets at 1am? You actually get 3 square meals - you get access to showers, toilets, and resources like health care. Yes Jail is horrendous, but its better than being homeless on teh streets in my opinion. So why don't we make it harder time? Make them work the old chain gang style. No parole.

While we're at it.. why don't we punish people for petty crimes that affect quality of life - which leads to bigger and worse crime. Poop on the street - you go to jail. Pee on the street - you go to jail. Aggressive panhandling - you go to jail. Its as simple as that. I know the jails are full - build more. Do something.. just don't tell us you're full and let these guys back out on teh streets! And if you rape, molest, or kill somebody after driving drunk - you should get a LIFE sentence in my opinion and someone should castrate some people. Its horrible I know. But sometimes fear of punishment is an effective motivator.

Three.
Lack of compassion. This is tougher to get around. Some people I know will never meet a thug, a homeless bum, or a drug junkie in their entire lives - but yet they still have an opinion on it. I meet this people all the time for what I do. Everybody has an inner hope. Everyone wants to be better. But not everyone has the resources to do so. We can't just punish people without providing them a way out. We ignore the issue of crime because we expect some government agency to fix it. But it requires people everyday figuring a way. Let's promote safe neighborhoods - reward neighborhoods that do well by giving them more money to make it better. Let's elect more neighborhood leaders - each one responsible for leading their neighborhood they live in for the better. Let's stop hugging the tree and start protesting the poor conditions which lead to lawlessness in the first place. Everyone needs to do more, and we can't just sit in a isolated house and ignore it anymore.

The Solution.
I can't say what it is. I think it involves a combination of negative and positive reinforcement. We want to reward those who do better, but punish harshly those who act selfishly and harmfully. Its awfully simplisitic, but its actually what most of society probably wants. We just get pulled to one extreme (left liberal idealists who think there's always a root excuse for this behavior and we shouldn't punish it, and right wing nuts who want to blame groups of minorities and execute them all) with no one to pull for the common sense solution.

I just can't say how sad I am to see the Bay Area decline like this. It is such a culturally rich and beautiful place, we should maximize it to be that shining light on the hill. We should be the showcase of the West Coast. We should be number one again.

A Generation Unable to Narrate

The other day I was watching Ken Burns being interviewed about his new documentary, "The War," about World War II. I'm a big fan of his. I've bought both "Jazz" and "The Civil War" and I think he is one of the greatest filmakers of our time. Hell, we even coin "The Ken Burns effect" after him (that zooming in and out of photos thing). Even better, I feel he has always strived to bring the story of the underpriveleged (not necessarily minorities) to the forefront.

What threw me off about this interview was that he looked pissed. Unlike previous interviews regarding other docs he's done, he looked like he just faceplanted into a pile of dog poo. Why was he mad? Because certain groups feel offended by him not necessarily including their contribution in the war. Funny thing is, they hadn't even seen the thing. They just complained, protested, and threatened a boycott. Never mind that these groups equated to about 1.6% of all American troops sent over. Never mind that Burns covers the African-American and Asian-American subplots incredibly well. Never mind that Burns' own narrator is a minority. He ultimately had to change the doc so he could include more stories of other groups. So where does it end? I suppose those Irish-Americans are pissed they didn't get a full interview. How about the Chinese-American troops? What about the... it could go on forever. And that's the point. He could have gone on forever and this would end up being a 100 hour snorefest, instead of well filmed, well directed, and well written documentary.

But in his response to this, Burns shared an insight that I had been clawing at in the back of my head, but I couldn't place. He agreed with his critics - that there is always more to tell. However, what they wanted him to tell, was a version of their opinion. They don't want the story as it is/was. They want opinions, layered upon more opinions, founded upon passionate opinions. In his mind, we've lost the art of narrative - telling an event the way we remember it, as devoid of opinion as possible. Narrative in itself is an art. We just don't want to hear, see, or say it.

Look at blogs. Look at ESPN. Look at any news show. What you get is a decrease in narrative and an increase in opinion. Not only that, but we want opinions now! As a society, we look to TV and the internet to find allies or sniff out foes. We don't find the middle ground. The middle ground is now deemed too naive. Too dispassionate. A moral dead sea if you will. Either you're with me or you're against me. Its one way or the other.

Even if we are into facts, its usually sensationalism or completely irrelevant to society's function. Do I really need to see all of the Hollywood craplets mess up again?! How does this add anything to my life?

The point I'm trying to make is this. We need to come back to narration. We need to find a moderate ground to agree upon. Extremism needs to be practiced by the extreme people of the far left and far right 5% of the bell curve, not 75-90% of us. Because in the end, most Americans agree on basic principles and basic rights. We're just being told that we're not by TV, by the internet, and by others.

This all leads to the future direction for my blog. Narration. Moderation. Common Sense. I'll look at events or issues and see if I can shed some light on it. Something not extreme. Something maybe most of us think, but few of us express... because a few % of people have controlled the media and our opinions. I think its time we take it back.