#charlesvela

[charlesevela-blog]

Rethinking Defense Locations

Some of the world’s largest military installations are located within the Continental US, and at least four of these are hundreds of miles away from US borders. Fort Hood, for instance, is nestled in North Central Texas, Fort Bragg in the heart of North Carolina, Fort Benning on the Alabama-Georgia border, and Fort Campbell on the Kentucky-Tennessee state line. With wars always impending or somewhere on the horizon, are these large military installations located where they can best protect America and her interests? The crisis on our nation’s borders is of concern not only to government leaders, but also to every individual American affected by the problem. Even though tighter security measures have been imposed to avoid the entrance of illegal aliens, there are still those who successfully make it through the system. As much as possible, we need to know who is here to ensure that we don’t allow the free movement among us of people or organizations who wish us harm. The need to secure ourselves and our interests within our own borders has been misconstrued in many ways. Idealists and people who simply want to promote their own agenda are often quick to point out racism or elitism. Obviously, one cannot speak on behalf of every single American citizen and say nobody here is a racist or an elitist, but to secure one’s welfare is a reasonable endeavor. In fact, as we enjoy the privileges of being Americans, it is our responsibility to ensure the security of the country. Alerting authorities of suspicious individuals or groups is part of that responsibility, as well as questioning authorities regarding whether or not our military forces are strategically located to protect us. Most of our military installations were constructed during a time when we wished to hide these establishments from the rest of the world. We needed these places to be as far from scrutiny as possible. But times have drastically changed. Even from the other side of the world, enemies may scrutinize our bases using satellites and other stealthy means. With just a single security breach—for example, where encryption is concerned—enemies may expose many US secrets. So do we still need our bases to be out of the way and far from where borders? Shouldn’t some thought be given to moving these military installations, or at least some components thereof, to new bases closer to critical areas? How much defense capability is actually needed in the rolling Central Texas countryside, or in the deep unspoiled woods of North Carolina and Georgia? If war, or even the slightest attack of terrorism, should ever come to our doorstep again, we owe it to each other to be prepared. Every American should ask the tough questions now, before it becomes too late to act on them. Where should we have military bases? Where else can we fortify our defenses? Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Protecting Borders

US borders are still being overrun by undocumented immigrants seeking economic opportunities or freedom from oppression in their native countries. But enough criminals and less-desirable individuals also enter through our porous borders to cause concern. The present administration’s immigration policy has generated much publicity. While millions of people around the world disagreed with fervor over Trump’s immigration policies since his election as president in 2016, citing unjust and inhumane policies, many Americans still feel the necessity to tighten our borders and to bring American jobs back to American soil. Over the years, Americans have felt the toll of unemployment while hundreds of American businesses have relocated to foreign lands where labor is cheaper and profit margins are bigger. Why are other countries benefitting from what should benefit Americans? Who will employ the average American man or woman in the future? Furthermore, how can the peace and order of American societies be upheld if illegal aliens come and go as they please? How are we to know who is the next terrorist or the next human trafficking victim if the government cannot account for every person in the US? With lax immigration policies, aren’t we just sitting ducks, waiting for the next tragedy to strike? Border Patrol agents performs admirably as individuals, but the agency as a whole fails miserably in its assigned task. Airport security is doing a fantastic job from their end, but are these efforts enough, or do we, in fact, need the present administration’s hardcore policies on immigration? Furthermore, should military resources be withdrawn from action worldwide, where the US is gaining no land, additional resources, or monetary compensation, and reassigned to protect the borders at home? It is presently illegal for US military forces to operate defensively within our own borders. Is it time to reconsider the value of such laws and restrictions? In our present circumstances, shouldn’t the military protect US citizens at home instead of political interests overseas? Overall, it should be remembered that the world looked up to the United States of America, the land of the free, the land of milk and honey. There are breaches in our system because they are allowed to happen. The government’s first responsibility is to correct the system and make it as foolproof as humanly possible. Then we can open our doors to the world. America should not turn its back on humanity just to secure itself, but we must always consider the security of our own citizens first, and protect every man, woman, or child resident from outside threats. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Biblical and Present-Day Capital Punishment

As of May 2019, twenty-nine states still support the death penalty. It has been abolished in Washington DC and in the rest of the states. In 2018, out of forty-two death sentences in the US, only twenty-five people were actually executed. And as of April 2019, there were a total of 2,673 people on death row in the US, including fifty-four women and twenty-two juveniles. Some Americans believe the death penalty to be unconstitutional and a grave offense against the most Supreme Judge of them all. Some people believe that every one of us deserves a second chance and that only God can take away the life that He gave. When we look more closely at the unbelievable crimes committed by the people now waiting on death row, or when we look at the crime rate in our society, can we honestly assert that the death penalty is really too much? When we protect the life and the rights of these grave offenders, including rapist and murderers, are we taking into consideration the life and the rights of their victims or their would-be victims if they are ever, somehow, released back to society? When we use God to argue the pros and cons of capital punishment, what does God really say about such a situation? The Bible prescribes death for a variety of criminal and social infractions, e.g., murder, adultery, witchcraft, worshipping other gods, and male-male sexual intercourse, among others. The Bible would have adulterous women, disobedient children, people who fraternize with believers in non-sanctioned religions, as well as other offenders, killed or, at least, stoned. Taking into account all these, are we too lenient in punishing crimes, or is the implementation of the death penalty justified? In a previous blog post, we discussed whether or not a stint in prison corrected behavior (INSERT BLOG 7 URL: Punishment or Primer: Does a Stint in Prison Correct Behavior?). If prison is not the answer—if a stint in prison leads merely to repeat offenses—then how should we, as a law-abiding society, punish gross acts of misconduct? Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Is the US Constitution Outdated?

The Constitution was created in 1787 and came into effect in 1789.  It is the supreme law of the United States. Although it has been amended twenty-seven times, it seems that the Constitution is outdated, especially where technology is concerned. It is no secret that there is no such thing as privacy anymore. Someone is always listening; someone is always watching. Whether it is for our own good or not is an entirely different issue. The question is, does the Constitution give us protection against issues that didn’t exist centuries ago? All day, all night, we have to endure intrusions into our lives from electronic sources. Almost any unfiltered search on the internet will result in at least a few pornographic images or suggestive pictures or drawings. We are constantly forced to deal with buzzing, ringing, or vibrating cell phones and messages from robo-callers, selling or promoting their wares or ideas. Should national lawmakers concern themselves with these blatant wastes of our time and resources? Should the US Constitution be updated and amended to allow the government to deal with the electronically driven world we live in? Should a document written to govern a nation as it existed over 230 years ago be amended to meet the demands of the present time? America in the eighteenth century had a completely different set of concerns that, apart from what we read from books, we know nothing about today. How could they know about the issues we are facing presently? The tenets of the US Constitution and all the constitutions worldwide are based on the very basic requirements of a government toward a nation, to protect all life forms and to uphold the rights of men. In this sense, the US Constitution is as relevant today as it was in 1787. But when we consider the challenges of the changing times, perhaps a re-evaluation of the Constitution is not an entirely bad idea. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Should the Capital Bid DC Goodbye?

The Residence Act of 1790 made the creation of the capital possible. in 1791, the city of Washington, formally known as Washington, District of Colombia, in the present, became the national capital of the United States. Since then, it continues to be the seat of the three branches of the federal government. The Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are all located in Washington, DC. In 2018, it is the twentieth most populated city in the United States. Many historical landmarks, like monuments and museums, international embassies, headquarters of leading international organizations, among others, are located in DC. In short, the capital plays a vital role not only within the US federal system, but also in matters affecting the international community. Geographically, however, it is not the most accessible location for many Americans. Because the United States spans a huge area from the West Coast to the East Coast, then north and south, many everyday citizens find the location of the capital too difficult to access. A flight from any of the airports in California to DC, for example, totals over five hours, not including delays and check-in and check-out times. Driving from Louisiana to DC is even more unbelievable—almost 16 hours without traffic, stops, or delays. This goes to show that travelling to DC, if one has important business in the capital, can be time-consuming and expensive—something many Americans can do without. Is relocating the capital to a more central location possible at all in the future? In recent news, Indonesia announced the relocation of its capital from Jakarta to East Kalimantan, firing up speculations that Jakarta is sinking some inches per year. Indonesian spokespersons, however, insist on urbanization plans as the main reason. Whatever their reasons are, it only goes to show that it can be done during our time. With careful planning, a capital city may be relocated anywhere on the map. What are the cons for such a move? A relocation of that magnitude will require billions of dollars. It will horrendously set back the national budget and affect many departments and agencies and, consequentially, affect thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Furthermore, will the two opposing powers—the right and the left—agree on a location, or will that set off another round of everlasting debates? At this point, we can only speculate. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Sowing Real Education to Reap Real Progress

In Japan, the first few years in school are not devoted to any academic pursuit. Young children go to school, but they do not take exams, nor are they forced to excel academically. Instead, they are taught manners and how to live independently. In the U.S., many young people aren’t mature enough or don’t have enough experience to make good decisions concerning their career choices. Often their parents don’t have enough education or experience to help them very much either. And yet, sometime during their late teens, every American youth has to choose a life course, one that may last forever. Too often, the young person makes no choice at all, but rather lets accident, happenstance, or mayhem guide his or her progress.   We ought to look at the priorities we set for our children. We ought to reconsider how we are preparing them for some of the biggest decisions in their life. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves some tough questions: Should public school curricula be designed to help young people and children understand real world issues instead of focusing on sports, political correctness, or the latest fashions, ideas, and trends? Should children be taught practical skills like sewing or fixing a plumbing leak—along with Shakespeare and calculus? Should companies and for-profit enterprises be involved in curriculum development so that kids can be made aware of the world they will have to live in, instead of some fantastic dreamland that, for the most part, doesn’t—and never will—exist?   Military recruiters are often conspicuous on high school and even junior high school campuses. Rare is the instance, though, when corporate representatives are stationed in the schools. Impressionable children seeking direction in their lives—looking for options—see only one course: military service.   What we sow is what we will ultimately reap. If children are given opportunities to explore possibilities before they are made to jump on a decision, we will see more and more satisfied individuals who are productive members of society. Only then will we find lasting progress.   Real progress is possible, not the technologically induced kind that hurts individuals and society in the long run. Real progress is possible if we give much thought to individuality and how we all have roles to play in society. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to progress. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

The Criminal Cycle

William Penn (1644–1718), writer, Quaker, and founder of Pennsylvania, initiated correctional reforms in America toward the end of the seventeenth century, but until the nineteenth century, incarceration was not widely used. To address the needs of the ever-changing society, the American criminal justice system has since evolved to the system it is today, but what does the system do? The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions whose goals are to identify and catch unlawful individuals to inflict a form of punishment on them. Other countries have one institution running the entire justice system, but in the United States, there is no all-encompassing agency. Instead, there is a complex network of systems performing from different levels. These levels are the federal, state, and special jurisdictional level (e.g., military courts). Aside from these three, there are also three components of the criminal justice system: law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement arrests suspects; gathers information or evidence pertinent to a case; upholds the rights of suspects, victims, witnesses; and oversees the implementation of sentences once determined. Adjudication is the legal processes that is necessary to resolve a case and reach a decision. It is a time-consuming and often-expensive process. The last component is correctional, which includes, but is not limited to, reform and rehabilitation of sentenced offenders. With all these complex details, perhaps the American society is better off compared to others? Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Despite the complexities and the effort put through to ensure that rights are protected and uphold and that further criminal activities are avoided, the number of repeat offenders and career criminals continue to rise. Why? Why does the vicious criminal cycle continue even after an offense is punished and a sentence is completed? Are criminals too hardened by their circumstances that nothing will jar them out of their chosen lifestyles? Are sentences too short that they don’t reform a man or woman enough? Are they too long that they take the humanity out of criminals? The cycle suggests a breakdown somewhere in the system. That much is obvious. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society are not successful, because criminals resort to old crimes. Before long, there is the possibility that the criminal justice system will, ultimately, be rendered ineffective. Read the full article

[charlesevela-blog]

Domestic Comfort vs. National Security

In 2018, total world military spending reached a record high of 1.8 trillion, a 2.6 percent increase from 2017. The United States topped the list of nations with the highest military expenditure at less than $890.8 billion (actual spending). For October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020, the U.S. budget is estimated at $989 billion—a staggering amount compared to the combined spending of nine other countries tailing the U.S. in terms of world military expenditure. How is the U.S. budget justified?  The U.S. military budget has four components: a based budget for the Department of Defense; budget for overseas contingency operations; combined budget for several agencies like the Department of Veteran Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, among others; and finally, funds of the State Department and Homeland Security. Overall, the military budget is the second largest item in the federal budget, coming right after Social Security.  The administration’s military budget is not without controversy. While Pentagon and the administration deem these figures appropriate for national security and for protection of vested international affairs, many Americans are wondering if re-thinking military strategies will help lessen the expenditures. An article published online in January 2019 expresses this sentiment:  Investing in modernization and readiness rather than growth, paired with more clever and efficient management of the military, can allow today’s U.S. military of roughly 1.3 million active-duty troops, just over 900,000 reservists, and almost 750,000 full-time civilians to do the job. By giving up most plans for expansion, the military services can ensure that modernization and readiness get the resources they crucially require. (Miller and O’Hanlon)   In April 2019, liberal members of Congress demanded budget appropriation be equal between military spending and domestic spending. A resolution was passed increasing the budget for domestic spending to $631 billion in 2020, an increase of 5.7 percent from 2019. Critics of the ballooning military expenditure want equal attention given to domestic programs like infrastructure, education and jobs training program, and other non-defense–related programs. Ironically, more money is spent acquiring military personnel, equipment, and carriers rather than investing in the improved comforts of everyday life in America. Some highways, bridges, parks, reaction centers, etc. are in need of improvements and better management. Employment and job training programs need enhancement. Various scientific, cultural, and athletic programs need funding. All these and more require careful consideration and serious funding. The effort to protect the security and national and international interest of the U.S. is of paramount importance, but this should not come before the quality of life of every American. It’s an unnecessary sacrifice. Read the full article