The bane of a democratic society is its dilemma between transparency and secrecy. An armed raid on a former President’s home might be justifiable, but how does anyone know? An armed raid on Gibson Guitar some years ago raised the same question. And the armed raid recently on an Amish farm also raised the question. How does anyone know whether or not the government isn’t acting for private interests, for a deep state, or for a group of fascists intent on complete control? Without transparency, there’s no guarantee that the State hasn’t been overtaken by a minority serving an oligarchy. Add to these armed raids the recent Russian-collusion hoax, the mandates, and the radical shift from independent to dependent energy production, and trust in government wanes for many and disappears for some.
And it’s difficult to speak to the details when the details are hard to come by. Recall the Elián González Brotons affair. Attorney General Janet Reno might have been right in returning him to his father in Cuba, but the method of the return cast a shadow because it was, like the raid on the Gibson Guitar and the Amish farmer, heavy-handed, brutally so as the picture of an armed agent facing the child in the arms of his uncle seemed to show. The recent raid on the Amish farmer and the President also suggest a heavy-handedness.
I do understand that agents of law enforcement need to be cautious when they serve warrants or seek information on private property. There have been too many lives lost in domestic situations, but we should know, given our need for transparency, why heavily armed agents were needed to seek documents from the President’s home or to serve a cease-and-desist order on the selling of organically raised beef. Did the agents expect armed resistance? A stampede by free range cows happy to die happy?
The restrictions placed on Americans during the pandemic at first seemed reasonable. No one really knew what to do about the disease, and those in government, if I assume they acted with good intentions, were faced with a quandary: Do nothing and let people die, or do something and help people live. It seemed like an unavoidable Either/Or. But once the government set such controls as mandatory vaccinations, masking, and quarantining, it opened the door to excess, a door already slightly ajar.
Yet, as in all previous examples of government overreach, the populace has little recourse save the slow wheels of a justice system that seems to favor those in power. That government agents act with impunity seems to be the case. How many of the Russian-hoaxers have been punished?
I should not, however, assume that the populace actually cares about transparency. Some are just happy that the people they don’t like or agree with suffer some kind of retribution, deserved or undeserved. But overreach is a real threat and comes to all eventually, as those in the Soviet Union, Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, and China under Mao discovered.
Let me share some observations. I’ve consulted both for and against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. In the role of a government researcher, I inventoried all the effects of underground coal mining on natural and artificial structures and phenomena, from buildings to streams and groundwater. In the role of consultant for a coal company, I studied the overreach exhibited when the DEP shut down a long wall mine because of a “high quality stream” on the surface above a “panel.” Some 500 miners lost their jobs as a result of the shutdown. The stream in question I found to be intermittent, not steadily flowing. A layman looking at it in the middle of a dry August might call it a ditch at best because it contained water only after a rain and was dry at other times. But the DEP enforced the “law” without exception based on its strict interpretation of a dubious “high quality” stream.
Yes, government can play a role necessary for the safety of the public. In my role as government researcher, I noted abuses by coal companies, some unavoidable because of the nature of mining and others completely avoidable and caused by blatant disregard for transparent rules. In correcting those abuses and punishing the coal companies, the government seemed to operate in open good faith. It has in its view an obligation under the law to protect the people and the land. But there is always that gray incident, a circumstance when strict adherence to a rule meets the variability of the world outside paperwork.
Whereas it is true that un-inspected meats can cause disease, sickness, or even death, it is also true that for as long as there have been carnivorous humans, un-inspected meats have been part of the diet. The addition of antibiotics, chemicals, and hormones to meats favored by the Department of Agriculture doesn’t guarantee protection against those very substances causing human ailments. The organically raised beef on an Amish farm eliminates those compounds from the diet, but it also bypasses strict controls by agents of the government, the same agents who might go to a Whole Foods to shop for groceries. One wonders whether or not an armed raid on a Whole Foods store is next because of the raw-milk parmesan, agents in bulletproof vests with guns drawn lest some checkout girl, cheese-cutter, or baker become unruly.
You laugh, but then you aren’t an Amish farmer, a guitar luthier, or a former President.
And it’s difficult to speak to the details when the details are hard to come by. Recall the Elián González Brotons affair. Attorney General Janet Reno might have been right in returning him to his father in Cuba, but the method of the return cast a shadow because it was, like the raid on the Gibson Guitar and the Amish farmer, heavy-handed, brutally so as the picture of an armed agent facing the child in the arms of his uncle seemed to show. The recent raid on the Amish farmer and the President also suggest a heavy-handedness.
I do understand that agents of law enforcement need to be cautious when they serve warrants or seek information on private property. There have been too many lives lost in domestic situations, but we should know, given our need for transparency, why heavily armed agents were needed to seek documents from the President’s home or to serve a cease-and-desist order on the selling of organically raised beef. Did the agents expect armed resistance? A stampede by free range cows happy to die happy?
The restrictions placed on Americans during the pandemic at first seemed reasonable. No one really knew what to do about the disease, and those in government, if I assume they acted with good intentions, were faced with a quandary: Do nothing and let people die, or do something and help people live. It seemed like an unavoidable Either/Or. But once the government set such controls as mandatory vaccinations, masking, and quarantining, it opened the door to excess, a door already slightly ajar.
Yet, as in all previous examples of government overreach, the populace has little recourse save the slow wheels of a justice system that seems to favor those in power. That government agents act with impunity seems to be the case. How many of the Russian-hoaxers have been punished?
I should not, however, assume that the populace actually cares about transparency. Some are just happy that the people they don’t like or agree with suffer some kind of retribution, deserved or undeserved. But overreach is a real threat and comes to all eventually, as those in the Soviet Union, Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, and China under Mao discovered.
Let me share some observations. I’ve consulted both for and against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. In the role of a government researcher, I inventoried all the effects of underground coal mining on natural and artificial structures and phenomena, from buildings to streams and groundwater. In the role of consultant for a coal company, I studied the overreach exhibited when the DEP shut down a long wall mine because of a “high quality stream” on the surface above a “panel.” Some 500 miners lost their jobs as a result of the shutdown. The stream in question I found to be intermittent, not steadily flowing. A layman looking at it in the middle of a dry August might call it a ditch at best because it contained water only after a rain and was dry at other times. But the DEP enforced the “law” without exception based on its strict interpretation of a dubious “high quality” stream.
Yes, government can play a role necessary for the safety of the public. In my role as government researcher, I noted abuses by coal companies, some unavoidable because of the nature of mining and others completely avoidable and caused by blatant disregard for transparent rules. In correcting those abuses and punishing the coal companies, the government seemed to operate in open good faith. It has in its view an obligation under the law to protect the people and the land. But there is always that gray incident, a circumstance when strict adherence to a rule meets the variability of the world outside paperwork.
Whereas it is true that un-inspected meats can cause disease, sickness, or even death, it is also true that for as long as there have been carnivorous humans, un-inspected meats have been part of the diet. The addition of antibiotics, chemicals, and hormones to meats favored by the Department of Agriculture doesn’t guarantee protection against those very substances causing human ailments. The organically raised beef on an Amish farm eliminates those compounds from the diet, but it also bypasses strict controls by agents of the government, the same agents who might go to a Whole Foods to shop for groceries. One wonders whether or not an armed raid on a Whole Foods store is next because of the raw-milk parmesan, agents in bulletproof vests with guns drawn lest some checkout girl, cheese-cutter, or baker become unruly.
You laugh, but then you aren’t an Amish farmer, a guitar luthier, or a former President.
RSS Feed