Police Officer Shootings

Watching the news reports of the shooting of Deputy Darren H. Goforth in the Houston, Texas area is an exercise in frustration.  It seems from the media that our nation has seen several murders of policemen in the past few months.

I heard a CNN reporter speak of it as an execution. Moments later a contributor was talking about police brutality and the #BlackLivesMatter movement as if there is any reasonable excuse for murdering a police officer.

Rural American tends to have a different view of our law enforcement professionals than what is seen on the news today. We believe that most State Police, Sheriff Deputies, and local police officers are good people doing a tough job. A job that requires them to deal with people who make stupid mistakes, those who make bad choices, and even those who have chosen evil and wrongdoing as their path in life. They do this job to protect others and enable our society to function. This job is often done at great risk to the officer’s safety, even their very life.

There are three things that we all need to understand.

1. All lives matter. It doesn’t matter what color you are, where you came from, what you do for a living, your stage of life, or what the balance in your checkbook is; every life has value. We do not believe that you condemn a group because of the action of an individual, much less condemn a group due to media coverage. We respect the individual who conducts themselves with dignity and treats others with respect. We require due process for those who violate the laws of our nation.

2. We need to teach our children that police serve society. They are authority figures that deserve respect, just as a teacher or minister does. We understand that any person who threatens another with harm, or otherwise violates the law, must take responsibility for their actions. If your actions threaten the lives of police or citizens, you should be prepared for the consequences.

3. Bad apples, both police and citizens, must be dealt with. If a police officer violates the trust that the public has in him or her, they should be punished. If citizens violate the law, they should suffer the consequences of their actions. No one should expect to get away with theft from, or harm to another individual.

Our society needs everyone to be a participant. Police officers enforce the law, citizens obey the law, and everyone looks out for each other. Each person takes responsibility for their actions. These are our American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any other option will result in damage to our society. After all, no society can selectively choose which laws to obey and retain the rule of law.

The Grange is proud to support our law enforcement professionals and the Constitution and laws of the land. Check out your local Grange to find out how they are accomplishing this task.

Is Net Neutrality Really Neutral?

The Internet – it just works, right?  Well it’s not really that simple, especially when Washington has its hands in it. 

Recently, three members of an unelected five-person federal commission approved rules that will likely make Internet service slower and more expensive.  Worse, the impact will be felt especially hard in small towns, farming communities, and other underserved areas whose residents depend on the current deployment of faster Internet service.

This is the result of the Federal Communications Commission’s regrettable decision on February 26 to begin regulating our Internet and wireless service with part of a 1934 law meant for rotary telephones.  While the FCC will not make the plan publicly available for weeks, enough details have come out to see why this action represents an alarming shift toward government control over the Internet and what we do online.

Given the Internet’s importance in rural communities, this news should be a call to action for our Members of Congress.  The Internet is increasingly important to our way of life – from satellite-based precision agriculture to real-time tornado warnings. Revitalization of our rural and underserved communities will be heavily dependent upon high speed connectivity for telemedicine, distance learning, and business models in the future.

Under the FCC’s new rules, which are referred to as “Title II” as they come from that section of the 1934 law, the federal government for the first time will have the ability to regulate the complex pricing system for transmission of data over the Internet.  Such regulations are unprecedented and will very likely lead to more problems than solutions.  

One of the dissenting FCC officials said that this action “welcomes litigation… as an appropriate means for regulating the Internet economy.”  Assuming this is true, the last thing a rapidly evolving and innovative internet needs is lawyers testing every new development in court.

The FCC’s action also gives state and local officials increased ability to raise taxes and fees on online services.  One study estimates that Americans would potentially have to pay up to $11 billion in new online fees. 

Yet these antiquated rules are what the FCC decided to use to regulate not only today’s high-speed Internet but also emerging technologies that will eventually make current communication as outdated as the Morse code.

Eight months ago, we warned the FCC that approval of these Title II Internet regulations would cause significant harm to Americans in rural areas.  “The rigid regulations and requirements mandated under Title II classification would restrict broadband development and hamper deployment of high-speed Internet access to rural areas,” we wrote.

Clearly, the FCC did not take into account the needs of rural Americans when it approved this policy.

That is why it is now up to our elected officials in Congress to correct this mistake. Given the interference with our online activities, our ability to access the Internet, and our online privacy, Congress must step in and correct this problem.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this recent FCC action is that it completely undercuts the country’s strong tradition of viewing the Internet as far too important to be used for political games. President Clinton’s administration came out squarely opposed to federal micromanagement of Internet technology in a widely praised 1997 policy. President Bush continued this stance, with Republicans and Democrats alike voicing support.

The Grange supports innovation that moves rural America into the world of access to high speed connectivity.   More federal government micromanagement would slow this down. If a handful of unelected officials can radically change Internet regulation to disadvantage rural America, Congress should take action to reassert a commonsense policy. In addition, if the news reports of political pressure on the FCC Board are correct, then the functioning of this politically independent commission needs to be reviewed by Congress.

Access to reliable high-speed Internet service is critical to continued success and sustainability of the country’s rural, agricultural, and underserved communities.  Congress should reject this outdated regulation and support action that will continue the effort to expand rural Internet access.