So, the latest, crazy, violent, known sex offender to finally "get caught" sat on his stench of death porch, drinking beer for years while his victims piled up inside. Anthony Sowell was a registered sex offender, required to check in reguarly with the sheriff's office. Officers would stop by to make sure he was there, but didn't have the right to enter his house!? Can you imagine what would have happened if the smell of delicious, lovely, sweet, fresh-growing marijuana was coming out of his house? Even with no previous criminal record, an army of DEA agents and SWAT teams from a tri-county area would have descended on the place a long time ago, possibly taking out completely uninvolved neighbors in the process.
Phillip Garrido was a known, violent, previously imprisoned, registered sex offender, periodically checked on by police, sometimes after neighbors' complaints. He chatted with authorities while his child prisoner was held captive in a completely illegal tent and shed encampment in his back yard that could be seen plainly on Google Earth. The authorities knew the encampment was there and illegal, but did not have the right to enter his house?! Can you imagine if a DEA surveillance helicoptor on a sweep over the neighborhood had detected an illegal marijuana farm in the tent/shed complex in the yard? Even without a previous criminal record, a small army of DEA agents and SWAT teams from a tri-county area would've descended on the place a long time ago, possibly taking out completely uninvolved neighbors in the process.
Why is this dichotomy in sniffing out crimes of a completely different sort. Is one even a true crime? One certain factor that must skew law enforcement agencies is the fact that they can confiscate money and property in drug raids, even when nobody involved is ever convicted of a crime. Gotta like the sports cars at the DARE events. Sorry, Fourth Amendment. Old common law that actually empowers objects themselves with animation (evil spirits) and thusly allows their "unreasonable" seizure, regardless of any person being in possession of the object, trumps our Constitution.
How much money might we save, in these budget weary times, if all of the non-violent drug offenders could be released from prison? How much might we save if we didn't have to burden the court system with marijuana "offenders"? How much might we save in border patrol, DEA sweeps and human life if marijuana was legalized and we shut down the main source of income for the drug cartels south of the border almost overnight? How many people might we save from already known sex offenders because there will be plenty of room in the prisons for them and our priorities and focus will be in proportion to the actual crimes that we care about preventing. Actual, despicable crimes.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Arguing on Facebook
Arguing on Facebook is like arguing anywhere else. I have serious exerience with arguing, especially having learned it culturally through my family, specifically my father, whom I deeply respect and love. My only senior class superlative in High School was "best arguer". If not for that category, I would not have won any superlative, only ranking third in a class of 113, and being a total geek outcast otherwise.
I am drawn to argument the way most people are repelled by it. My father was always engaged in stating his views on issues (religious and political... what else is important?) and I absorbed these scenerios in my young life. My favorites were family situations, particularly when my father and his brother discussed Roman Catholic Theology until the wee hours and I was transfixed on every point. Though my true interest was the actual debate points being discussed, the greatest impression on me was the way that my father and uncle were always the best of friends no matter their disagreements.
I ended up enrolling in college as a Political Science major, which I completed, but not after picking up Anthropology, the study of humans, as another degree. The "science" aspect of my original major has since been modified at my college to just "politics", which is a truer statement of the field, though does a disservice to some true scientific study in the area of politics. Anthropology offered an alternative way of viewing the sources of human behavior besides the ever popular "psychology" discipline.
I just got on Facebook about 8 months ago and immediately found myself involved with the same old characters from my family and High School days. The arguments haven't changed. A lot of people decry the medium as too impersonal and statements misconstrued, which is true to a certain extent, but I find that sarcasm is never a useful tool for persuasion whether in person or not.
Most people do not really care about debating a point, whether in text or spoken verbiage. They care about reinforcing their own beliefs. It is always the other person who is supposed to back up their statements with "data", never themselves. This is due to the sin of "pride". We all have it. We can't help it. It is hard-wired into our brains. We are smarter, funnier, more-talented and better looking (DISCOVER, Seven Deadly Sins, Sept 2009) than everybody else.
My engagements in arguing issues on Facebook (socio-political issues, I guess philisopho-religious as well) follow this pattern. Most people are not concerned with actually debating a point. They resort to name-calling, virtual spankings, and just plain "you are wrong" as opposed to serious debate points. I am not innocent of falling to this sad side of human behavior. We have some serious issues to tackle if our species is going to progress to a point of moral and biological sustainability and being engrossed in our individual/group rightiousness is NOT going to help.
My hero Carl Sagan suggested that we are ALL wrong about ca. 90% of the things that we truly believe in. That round figure comes from the scientific process that sets up empirical, controlled testing of hypotheses (beliefs) and results in about 90% of the time the hypothesis being wrong. This despite the fact that the scientist that conjectured the hypothesis based it on all manner of empirical observation and rational argument. The part that messes it all up is bias. We just can't get a grip on personal bias unless it is truly controlled for in an empirical experiment.
I have no end for this blog. The debates are ongoing. But, if you care about the progress of our species beyond its pathetic, current state, please consider civil debate as a way to resolve our most difficult problems. We are all seriously flawed and must recognize those flaws in the same way an alcoholic must recognize his/her addiction, if we are truly to progress.
I am drawn to argument the way most people are repelled by it. My father was always engaged in stating his views on issues (religious and political... what else is important?) and I absorbed these scenerios in my young life. My favorites were family situations, particularly when my father and his brother discussed Roman Catholic Theology until the wee hours and I was transfixed on every point. Though my true interest was the actual debate points being discussed, the greatest impression on me was the way that my father and uncle were always the best of friends no matter their disagreements.
I ended up enrolling in college as a Political Science major, which I completed, but not after picking up Anthropology, the study of humans, as another degree. The "science" aspect of my original major has since been modified at my college to just "politics", which is a truer statement of the field, though does a disservice to some true scientific study in the area of politics. Anthropology offered an alternative way of viewing the sources of human behavior besides the ever popular "psychology" discipline.
I just got on Facebook about 8 months ago and immediately found myself involved with the same old characters from my family and High School days. The arguments haven't changed. A lot of people decry the medium as too impersonal and statements misconstrued, which is true to a certain extent, but I find that sarcasm is never a useful tool for persuasion whether in person or not.
Most people do not really care about debating a point, whether in text or spoken verbiage. They care about reinforcing their own beliefs. It is always the other person who is supposed to back up their statements with "data", never themselves. This is due to the sin of "pride". We all have it. We can't help it. It is hard-wired into our brains. We are smarter, funnier, more-talented and better looking (DISCOVER, Seven Deadly Sins, Sept 2009) than everybody else.
My engagements in arguing issues on Facebook (socio-political issues, I guess philisopho-religious as well) follow this pattern. Most people are not concerned with actually debating a point. They resort to name-calling, virtual spankings, and just plain "you are wrong" as opposed to serious debate points. I am not innocent of falling to this sad side of human behavior. We have some serious issues to tackle if our species is going to progress to a point of moral and biological sustainability and being engrossed in our individual/group rightiousness is NOT going to help.
My hero Carl Sagan suggested that we are ALL wrong about ca. 90% of the things that we truly believe in. That round figure comes from the scientific process that sets up empirical, controlled testing of hypotheses (beliefs) and results in about 90% of the time the hypothesis being wrong. This despite the fact that the scientist that conjectured the hypothesis based it on all manner of empirical observation and rational argument. The part that messes it all up is bias. We just can't get a grip on personal bias unless it is truly controlled for in an empirical experiment.
I have no end for this blog. The debates are ongoing. But, if you care about the progress of our species beyond its pathetic, current state, please consider civil debate as a way to resolve our most difficult problems. We are all seriously flawed and must recognize those flaws in the same way an alcoholic must recognize his/her addiction, if we are truly to progress.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Rush Is a Victim of Free-Market Capitalism
So, Rush Limbaugh is crying big weeping tears of victimization. I am so happy to live to see this day. Is he a victim of "liberals" as he whines? Or is he a victim of himself and his own multi-millionaire career as a perpetrator of divisiveness? Is he even a victim?
Rush claims that he was shut out of part-ownership of the NFL franchise St. Louis Rams because of his "conservatism". Nevermind that he is not a true conservative at all, as his disparity with the views of a true conservative, Ron Paul, clearly demonstrates. There are plenty of NFL franchise owners that are decidely politically conservative. Nor was he "libeled", as his talking-head defenders attempt to argue. Nobody relied on false quotations for this decision by private business.
Rather, Rush's own statements equating the NFL to the "Crips" and "Bloods" and the outrageous suggestion that Donovan McNabb is only a quarterback in the NFL because he is black, are responsible for his public perception as being racially bigotted, as well as a complete idiot. He is a multi-millionaire for his public persona and now he finally suffers a negative repercussion for it. A private business decided that the controversy surrounding his idiocy, with specific regard to the NFL, was not worth the adverse affects to their business venture. This is the free-market capitalism to which Rush fancies himself to be such a great champion. ESPN apparently thought the same thing when he spewed his idiocy about McNabb and was canned for it.
Is he a victim? What has he lost as a result? I dare say for Rush and his ditto-heads, he will reap the rewards with possibly even more listeners to his nonsense. Or maybe he has reached a saturation point of gullible dupes to his radio show. Poor Rush.
Rush claims that he was shut out of part-ownership of the NFL franchise St. Louis Rams because of his "conservatism". Nevermind that he is not a true conservative at all, as his disparity with the views of a true conservative, Ron Paul, clearly demonstrates. There are plenty of NFL franchise owners that are decidely politically conservative. Nor was he "libeled", as his talking-head defenders attempt to argue. Nobody relied on false quotations for this decision by private business.
Rather, Rush's own statements equating the NFL to the "Crips" and "Bloods" and the outrageous suggestion that Donovan McNabb is only a quarterback in the NFL because he is black, are responsible for his public perception as being racially bigotted, as well as a complete idiot. He is a multi-millionaire for his public persona and now he finally suffers a negative repercussion for it. A private business decided that the controversy surrounding his idiocy, with specific regard to the NFL, was not worth the adverse affects to their business venture. This is the free-market capitalism to which Rush fancies himself to be such a great champion. ESPN apparently thought the same thing when he spewed his idiocy about McNabb and was canned for it.
Is he a victim? What has he lost as a result? I dare say for Rush and his ditto-heads, he will reap the rewards with possibly even more listeners to his nonsense. Or maybe he has reached a saturation point of gullible dupes to his radio show. Poor Rush.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Obama's Peace Prize
So, why are so many people bent out of shape about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Because they hate the man, period. They already hate him and they will always hate him. There is no sense of objectivity for people that hate Obama and they will hold anything possible against him. I think some people are against the Peace Prize in and of itself simply because it is an award for someone with the ideals of peace. Many so-called "conservatives" honestly do not believe that problems can be solved peacefully, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. One cannot receive the Peace Prize for starting a war or torturing people even though they truly believe that those actions are for the greater good, so why have a Peace Prize at all?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Alternate Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag,
of the United States of America,
And to the DemocanRepublicrat Party,
to whom it serves, One world view,
Under Judeo-Christian God,
indissentable,
with liberty and justice for Some.
of the United States of America,
And to the DemocanRepublicrat Party,
to whom it serves, One world view,
Under Judeo-Christian God,
indissentable,
with liberty and justice for Some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
