We will always have crime and criminals, of various types. Our only debate becomes what to do with those who allegedly commit crimes. Our society does have rules, largely based on the US Constitution. Other societies have rules also, and the most common rule seems to be some version of "beat him with rubber hoses until he confesses, then shoot him in the back of the head". (sometimes the first part is optional.)
"Our" system used to have many rules, which begun with Miranda warnings, then arrest with the right to an attorney, (which implies non-coercive questioning), and later one trial by Jury (no double jeopardy). If convicted, one was sentenced to a fairly specific time in prison, although parole boards could reduce a sentence for "good behavior" in prison.
Was "our" system perfect? NO
Did it attempt to protect rights of the accused? YES
The prison term part was always the most debated. It was supposed to accomplish at least 2 purposes, maybe 3. First, deter others from the same path. Second, punish the perp for his crime. Third, keep the perp in jail until he "learned his lesson" and wouldn't repeat the crime. As a practical matter, recidivism was always our weakest link.
Now, "our" system is changing. From a system where "all men are created equal" we have substituted "all Americans with papers". Lack of American Citizenship is not the only reason to deny a suspect his "rights". Denying the right to an attorney and a fair trial is also acceptable for certain types of crimes, such as an accusation of "terrorist". Which means that we now have an ever-larger number of people who can be accused of crimes, stripped of all rights, and treated just like they would be in our world's cruel dictatorships. Are we admitting that "our" system never worked? While I agree that a system which begins with torture until a crime is admitted, and then proceeds through kangaroo court to conviction and "sentence", is more efficient, I for one think "rights" are important, even if they reduce "efficiency".
Another area which is changing is "double jeopardy". A person used to get one jury trial, if he was found not guilty he was set free. Now we are trying to create systems where we can try a person again and again until we get a guilty verdict. For instance, if a person is accused of murdering a person of another race, or a different sexual orientation, and found innocent of murder, he can be retried for the crime of "hate". (thought crime). It is becoming common for henous crimes to have many layers of State and Federal accusations, so they can be tried numerous times by numerous judges until the "right" result is achieved.
Then, after sentence, additional sentences are "piled on", sometimes years later. For instance, a felony, which used to be a serious crime, now includes a life sentence of not being able to protect oneself. While felony convictions are for less and less, and often for crimes which bear no relationship to violence. Another example would be various types of "sex crimes". Regardless of the crime and the punishment, years later the person can be classified a "sexual predator" and recieve an additional "life sentence". This is equally, and mindlessly, true for one who has raped 15 strangers and one who, at age 18+, had consensual sex with one who turned out to be 18-. While pundits like to say that "sex criminals do it again", there is little comparison with the recidivism rate of other crimes.
Where did America go? I want to go there.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
As we used to say in College, define the universe, give two examples. With few exeptions, energy on earth comes from the Sun, basically a big ball of burning hydrogen producing heat energy and light energy. The exceptions are the heat of the earth's core itself, and energy produced by nuclear fusion or fission.
We need a lot of energy to heat and/or cool our homes, for light, and for transportation, among other uses. While the less advanced parts of the world use a lot less of it than the western world, they would like to use more. A lot more.
Since energy sources are, in effect, scarce, they are therefore expensive. Which is why every African doesn't have an air conditioner, but he would like one.
Besides finding a source for energy, one often must store and/or transport it before use. Electricity is good for transporting it for many purposes, but not worth a damn for vehicles, as that extension cord gets tangled.
Mankind has traditionally used several energy forms, which have somewhat different limitations. Hydroelectic power utilizes sun power to make rain, and goes on from there. Worldwide amount limited, and individual dams cause varying environmental problems. The largest energy sources in common use come from sunlight and heat being turned into biological products (wood), and the same things which have been naturally stored in the past. (coal, oil, natural gas)
Everything I have mentioned so far has both a direct cost and an environmental cost. The newer "alternative energy" sources have similar, although not identical, environmental costs.
Nuclear Fusion and Fission are the only two method with virtually zero direct environmental cost. But the indirect cost, in the case of mistakes, is huge. Which has limited our usage of these.
While everyone can, as an individual, select his own amount of energy usage and his own type to procure, the world in general has already voted. Plug the house into electricity, put gas in the car.
In the long run, alternatives cannot be legislated, unless they are enough better to change one's way of life. One cannot through legislation effectively force me to leave the car at home and ride a bicycle, although the tradeoff between light and dangerous, and heavy and safe, is very real.
--------------------
So where was this rant going? First, hydrogen power for cars. This is only a source of energy to the extent of the amount of hydrogen in George Bush's hip pocket. Hydrogen on Earth is not an energy source. We don't have any. To create free hydrogen, we must use energy. Hydrogen is a transportation method to move energy from one place to another, and could be used to solve the "long extension cord" problem, but it doesn't create energy.
--------------------
Second, the "Arctic National Wildlife Reserve". As an Alaskan, I live quite near to this one. Until we quit using underground oil and gas as energy sources, we have to get those commodities somewhere, and make reasonable decisions regarding issues like "how many soldiers get killed" vs. "how much are we robbed by the price" vs. "how much harm is being done to the environment".
Regardless of fancy four word names bestowed by a congress 5000+ miles away, over 50 years ago, a better word for this area would be "badlands". Similar to "desert". See "uninhabitable". News media anchors who talk about "pristine wilderness" make me puke. They ought to ask "why aren't there any visitor centers?" Instead, they show beautiful mountain range pictures taken several hundred miles from ANWR. 200,000 caribou live there, probably because even the bears and wolves who would eat their calves have a hard time. Caribou have been proven to increase their numbers after oil exploration. They like to sleep under warm pipelines. Check your maps. How many places of human habitation are in ANWR. None? Why no Eskimos, Indians, or white men? Maybe not enough mosquito repellent? Or not that stupid?
So when should we use whatever oil is there? Before or after we invade Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait?
And how much oil is there, anyway? I believe that (1) one exploratory well has been drilled. More than 30 years ago. With the "results" kept secret.
I don't know all the answers. But we sure as hell don't ask the right questions.
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
This will be a rare blog entry for me. International relations. I believe that constitutionally, America's job is to defend Americans, and generally leave the rest of the world alone. And practically, it is the only strategy that works.
In this regard, I note that many words are written in the blogosphere regarding Israel vs. Palestinians. This conflict will eventually have only one winner, and is NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS. I myself have known many Jews in my life, and fewer Palestinians. So What? In my youth, I worried muchly about Hitler's minions marching unarmed Jews to gas chambers. That was wrong, wrong, wrong, and must never happen again. But it won't. First, Jews know better now, and second, we and others have made sure that they are well armed.
For us to be involved in any way with the current conflict involves two problems. 1) The constitutional role of America's government doesn't imply that we should be involved in foreign wars for foreign interests, or supposed foreign "peaces". 2) Anything our glorious leaders do to "mediate", "solve the problem", "settle the dispute", or whatever, will fail in the same ways and for the same reasons as an attempt to solve or mediate any domestic problem. If you step in to solve the problems of the neighboring married couple, the only result is that they are both mad at you. This rule seems to work even when one steps between two warring neighbors. They both end up mad at the third party who steps in.
We as Americans have nothing to gain and much to lose by trying to "mediate" this dispute. It would be far better for us to "stay out of it". We can be sure that Jews will not be unarmed, nor will they meekly march to gas chambers. Never again. It won't happen. They don't need us now. And we can't help.
The same facts apply to other countries. They have WMD's? So what. I come from the country which has the MOST WMD's, and got them first. Countries are being run by assholes? What else is new? Can we really run the whole world? If not, we must stop pretending that we can, and begin to solve our domestic problems.
If we had a country which valued human rights HERE, and stayed out of other people's business, we might, by example, be able to lead the rest of the world. Don't forget, both Jews and Palestinians are allowed to live HERE if they don't like conditions where they presently are.
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
One thing I've noticed about the "high profile" ridiculous cases which get splashed all over the Blogosphere. The "perps" never actually "win", they just get a reduced sentence.
1) Ed Rosenthal, the man arrested and tried for growing legal, licensed pot. Reduced to misdemeanor conviction, sentenced to 1 day in prison. BUT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY.
2)Ron Dixon, the man who shot a perp in his child's bedroom with an unlicensed gun. Reduced to misdemeanor conviction, sentenced to 3 days in prison. BUT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY
3)the family who homeschooled their kids and wouldn't give them a test. They won, but THEIR KIDS WERE ADJUDGED PROPERTY OF THE STATE. I'd rather be guilty of a felony, myself.
As I said many years ago to a congressional committee, Patrick Henry did not say "Give me liberty, or give me a better compromise with the king."
Standard Disclaimer
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
Start at the beginning. How much health care do human beings need? The human race has been around for a long time. Exactly how long is a debatable issue, but that's not the point. The point is, we got to here with virtually no health care. It's mostly an unnecessary luxury. Mankind can survive well without it. So what is it for?
Obviously, no health care and no medical knowledge at all still results in sufficient numbers of humans reaching sufficient ages for the species as a whole to prosper. So, just as obviously, the species needs no health care. Unless we've now messed up the system so badly that we would not survive without it. (This is possibly true, if we have indeed raised enough "defectives" that they cannot survive without it, but that would be the subject of a different essay.)
With no health care, the "average" lifespan, as reported by our most famous history book, is 70 years. Bible, Psalms 90:10. ~1000B.C.? I presume that must be after one subtracts all those which die before that point, from "premature" causes like accident, war, etc.
In the modern world, things should be better, since much common healthcare knowledge has escaped from the medical establishment into common knowledge. (wash your hands). I know, the moslem world uses "eat with your right, wipe your ass with your left" instead, but I prefer the western method.
Now we have the "benefit" of modern medicine, an ever increasing amount of knowledge, technology, skill, and drugs. This serves two basic purposes. First, to enable individuals who would die or be disabled "prematurely" to reach their allotted 70. Second, to "stretch" that 70 number a few more years. An additional benefit is a better quality of life for both groups. False teeth for those with none, eyeglasses for the vision impaired, etc.
But modern medicine requires a service that someone pays for. Filtering any cost through government doubles it, or more. And, as knowledge, technology, skill, and drugs expand, the cost goes up. We have already started down the road to Communism with the idea that someone else will pay, and that road has already caused costs to go beyond what an individual could pay in many cases. As the cost of health care goes up, and the number of people with "extra" money to put in the pot goes down, the inevitable result will be reached.
I don't really want to go down the road to where health care "fails" totally. The adjustments which have to be made, and some have been made already, are that health care can only be available for a smaller and smaller number. (or a younger and younger age group, or some similar formula).
We have already tried some of these "adjustments". 1)Medical "insurance" for those who have "jobs", omitting those who don't earn their living by having "jobs". Combined with 2) Welfare for children and their mothers. Kids are so cute, and they need mothers. Both of these strategies have wildly increased medical costs for the rest, who have to pay for it. Distortions are created in that few new or independent businesses can exist. Now we are going to "increase" medical care for those over 65, the richest group in our country. Both of our present "parties" are for that, as these people vote, even though their "value" to our society is diminishing.
Government (communism) raises costs. Once we have reached the point where health care is used strictly to buy votes, the cost to all others is driven upward, and those who are not the "chosen" have only one option. Get sick, you die. No modern medicine benefit for you, sucker, you're not one of the chosen. What kind of a world are we creating? One where children are raised by their grandparents?
This is a complex issue, with many interrelated parts. But most "fit in" with the above.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
I forgot this when I wrote the last post. A while back, Orrin Hatch was the dumbass senator who wanted to make the Revoke all Rights for the Selected by Government Act (AKA Patriot Act) permanent in all provisions. Obviously he worships at the grave of either Stalin or Hitler.
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
Remotely destroy computers of those who download illegal music? Is that before or after we remotely destroy the computerized vehicle of anyone who speeds, or doesn't fasten a seat belt?
How about pushing a button which burns down the house of anyone who commits an (alleged) crime?
Further down the slippery slope, we could just fit every free American with a bomb belt. Push button when a politician finds it necessary.
All politicians are evil, but Orrin Hatch is more evil than most.
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
Last I checked, most Christians and Jews believed in the commandment "Thou shalt not Steal". My personal experience indicates that most agnostics and atheists believe this one also. While I am less familiar with non-western religions, similar rules must apply. The fact that he who steals does not know the name or names of his victims changes nothing. Stealing is stealing.
So now both R's and D's have plans to add some kind of "drug benefit" to Medicare. Translation: Steal more from those young enough to pay for it to pay drug bills for people who will never repay. While every "senior citizen" will "benefit", and lots of them vote, neither R's nor D's want to honestly say who the money is being stolen FROM.
Why don't we have anyone over 65 in the US who believes in any form of "thou shalt not steal"? Both R's and D's think that they should now steal from their own children and grandchildren. And obviously most "seniors" think that's OK.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
A fishing boat hit a big wave in Oregon yesterday. 11 died, 2 of the bodies haven't been found yet. As anyone who has dealt with boats knows, the United States Coast Guard does a lot, involving much government regulation, to attempt to prevent such tragedies. Inspections of every privately owned boat, registration of every privately owned boat, safety navigational aids, weather reports, yada, yada, yada. Then when something like this goes wrong, they rescue survivors, investigate the incident, make new rules, yada, yada, yada.
So what the fuck do we need a National Transportation Safety Board investigation for? After one agency has already spent more money than these dumb fucks were worth, send another one?
This incident appears to have only two possible nanny state answers. Either outlaw big waves, or mandate that passengers actually wear those life jackets.
How many government agencies, and how many people, will be needed to actually make a decision here, if any decision is made?
Who of us actually voted for the creation of a NTSB? Or thought, after they first heard of it, that it was for anything else but plane crashes? Where, of course, it's also totally redundant, since we have the Federal Aviation Administration to harass airplane operators.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
Some out-of context quotes, emphasis mine. We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS...Declaration of Independence.
...Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity...Constitution of US.
Life is not safe. No one can make it so. Can anyone show me the word "safety" in the constitution, or show me where our government is supposed to be responsible for it?
Our government, supposedly restricted by the Bill of Rights from interfering with many of the abovementioned rights "endowed by their CREATOR", now can remove most rights. I am reminded of John Wayne in the movie where he "read" over the victims. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away." Now that has been changed to "The Lord giveth, and Bush, Ashcroft, and Ridge (or their successors) taketh away."
Our carefully crafted Bill of Rights, with years of law, resulted in a system where everyone had the right to remain silent, to engage an attorney, to a speedy and public trial, to a right to one jury trial (no double jeopardy) etc. etc. etc. Now all this can be removed if any of the abovenamed people says "terrorist". This enables you to be arrested, held without trial in a secret location, tortured until you talk, then tried by a secret court and executed.
We didn't need this shit for victims of Lightning strikes, or Tornados, or Hurricanes, or Auto Accidents, or death from Cancer or Heart attack. For none of those did we have to repeal the Bill of Rights. But now we are told that all rights are lost if we are a "terrorist". Or if we're at War. Or if we're not at War. (Illegal combatant). Where did "ALL men are created equal" get changed to "unless Bush, Ashcroft or Ridge says they're not equal". Doesn't this place those guys one notch above "CREATOR"?
I'll admit that the new way is probably more efficient. I'm sure Saddam Hussein thought so. I personally suspect that if there is a real reason, it is that the Federal Government is really lousy at law enforcement.
If you went from: 9/11--not a clue in advance
to: DC snipers--cought by a truck driver
to: Eric Rudolph--cought by local cop
what would you suggest? Read the words of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hussein, et al for clues?
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery
It becomes increasingly difficult for me to generate entries in a "political" blog.
Hillary Clinton found out the truth about the Monica Lewinski incident from Bill. After everyone else had found out through other sources. Doesn't she read the New York Times? This leaves us with two possibilities.
1) As the last person in the US to know, she also becomes the dumbest person in the country.
or
2) She is a liar.
Which is the proper qualification for a U. S. Senator? Which would turn me on most? Campaign signs saying "Vote for Hillary, she's stupid" or ones which say "Vote for Hillary, she's a Liar".
One of the above two choices motivated a large number of people from New York to vote for her. That's scary.
Standard disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.
The "right" way for someone else to live is not unknown. Minimize illegal, immoral, or fattening substances, get lots of exercise, avoid physical dangers, etc. What will be your reward? You'll die, eventually, like everyone else. But meanwhile, we can spend a lot of time telling others how to live, and make money from it. Smoking is bad. Everyone has known that for a long time, some do it anyway. One who does smoke, and then quits, will gain a significant amount of weight. We've known that for 100 years or so.
So now, having taxed, restricted, and generally demonized smoking, (and made a few lawyers rich), we are faced with an increase in obesity. DUH. Can the same lawyers get rich again? And after we eventually get enough pounds off those fatsos, can the same lawyers start suing for unsafe treadmills and poorly designed jogging shoes and get rich once again? Or maybe they'll have to work on unsafe seat belts, car seats, helmets, or ??? Whatever it is, the bottom line is "We'll all Die".
Meanwhile, "only you can prevent rich lawyers."
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery.