So you want to hire (or perhaps become) a Private Investigator. There are some things you should know. (Part 1)

This will be an informational essay on what is necessary to become a good private investigator; and / or how a potential client might find and retain a qualified private investigator.  I will split this essay into 'parts' to accommodate my blog format; and the information would be the most beneficial if the parts are read in order.

Many believe that the sole purpose of a private investigator is to ‘observe or interview and then report.’  As a result, it is commonly believed that these attributes fall within the province of almost any literate person regardless of background, experience, education and training.  Experienced investigators not only know the quickest, most cost efficient manner of accomplishing a project, they also carry-out the assignment in a legal and professional manner which does not adversely impact the client.  Furthermore, the more an investigator knows and understands about a situation the more useful and valuable his observations will be to others.

I’m occasionally asked about how one selects a private investigator.  And, I must admit this can be difficult.  I will attempt to simplify the process.

Licensing:  Most states now have licensing for private investigators, but not all.  Oregon and Washington do have licensing.  In other states, generally typing in your online search function ‘a State’s name with a request for licensed Private Investigators’ will immediately display the necessary information.

What is a Private Investigator:  Per Oregon Statute:  “Investigators solicit or accept employment to obtain or furnish information about persons, property, crimes, accidents, etc. [Oregon Revised Statutes 703.401(3)]

Investigators must be licensed unless they are in an excepted category. [Oregon Revised Statutes 703.411]” Other States generally have a similar definition.  (Will explain this later.)

What you really would like to know is what makes a good PI and how do you select a private investigator from the several hundred, perhaps thousands that are available in each State.  OK - can do.

To be continued...

True Nelson

Nicholas Kristof / Guns / His View from the Ivory Tower

I must take issue with Nicholas Kristof, and his recent op-ed piece “Lessons from the Murders of TV Journalists.”  Of course, Kristof had to give us some clarity and expound on his anti-gun position, relevant to the tragedy in Virginia.  Mr. Kristof, do they actually pay you for this stuff?  Oh yes, I almost forgot.  You went to Harvard.  OK, I apologize and retract that insensitive remark.

However, if I might digress for a just a moment, Harvard is becoming a sort of inside joke (from Frazier Crane to Barrack Obama); a joke that everyone appreciates – other than Harvard alumni I understand.  It must be a very difficult school to get into – unless you are wired in some way.  I know our President had a difficult time preparing himself for the rigors of a Harvard education.

Obama quoted:  “Man, I wasted a lot of time in high school.  There were times when I, you know, got into drinking, experimented with drugs.  There was a whole stretch of time where I didn’t really apply myself a lot.”

I wonder if Harvard has that Presidential quote prominently displayed on campus as motivation for their new recruits.  I might suggest a caption:  See, anyone can do this.

Back to the topic at hand:  statistics lie and liars use statistics.

Kristof:  “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on the battlefields of all the wars in U.S. history.”

Hardly original, that old stat was drug-out years back by Mark Shields, who we all know from the PBS News Hour.  And, yes, apparently that is a fairly accurate statistic from what I can determine.  But, what Kristof fails to mention is that the vast majority of those deaths were by accident or suicide.  Kristof would probably respond, ‘Well, yes, but so what?’  It’s the implication Mr. Kristof – don’t you get it?  Accidents happen (car accidents, occupational accidents, and stupid accidents) and people intent on suicide would have found a way under any circumstances.  Furthermore, Kristof, by inference, seems to minimize the sacrifices of our military for what I consider to be a meaningless comparison.

Kristof:  “More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.”  Again, he drags in military deaths and our military personnel’s, relatively speaking, inconsequential sacrifices – something he knows little about – having never served in the military.  That said, I can’t statistically refute the statement he makes, other than possibly the word “every.”  Those kind of statistics are harder to track down.  But, Mr. Kristof wouldn’t try to mislead – or would he?

Oh, just a small additional observation, why does Obama tend to label obvious terrorist attacks as workplace violence?  Is he attempting to tamper with statistics?

  

Kristof:  “To protect the public, we regulate toys and mutual funds, ladders and swimming pools.  Shouldn’t we regulate guns as seriously as we regulate toys?"

I guess Kristof is unaware of the fact that there are in excess of 20,000 statutes, ordinances and regulations regarding guns and ammunition at the Federal, State and Local levels.  Can some improvements be made?  Yes, but shouldn’t we look at strong enforcement of current laws first?  I’d support that.

Here are a few new laws that I would favor:

•                Convicted felon in possession of a gun:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole.
•                Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole.
•                Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole – in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.

I could go on, but what’s the point?  A few, very few, people will read my blog post.  Whereas, millions will read and be influenced by Kristof’s ramblings.  That’s not really fair; but is, nonetheless, one of the benefits of a Harvard education.

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud / Conclusion (3 parts)

Now that I have offended much of the French populace, I might add that they shouldn’t really concern themselves with my personal opinion because many Americans wish we were just like the French.  And, quite a few of our political leaders are moving us, gradually you understand, in that direction.  Soon we too will have mercenaries fighting our battles.  It’s really cheaper in the long run and many Americans can’t be bothered with the mundaneness of self-reliance and self-protection – certainly not any dangerous military service.

Oh, what about the U.S. Second Amendment to the Constitution?  No problem there.  Our Supreme Court can just fine tune it a little, reinterpret what it means; and, that’s that, it can be placed on a dusty book shelf.

Let’s see… My Second Theory regarding the courageous actions of Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler:  Well, it has to do with their familiarity with guns.

Guns are after all inanimate, mechanical objects or basically tools.  My contention is that the more you know about a tool, even a dangerous tool, the more comfortable you become using it – being around it.

Example:  You are in a public place, suddenly accosted by an obviously distraught, possibly deranged person waving a chainsaw around and endangering people, even children.  The chainsaw is loud and scary.  What type of individual, excepting an armed police officer, would be the most likely to intervene and attempt to neutralize this dangerous person?  I would think it would be someone who was familiar with chainsaws, perhaps even utilized a chainsaw on a daily basis.  Why?  Because that individual understands that chainsaws can be dangerous, but that they do have limitations.  He would look for that brief moment of weakness, either on the part of the person operating the chainsaw or the chainsaw itself.  He would not, in other words, be frozen in a state of inaction; or feel his only option is to run.

What does that have to do with the incident on the train?  Perhaps that particular incident, and their particular reaction, had something to do with Skarlatos, Stone and Sadler’s familiarity with guns.  Both Skarlatos and Stone were known to have some military training.  But I would also venture that Skarlatos, Stone and Sadler had some previous experience with guns as hunters, target shooters, etc.

I’ve been around people who were frightened to even touch a gun, for fear they would inadvertently do something in handling a gun that would cause it to harm them or someone else – as if the gun was alive and had a mind of its own – much like one might treat a poisonous snake.

The French have very strict gun control laws governing ownership and use.  Gun ownership and use is not part of their culture or their traditions.

Perhaps I’m wrong about the three Americans.  I suppose we’d have to ask them.  I’d like to know how experienced Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler are with guns.  Do they own guns?  Did they grow up with guns?

I did and many of my friends did.  Would any of us have the courage to confront a terrorist?  I don’t know.

I’ve had considerable training and experience with weapons (guns), particularly in the FBI.  One thing that I believe I would quickly recognize is how proficient is this person with his weapon, as well as what are the limitations of this particular weapon.  Those observations would be my deciding factors as to how best to react.

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud / Part 2

What motivated Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos and Anthony Sadler to take action as they did in the French train incident?  Why them?  OK, and this “American thing” the ‘thing’ the British Colonel referred to, is there something to that?

I’m not certain of course, but I’ll take a stab at it.  Actually, I have two theories.  These are just my opinions.  No offense is intended.  One of my theories is about France the country and the current cultural, sociological traits of their citizens.  A subject of which I admittedly know little, other than generalized observations.  The other is about guns.  A subject about which I know quite a bit.

First Theory:  In contrast to the United States, France has evolved, since World War II, into a pacifist country with an emasculated military; and that same description could be applied to their general population – depending upon other countries to do the heavy lifting in world affairs.  France sometimes talks a good game, but militarily they are a non-entity.  And, without doubt, their citizenry reflects that characteristic.  France is what in global affairs would be considered a 'soft target.’  Is ISIS aware of that?  Of course.  Yes, I recognize that it is not inconceivable that a French citizen could have rushed Ayoub El-Khazzani, but that French person would be, in my opinion, an anomaly.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflicts there, France was considered a U.S. ally; but in name only - an ally in the sense that if you are about to be in a fight, France would be happy to hold your coat.

In support of the French militarily some may cite the First Indochina War (1946–1954) where France fought a war in which they sustained casualties in the tens of thousands – a monumental sacrifice in an, unfortunately, losing cause.  However, most are not aware that the vast majority of those casualties were from France’s colonies and were largely made up of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese forces.  Metropolitan or actual French soldiers were generally excused and/or prohibited from combat due to the lack of public support for the war.  Yes, there were some French professional soldiers in the conflict, but they were by far in the minority.

Now, what about guns?  My second theory:

To be continued…

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone & Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud to be Americans

“Europe's media is still abuzz with the extraordinary story of three Americans who tackled a suspected terrorist on Friday on a train in Northern France. The question being asked is this: Were they displaying a distinctly American can-do spirit?” (Bloomberg View)

True’s comment:  Well, maybe.  But, “can-do spirit” “distinctly American;” what does that mean?

All of us proud Americans have heard the back-story.  Sunday, French President Francis Hollade awarded the Legion of Honor to three, young American men (Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, and Anthony Sadler) for subduing a 26-year-old Moroccan, would-be terrorist, who was apparently intent on killing an untold number of passengers on a French commuter train.

Skarlatos and Stone are members of the American military; and Sadler is a friend of theirs and a college student.  The award they received from the French government and any subsequent adulation is, in my opinion, justly deserved.  These three are remarkable young men - saving countless lives.

The would-be terrorist, Ayoub El-Khazzani, claimed that he had earlier found the AK-47 and other weapons in a French park and simply wanted to rob the train’s passengers.  This explanation / alibi is so incredibly unlikely that it is kind of funny.  Hopefully, the French authorities will sit on him until he squeaks.  Some others are involved – almost certainly.

Of interest (food for thought - at least for me) was a comment, by a former British Army colonel, writing in the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, who declared: "It's an American thing. I salute it."  He was referring, I imagine, to the courage displayed by these young men.  And, there is no denying that a great deal of courage was involved.

Nonetheless, it caused me to wonder why it was principally Americans, and not French citizens, that reacted first and most decisively.  Perhaps, it was simply chance.  But, there must have been many French passengers in the immediate area.

I don’t believe that Americans are necessarily more courageous than the French.  Culturally speaking, I suppose some cultures are more aggressive and impulsive.  That said, the American culture is about as diverse as any in the world.  So, “It’s an American thing, I salute it” doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.  What is it about this “American thing?”

I’ve got a theory.

To be continued…

True Nelson

True's Miscellany / August 2015 / Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton & Cecil the Lion

I think I might have writers’ block.  I know it’s presumptuous to say that.  I ain’t no for real writer.  Yes, I know I even stole that thought from Joe Buck (Midnight Cowboy) – cleverer his:  “I ain’t no for real cowboy.”

It’s not that I don’t have things that I think about.  Like what, you might inquire?  Well…

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton leading in the poles of their respective political parties – God help us.

The brutal rape and murder of a California woman, Marilyn Pharis, by illegal immigrants; Victor Aureliano Martinez and Jose Fernando Villagomez:  sanctuary cities, political correctness gone crazy, stupid and thoughtless politicians and law enforcement personnel – disgusting, horrific, unconscionable, preventable.  And who will take responsibility?  No one.

Ferguson, Missouri:  What more can be said?  Hopeless.

Nuclear treaty with the Iranians (whoops not a treaty), agreement, I guess.  Does anyone believe the Iranians will honor the agreement?  Are we that stupid?  Well, not us – just the people who represent us.

National debt in excess of 18 trillion, getting bigger all the time.  Who will pay this back?  Our children and grandchildren.  Moreover, what fools are actually loaning the United States money to squander on all the things this country really doesn’t need.

Cecil the Lion.  I don’t know why anyone would want to be a ‘trophy’ hunter.  Is this due to perceived sexual inadequacy?  Well, heck, that same motivation is undoubtedly in play with many of our politicians and CEOs (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump).

No, that was not Joe Buck’s problem.  "I am one helluva stud."

What else?  Let’s see.  I was sitting on the patio last evening.  It was nearing eight o’clock.  The honey bees were still working among some purple flowers.  I was wondering when they were allowed to go home.  Where is home?  How far is it?  And what do they do when they get there.  More importantly, are our concerns more important than the honey bee?  Doubtful.  His (or I should say more precisely her) life is fairly basic.  You work, you eat, you socialize and you die.  Are we so different?

Shakespeare, the genius; his plays have lost some relevance over the years (1564 to 1616).  Did you know that he was reportedly 6’4” (although disputable)?  He must have been one tall dude, and what was he fed as a child?  The average male was approximately 5'5".

Watching a Shakespeare play is kind of like watching paint dry, but noisier.  Sorry, just my opinion.  There is, nonetheless, a certain snob appeal.  Yes, I’ve actually seen a couple of his plays.  He is, however, eternally quotable.  One of my favorites – the only quote of his that I bothered to memorize.  On the meaning of life:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.       Macbeth

True Nelson

Police Profiling / Oregon Statute HB2002; and my thoughts...

Police ‘profiling’ is the issue du jour in legal circles these days.  Oregon State’s Legislators, knowing little or nothing about the subject of ‘profiling’ – as it relates to the law enforcement mission – have decided a law is required – HB 2002.

We should understand that ‘profiling’ is something that each of us do, almost daily.  It’s a human trait.  You walk down the street.  You size up someone coming toward you, and adjust your behavior accordingly.  That’s ‘profiling.’  For police, ‘profiling’ can become an effective deterrent to crime – not to mention a survival skill that will carry them through their shift.

Now, our Oregon Legislators feel, in a vague sort of way, that ‘profiling’ is probably a naughty thing for police to be doing.  And, in some instances I agree that police can abuse it.  However, when those abuses do occur, they need to be corrected by administrators within the department.  If supervisory personnel are unable to correct the problem, they should be held accountable.

However, our Legislators feel they should codify the ‘profiling’ issue.  And, as they might opine in describing the urgency, ‘Something is better than nothing even if nothing is the result of our attempt at something.’  OK, yes, of course, why didn’t I think of that?

I don’t want your eyes to glaze over, but you really ought to read the following; and attempt to imagine explaining this recently enacted law (without smirking you understand) to a new recruit at the police academy.

This is how our legislators (in their infinite, superior wisdom and expensive, nonetheless questionable, legal training) define profiling and what our law enforcement officers are supposed to comply with:

“Profiling means that a law enforcement agency or a law enforcement officer:

 In conducting a routine or spontaneous investigatory activity or in determining the

scope, substance or duration of the routine or spontaneous investigatory activity, relies on

age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,

religion, homelessness or mental disability to select an individual for or subject the

individual to the routine or spontaneous investigatory activity, except that using a specific

suspect description related to a criminal incident or suspected criminal activity is not profiling;

Or

 In conducting an investigatory activity in connection with an investigation, relies on

age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,

religion, homelessness or mental disability as an identifying characteristic or circumstance

of an individual, unless credible information relevant to the locality or time frame

links the individual to an identified criminal incident or criminal activity.

And

Routine or spontaneous investigatory activity includes an interview, a detention, a

traffic stop, a pedestrian stop, a frisk or other type of bodily search and a search of personal

or real property.”

As you can see by the above wording, the Law does not clearly define what ‘profiling,’ actually is – only painting with a broad brush, hoping to impart the general gist of the idea.  Seems to me that a police officer won’t be able to talk to practically anyone while on duty – at least no one actually needing to be talked to.

In other words, as I read the law, a police officer interviewing an obviously mentally deranged individual, or a wandering homeless person, is involved in ‘profiling’ and should therefore be disciplined for this professional transgression.  Gee, and I always thought that used to be called good police work.

Oh, I suppose the law enforcement officer is free to chit chat with a passing young attractive woman, or in some instances a young attractive man, as long as the person is of an equivalent race and ethnic origin; and, of course, has the same sexual orientation as the officer - and providing said officer’s intentions are strictly social.

So, what does this all mean?  Well, basically, it means that any experienced, savvy cop will not be doing much of anything proactive to protect the public.  Why should they?

PS:  Oh yes, one other thing:  The Oregon Association Chiefs of Police (OACP) actually have endorsed and support the new law on ‘profiling.’  So, what am I to make of that?  Actually, I expect the Chiefs recognize the inanity of the new law – and consider it little more than ‘eye wash’ for the public.

True Nelson

Donald Trump, Game of Thrones and the Wall

Well, Donald Trump seems to be gaining ground in the Presidential poles.  It’s unfortunate, but he does have a certain appeal for many.  What is it about him that attracts supporters?  It’s basic and understandable.  He is perceived as a ‘can do’ personality.

The issue of the day is his proposed ‘impenetrable wall’ between Mexico and the United States, to prevent the flood of illegal immigrants.  Many, including myself, agree with him that the illegal immigration problem is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

The ‘wall’ sounds good – to some – but it wouldn’t work.  Or, let’s just say it isn't particularly practical and wouldn’t solve the problem.  Most of my career has involved security issues, security measures and facility protection.

Here is what would work:

• Of course, the border needs to be clearly delineated; and there needs to be some significant fencing and warning signs along the entire border – which, I am almost certain currently exists.  There should be no possibility that someone could inadvertently wander across the border and claim ignorance.  This is just common sense.
• But here is the real answer that politicians resist for their own stealth reasons.  It is time that this country issued National Identity Cards and developed a system for employers to easily check for citizenship or legal residence. Furthermore, those who employ non-legal residents would be subject to sizeable fines.  For major corporations and those entities who obviously should know better, the fines should be enough to really get their attention.
• Mexico should be required to pay U.S. costs for the incarceration of ‘illegals’ who commit crimes within the U.S. and / or Mexico must accept and incarcerate the criminals themselves.
• Other ‘illegals’ (non-criminals) found within the U.S. should be compassionately treated, the matter properly adjudicated, and necessary appropriate action taken – some allowed to stay under certain circumstances – some required to return to Mexico.

So, why won’t the above be enacted?  I will put it to you plain and simple.  Actually, I don’t really have to tell you, because most of you know this already.  Regarding our politicians:

Democrats want the ‘cheap’ votes.

Republicans want the ‘cheap’ labor.

True Nelson

The Confederate Battle Flag / Mass Murder, Mother of Emanuel Church, Charleston, SC / My Thoughts (Part 2)

Regarding my previous post on this subject, my opinion remains basically unchanged.

However, after hearing the recent speech by Governor Nikki Haley which was compelling, I do have one clarification to make.  I was not aware that the Confederate Flag is flown over the Capitol of South Carolina.

Governor Haley, in a very conciliatory manner to all those for and against the flag, stated that the flag would no longer be flown over the Capitol.  I agree with her statement and the reasons she provided.

My earlier comments, perhaps not entirely clear, were partially directed at the hip-shooters like Walmart and Amazon who immediately said they would discontinue the sale of the flag – which, of course, caused a huge bonanza of flag sales; and was a decision undoubtedly based on efforts to generate publicity for their respective companies.

However, my main objection was directed at New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who I referred to as a doofus (still hold that opinion), for his suggestion that the City tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee.  Mayor Landrieu must have felt the tragedy in Charleston was a perfect opportunity to get some much needed press time.

Well, that’s Louisiana’s problem.  So, I’ll leave it at that.

True Nelson

A Man with Sword Subdues Portland Police Officers / You're kidding, right?

An article of interest in The Oregonian 6/28/15 by Elizabeth Hovde:  “Police Afraid to Police Creates Public Danger.”

“…June 7, a citizen called Portland police about a man described to be in his 30s threatening people with an approximately 4-foot-long Samurai sword.  This was at a pedestrian-popular riverfront location…”  “The call came in at 9:27PM.  Police responded.  The man refused to put the sword down…”  “Sword guy threw rocks at officers, and he was eventually hit five times with bean bag bullets, which didn’t much phase him.”  “A little after midnight, police left him with his sword near the riverfront.”

Ms. Hovde’s article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but she has described a very real problem with modern law enforcement.  Basically, is law enforcement starting to ‘pull-back,’ concerned about confrontations that might lead to a civil suit or public criticism – even if that decision might subsequently put the public in danger?

In my opinion the answer is ‘yes.’  The officers were apparently dealing with a mentally troubled individual armed with a potentially deadly weapon.  However, when the man would not give-in to their demands after being shot several times with a bean bag gun, supervisory personnel decided they’d just call it night – and hope he didn’t kill anyone.  Is this what the motto:  ‘To Serve and Protect’ implies?  Apparently, that is the case around this locale.  Maybe the Portland Police Bureau needs a new motto?  Some of you might have some good ideas.

Portland police administrators may have a justification, or more accurately a rationalization, as to why their officers walked away from a mentally ill man brandishing a sword in a public area; but, under the described circumstances, I can’t really think of a really good one to offer; but I will give it a try.

The reported criminal act alleged was 'brandishing a sword and scaring the public.'  The police categorized that crime as ‘Menacing,’ which is a misdemeanor under Oregon law.  When the police arrived the ‘victims’ (who had summoned the police) had left the scene.  Police can’t make a misdemeanor arrest unless it occurs in their presence – and they might say that the ‘victim or victims’ were not present to file a complaint, therefore they have no basis to arrest – a somewhat tortured logic under the circumstances.

However, it has been my understanding that throwing rocks at police officers, while brandishing a deadly weapon, would constitute at very least misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct and/or probably ‘menacing,’ which would land you in the hoosegow under most circumstances.  It would appear that crazy courage has a demoralizing effect on our local gendarmes.  Perhaps, they should have called the SWAT Team.  Well, maybe SWAT quits at midnight too – and you know how that overtime money can drain a police budget.

Good news:  Apparently “sword guy” has not killed anyone so far – at least no one we’ve discovered.  I wonder if they ever identified this guy.  Oh, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

True Nelson

The Confederate Battle Flag / Mass Murder, Mother of Emanuel Church, Charleston, SC / My Thoughts...

This is about The Confederate Battle Flag; and a thought precipitated by a discussion with a friend.

So now, it appears, The Confederate Battle Flag is directly, indirectly, or incidentally associated with / responsible for the mass murder at the Mother of Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC, on 6-17-15, by Dylann Storm Roof.

I probably don’t have ‘standing’ to have an opinion on this subject.  I’m not a Southerner, or Black and never had any ancestors – as far as I know – who fought in the Civil War.  I guess my main thought is how easily public opinion is manipulated; and how deceptively politicians pervert and use to their advantage almost any tragedy.  It really is unconscionable.

That aside, I’ve heard this refrain numerous times recently about how symbols influence.  Yes, that might be true.  On the other hand, how can we hope to predict what type of symbol influences a psychopath?  I’ve known psychopaths to be influenced to commit murder by the appearance of a woman’s bare feet, or by a woman’s straight brown hair (some of Ted Bundy’s favorites).  But I digress…

Personally, I don’t really care if they stop selling or displaying the Confederate Flag.  I don’t have one and never even considered owning one.  I live in the West.  I suppose it’s a mute-point in this venue.  But, you know, somehow the banning of innocuous items or pieces of material seems somewhat un-American – not to mention that such an activity is always, and I mean always, indiscriminately applied.  Nonetheless, many would say, ‘What the heck - get rid of the damned thing - who really cares anyway?’  OK.  I hear you.  But…

Now, some doofus politician, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, wants to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee in Lee Circle in New Orleans.  “Symbols really do matter”, he so eloquently, if not originally, opined.  Alright, citizens of New Orleans go ahead and tear it down.  This Oregonian couldn’t care less.  But, I do think you’re getting your patties in a bunch about pretty much nothing.

For those who are familiar with the basic facts of the Civil War, the South was not just defeated, it was destroyed.  If a Southern Civil War hero is revered by the South, so what?  If a small token, a flag, is a form of solace, I say what can it hurt?  General Grant, the Union victor, treated Robert E. Lee with respect and honor during the surrender at Appomattox in 1865, even though he could have had Lee hanged – which is what Lee actually expected would happen.

Where are we going with this process anyway?  Should the statues of Jefferson and Washington be torn down?  As most of us know, they owned slaves.  Whereas, the vast majority of the Southern soldiers who were killed or maimed during the Civil War never owned a slave.  If some flag (and it is an American flag after all) gives some people a bit of sentimental remembrance and respect for those soldiers who died when duty called.  Well, as far as I’m concerned, let it be.

True Nelson

Montana Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents / and those little white crosses (Part 2)

It’s interesting.  First off, the State of Montana does not run the ‘little white cross’ program.  Since 1953, this program has been promoted and maintained by local chapters of the American Legion.  They have received the endorsement of several Montana governors, but apparently no significant State funds are expended.  The State has participated to some degree in erecting signs, upon entry into Montana, explaining the highway ‘cross’ meaning.

Officially, the program is now known as the “White Marker Highway Fatality Program.”

The crosses are not meant as a memorial to any particular person; nor (officially) is there any religious connotation intended.  The ‘cross’ purpose is to raise awareness among the public; and increase motor vehicle safety.  The crosses are not in every county, but are in most.

There is one cross for “each fatal accident,” which makes one wonder about the five crosses displayed together that I noted in my previous post.  I guess it depends on how you count fatal accidents (body count or actual accident count).

The dimensions and manner of presentation for each cross is consistent state-wide.  They are not to be decorated – although clearly many are – apparently by friends or family of the deceased.  When a road is improved the cross is removed – unless a family member specifically requests a new cross be installed.  Furthermore, family members can request that a cross not be installed at an accident scene; or that they would like to have a cross removed.

The Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the Montana Highway Patrol have praised the program.  So who am I to disparage it?  Now that I know more about it, I guess it’s OK – but, I still feel it is a little bizarre.

The question is, ‘does it work?’

Well, Montana has 1.96 fatal motor vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles driven.  Oregon has .94 deaths.  In other words, Montana roads are twice as deadly.  Apparently, the ‘little white crosses’ are accomplishing very little.

Oh, regarding motorcycle deaths, remember I previously mentioned the inordinately high speeds on some roads and no helmet requirement in Montana.  Well, I did find some statistics on that.  Although Oregon’s population is three times the population of Montana, the number of fatal motorcycle accidents is pretty much the same:  In 2013, Oregon had 34 deaths (32 were wearing helmets).  In 2013, Montana had 35 motorcycle fatalities (12 were wearing helmets).

True Nelson