0 9678 777 000 5675 245 0
SIMS : ROCKS ARE FREE, AND SLINGSHOTS EASILY STOLEN.
0 comments

Friday, October 05, 2012
 Death Penalty Redux

It's been eight years since I wrote about the death penalty, and my opinion overall really hasn't changed for the most part. The salient points:

  • It doesn't really serve as a deterrent, because no one seems that concerned about it.
  • There's good evidence that innocent people were executed, either because of new DNA evidence or malfeasance by police and/or prosecutors.
  • Even if you can get someone sentenced to death, it's at least 15 years before anyone ever gets around to it. It's really terribly costly, all told.
So, those are my reasons for being being opposed to it, and fine reasons they are, but even so, I don't really object to the principle of the thing.  My feeling is not that capital punishment isn't so much wrong or cruel as it is simply misapplied.

 I believe that if you have incontrovertible evidence of a crime, video, DNA, more than ten eyewitnesses, I mean really ironclad stuff, then go ahead and kill the guy.  If shaky eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence comes into play, then the death penalty is off the table.

 To the point of its misapplication, the evidentiary threshold shouldn't only be applied to capital murder cases.  It should apply to particularly brutal assaults, major financial crimes, rape, and especially child rape.  

 What I know of pedophiles is that it seems as though many would, if a therapy was available or a switch could be thrown to stop the urges, would gladly do it.  Most pedophiles don't want to be pedophiles.  (This isn't to excuse any of the behavior.)  My point is that these guys are wired a certain way, and no amount of therapy or threat of prison is going to stop them from doing what they do.  If the proof meets the high bar, then execute him.  Give him the mandatory appeal, but if he's ruled against, he has 48 hours to get his affairs in order.

If you want to know how high a bar I'm setting for proof, I'll put it this way: Without knowing nearly all the details of the case, and based solely on what I've read, Jerry Sandusky wouldn't qualify for execution.  As far as I know, there isn't any proof other than one eyewitness and that of the victims.  There's no visual or auditory proof, and no DNA that I'm aware of.  If I'm wrong about the scarcity of more ironclad evidence, then I gladly nominate that scumbag for the end of a rope.

The same applies for the other types of crimes I mentioned, and probably a bunch more.  A guy who beats the hell out of his wife and kids was probably beaten as a child by his parents, and his own kids are going to end up beating their own children.  Just end it.  Break the chain, and let's put the defective genes to bed.

 There are certain people who cannot be rehabilitated or fixed. Given that even rapists who were "chemically castrated" still found ways to commit sexual crimes, there's just no point to keeping these people around if they've been proven guilty to the degree I've described.

 I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, I'm a rationalist. My views and opinions are based solely on what makes sense.  You can argue with me about this if you want, just so you know, you're wrong.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


posted at 12:29 AM

1 comments

Friday, July 20, 2012
 Aurora, Colorado

So grateful that we've settled down to the usual black and white view of what happened in Colorado this morning.

Ban all guns!         
If everyone was armed, he could've been stopped!

See how simple solutions can be?  Must be satisfying to just leave it at that.

Here's the thing, the Second Amendment allows us to bear arms, and the Constitution is fine by me.  If you want a hunting rifle, have at it.  If you'd like a handgun or shotgun for home protection, be my guest.

Do you have any business with a weapon that is automatic or easily converted?  No, you don't.  I have a problem with the government taking your gun.  I have no problem with them limiting the scale of weapon you're allowed to own.  If you aren't in the active military, and feel you need an automatic weapon, you are a moron, a coward, or both.  You can't have a Howitzer.  You can't have surface-to-air missiles. And you can't have your own nuclear weapon.  The only people that have a problem with those restrictions believe Tim McVeigh is a hero.

If you need a machine gun for hunting anything smaller than a T-Rex, you have no business hunting.  Hunting is a valuable skill that should involve more qualifications than having a trigger finger.  If you can take down a bear with a bow and arrow, then you are a titan as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose we could grandfather in assault weapon ownership for those that already have them.  I would add the proviso that should your weapon be used in a crime, you will also bear responsibility as an accessory.  And if you take said weapon off of your own property, to any place other than a shooting range or for repairs, you go away for twenty years.  No problem, because they're for home protection, right?  This is who I am, I solve problems.

On the other hand, there's the response that we shouldn't do anything because maybe someone armed could have taken out the shooter.  I suppose that may happen one of these days.  I don't believe that even with the gun safety course you took that afternoon at the Y that most humans are capable of responding calmly enough in this situation to stop an assailant without hurting a lot of other people.

When Congresswoman Giffords was shot last year, a legally armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, raced toward the sound of the shots as he unholstered his 9mm.  When he arrived, he saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing over him with a gun.  His finger was on the trigger, but he thought better of it, and grabbed the armed man's wrist, trying to wrestle the gun away.  Other bystanders shouted that he had the wrong man, and that the shooter was on the ground.  Second tragedy narrowly averted.

Given that 40% of adult Arizonans own guns, I suppose it was fortunate that some cowboy didn't start shooting back. 

Another hilarious line of reason is that "I'd rather die fighting back."  It must be awful to be that frightened all the time.  I am just barely smart enough to understand simple statistics, and even I know the odds of me being assaulted any time I leave the house are very low.  Not hit-by-lightning or attacked-by-terrorists low, but pretty low.  I am not afraid when I go outside.  Bad things happen to good people, and they might even happen to me one day, but walking around armed is basically admitting that your fear has defeated your freedom.  You can't go to the store without your gun, because something might happen to you.  It's your right, and your choice to live that way, but even with my cynicism, I'm still enjoying my life more than you are, because I'm not afraid.  Bad guys aren't going to dictate my freedom to live without fear.

I'm sure a lot of concealed carriers will take issue with that, but what are you gonna do?  Shoot me?

I'll leave you with this: If more guns means a safer society, then why isn't the United States the safest country on the planet?

Labels: , , , , , , ,


posted at 2:22 PM

2 comments

Saturday, January 30, 2010
I wish I knew why I bothered.

I don't know why I talk to people, I really don't. The following is the result of something I saw on Facebook:

Jacqueline: Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this.

Kevin: You can thank mr obama for that. I'm right with u on that, but I wouldn't say were the only country like that. We r actually way better off than most countries. Shame on obama, not america.. Lol
January 25 at 3:55pm

sims: Because no one was ever homeless before January 20th, 2009.

Add "lol" to that, if it'll help.
January 25 at 4:01pm

Ryan: Thank Obama???? Keep listening to Fox news...

Audra: hey girlie girl, i couldnt agree more! charity begins at home. and to add injury to insult, the italians are saying our relief efforts over there are all mere attempts at notoriety. whatsmore, the day when devastation hits this nation, you can bet we'll have to fend for ourselves without relief from any one else!

sims: Well, we are the richest country in the world. I wouldn't expect Haiti to offer their limited resources to attempt to help us.

But for the record, lots of countries offered to help us after Katrina, including Cuba, which isn't exactly a rich country.
January 25 at 5:30pm

Kevin: Come on ryan, u can't possibly think this asshole is a qualified prez. Lol. He's so ass backward. And I'd rather listen to fox news than george clooney, whoopi goldberg, or any other self proclaimed actors turned politicians. Check ur facts son. Still love ya tho! Lol

sims: Let's see...He's over 35, a natural-born citizen of the US. Yeah, actually, he is qualified. You probably think that being white is a requirement, but it's not.

And do define "ass-backward," would you please? Or just keep posting LOLZ!!1!!!111
January 25 at 7:31pm

Kevin: I posted my opinion like everyone else and u get personal? Wow. If I had to explain why he's ass backward it would take me all day. But no, no because he's not white, because he for one was a senator. Senators have half as much responsibility as governers. as a senator he voted present indtead of yes or no on more than half the bills voted on in his time as senator. Don't u want a decision maker in office? He makes people rely on the government and not giving them the tools to rely on themselves. That's dictatorship not democracy. When counrty is in debt, u don't spend more money to get out of it. That's economics 101 buddy. The reason I wrote lol was to keep the mood light, but if wanna get personal, come meet up with me sometime and c how far that gets you! I guess liberals r the only ones allowed to have an opinion.
January 25 at 7:54pm

sims: Well, I think referring to a person far more educated than either of us could ever dream of being as "ass-backward" is somewhat personal. But, point taken.

Voting "present" in the Illinois Senate is a common tactic, and essentially counts as a no vote. In may of said votes, he was acting in concert with other members of his own party as part of a strategy. You know, like voting no on everything, regardless of what it is.

Was Bush also a dictator, for taking a huge surplus, wrecking it, invading Iraq, and then running up the largest deficits in history while cutting taxes to the wealthiest 1%? He was an MBA, but maybe he skipped Economics 101, because he was so goldarned smart.

Have your opinion, you're entitled to it. It'd be nice if you weren't so...emotional.
January 25 at 8:14pm

Kevin: Alright, I hear ur points. Wasn't gettin emotional, I just don't kno u and it seemed like u were the one gettin emotional. But that's what makes america great, were all entitled to our opinions. I have mine, u have urs. Done talkin about it on someone elses post. Wasn't tryin to make a big deal about it.
January 25 at 9:45pm

Just one last comment here and I'm done. Ass backward doesn't mean dumb. It means that his beliefs in my opinion don't make sense... And a degree or education doesn't make u "smart" anyway. Anyone really smart would know that. When u try to give rights to criminals and terrorists and then take away the rights of an innocent unborn, yet living thing, that's what I mean by assbackwards. Not just obama, the whole liberal way of thinking is ass backward to me. I can honestly go toe to toe with u on politics and talk a lot more about it, I'm not just some idiot. I love america, those who don't shouldn't live here. But to end this back and forth, I don't care about u enuf to even explain anything further. Its politics, shouldn't b so personal dude.
January 25 at 11:11pm

Then I get a message.

Kevin: Jan 28 at 7:08am Report
So, I know I don't know you, and I kno I got a little too personal with u on jaquelin's post. I obviously feel very different than u but at least u sound like u do research and don't just talk out ur ass like most liberals I kno. The only reason I'm taking the time to write this message is because I felt bad for making it personal. That makes me no better than the people I despise. I stand by my thoughts and am passionate about politics to a certain extent, but I have a lot of liberal friends and our different views have never caused us to despise eachother. So, as an american citizen who cares about my fellow americans, I apologize for getting too personal. That's why I always write lol on those posts. Cuz its such a sensative subject. I will say tho, that when u said "our prez is over 35 and an american citizen and that makes him qualified"... I'd have to disagree with u on that. It takes a lot more to be truly qualified to run this country, not just age and citizenship. It takes backbone and heart! Cuz it aint ez takin all the shit a president gets in his time in office. He has to be grounded in his beliefs and stand by them regardless of what his adversaries think.He needs to have the ability to stand FOR something, not AGAINST everything. Anyway, kindof a random message, but I wanted to be a bigger person than I was acting on jaquelin's post.

sims: January 28 at 4:49pm
Honestly, don't sweat any of it, Kevin. The "lol" thing is just a pet peeve of mine, the same as when people say something really shitty, and then think you should forget about it by adding "just sayin'."

I'm probably a great deal less liberal than you suspect, but likely more liberal about some things than you are. That's okay, I don't pretend to have all of the answers.

My issue with those that use the conservative label at this point in history, is that they seem to have completely yielded on many issues to simple, willful ignorance. The issue with Obama's birth certificate for example. The proof of where and when he was born are beyond question, and even with the several proven fake documents people like Orly Taitz have produced, some people refuse to believe that the President was born in this country. I'm sorry if it offends you for me to say this, but anyone who truly doubts this man's origins is either stupid, or being stupid on purpose.

And the other problem with wasting effort on idiotic fake controversies, is that it takes time and effort away from real debate. If you're against health care reform, more power to you. But did you actually believe that Obama was going to set up death panels to pull the plug on grandma? The entire premise is ridiculous, and in order to believe it, you must have a serious disconnect from reality.

The larger problem, of course, is that this country is in a rough spot. There are a lot of reasons for it, and while many of W's policies over the past 8 years contributed, every president going back 30 years had a hand in it. Clinton was the one who set the deregulation of the banks in motion. Bush might have gone ahead and done it anyway, but Clinton allowed Bush to wreck banking regulations a lot more quickly and thoroughly than he might have otherwise. What happens going forward is up for debate, but the economic situation right now simply isn't Obama's fault. The next 12-18 months will reveal a great deal, but this country got hit with an economic tsunami under Bush, and just because the water has receded, doesn't mean the cleanup is going to happen quickly or easily.

The country is where it is, because we have allowed it to get there, either by not paying attention, or just nodding every time a politician said "tax cut," and pretending that somehow infrastructure maintains itself, wars pay for themselves, and that a good education should be cheap, but don't raise my damned taxes. It just doesn't work that way.

The politicians have been treating us like children, because we refuse to be spoken to like adults.

Sorry for the rant, but we're here because we begged to be here.

Kevin: January 28 at 7:34pm Report
Well I agree with a lot of that believe it or not. I'm not a consperacy theorist and definitely don't believe obama wasn't born here. There r so many extremests on both sides that have confused a lot of people because of their ongoing rants. Its hard to kno what the truth is anymore so I don't listen to any of it. When a politician is talking, I look in his eyes to see the truth and I trust what my heart tells me to believe. I did stand behinf W. But don't claim that he was right about everything. However, I do think he got a bum wrap. We probably disagree on that, but one thing we can agree on I think is that even tho we r in a tough spot currently, we r all still very lucky to b americans. That's where I get offended, when people bash america. We r the luckiest people on earth to have the freedoms we have... To even have the freedom to have this very conversation. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Take care

sims: Jan 29 at 12:30am
I will simply say that I don't believe for a minute that criticizing my country is the same thing as not loving it. I'm fully capable of appreciating what's great about it, while recognizing that isn't the same thing as saying it's perfect, or has no room for improvement. We got to be the greatest country in the world by living by the principles laid out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, not simply by virtue of being born here.

I'd be interested to know in what way you think that W got a bum rap, you know, really be specific. I know you can't blame everything on one guy, but let's face it, he's been a pretty substantial screw-up since he was a kid. He couldn't find oil in Texas, you can look it up.

Anyway, it's late, take care of yourself.

And then it began, long, long diatribes, all of them a single paragraph.

Kevin: 29 at 8:25am Report
First, I don't care where Obama was born. I do care about his phony chin in the air presence and lack of experience and qualifications. George Bush cut taxes and grew the job market by 6 million jobs over 8 years. He responded forcefully and directly to an assault on American soil by terrorists. He warned us it would be a long and painful war against terror and we all supported it. Not three months later, the liberals in Congress tried to cut his legs out from under him. He brought down a vicious, cruel dictator who had continually threatened America. Had we known what Hitler was going to do to millions of Jews, wouldn't it have been better to stop him before he could do it. Bush used the same intelligence which prompted Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry to claim his dad, George Sr., allowed Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction. All three made speeches saying we should take Saddam out. When W did just that, they all jumped ship because they all said he lied. He may have had some bad information but the fact is, there were weapons of mass destruction at one time and Saddam used them against his own people. They either were destroyed or removed, but that doesn't mean W. lied. A lie is when you know you're not telling the truth, he believed every word he said. W. never once whined about his treatment by the left wing press as have both Clinton and Obama about their treatment by the right, even going as far as wanting to shut down all conservative talk radio and news (liberals think freedom of speech only applies when they are speaking!). W. upgraded our nation's security, the libs held him hostage with the funding for the war by including billions in earmarks and entitlements that had nothing to do with the war. If he vetoed the bills, he would have been blasted for not supporting the troops. Still he did not whine or complain. Finally, his last two years in office he had a democratic congress. Check the national debt over these last three years, which includes Obama's first year and you will see a phenomenal jump in debt and a reduction of jobs. Obama blames Bush for everything. Bush, on the other hand, took the heat like a man and has never (as a past president) said anything derogratory about Obama. Therein lies the difference between a man and a boy.

sims: January 29 at 12:04pm
"Boy?" Really? Funny how things subtly reveal themselves.

You said, "He responded forcefully and directly to an assault on American soil by terrorists."

By invading Iraq? No one, not even GWB still believes Iraq had anything to do with any attack on the US. So, your "man" invaded a country, at a cost of over 5000 dead Americans (a lot more than died on 9/11), costing two TRILLION dollars. That will put one hell of a drag on an economy. It still is.

Your comparison of Saddam to Hitler is disgusting. The only people in history who even approach that level are Stalin, and maybe Pol Pot. Saddam was a piece of shit, and a brutal dictator, but he was never even remotely the type of threat to this country that Hitler was. It could easily be argued that the world is a better place with him gone. But I would also suggest that America would be in far better shape if he was still running Iraq. He was completely contained, and no threat to anyone, even his neighbors. The cost to carry out W's Oedipal revenge fantasy has been too high. Your concern for the plight of the Iraqi people is touching, but I imagine that will not lead to calls from you for humanitarian aid to them after our troops have come home from there. And Somalia? *crickets*

And feel free to cite more Democrats who enabled Bush to get away with the snow job he perpetrated on all of us. You won't find me trying to defend them for allowing what happened with the Patriot Act, waterboarding, any of it. They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned, for thinking that they somehow knew better than our founding fathers what was necessary to defend this country.

Bush constantly blamed Clinton for the recession that started not long after Bush took office, and he also repeatedly tried to blame the Clinton administration for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11, although I'd still like to know how it was Clinton's fault that Bush never responded to the daily briefing titled "bin Laden determined to strike within US."

There may be liberals who are serious about trying to shut down right-wing radio, but none who are worth a damn. Awful things are said by people of all political stripes, but I will always defend their right to say them. There may be consequences, but everyone has the right to say whatever they choose, no matter how stupid. It isn't pretty speech that needs protection.

Besides, the press completely rolled over for Bush after 9/11, completely frightened out of doing their jobs, afraid that if they dared to mention that not ONE hijacker was from Iraq, or that al Qaeda and Hussein were enemies, that the frightened American people would turn on them. The press didn't even think about doing their jobs again until after New Orleans drowned.

You sort of forgot about that one, it appears. Heckuva job, Kevvy.

Kevin: January 29 at 4:32pm Report
Wow, u basicly just proved every point I make about liberals. U asked my opinion, I gave it, and once again u got personal and obviously completely offemded. I could argue every point u just made but its ull just come back w more false info. Ur so full of shotty info it makes me laugh. I apologized to u for getting personal, but I wish I didn't. I didn't kno u and obama were so close. U have his back like he's ur best friend. Please don't write back cuz ur impossible to have a reasonable coversation with. Ur use of big words makes u think ur smasrt I bet, but I see right through u and every other liberal. Tried to have a nice discussion w u but u won't have it. So go live in ur fantacy world and go on believing what u think is truth. It doesn't bother me as much as it obviously bothers u to hear someone elses opinion and take it respectfully. U think ur right and ur wrong! Do not bother me anymore please, ur a waste of time to hv a reasonable discussion with. Wow! Ur amazing!congratulations on being a complete idiot, with all ur rambling all I heard was "blah blah blah"

So, he's all done with me, right? I should be so lucky. Apparently, while I was out last night enjoying myself, he was stewing because he got no response from me.

 Kevin: January 30 at 6:26am Report
And to say my comparison to hitler is "disgusting" tells me enuf about u to kno ur literally too stupid to argue with. How do u possibly get off defending that guy even a little. And the war was not against any one country, it was against terrorism and anyone who backs or harbors terrorists u dum ass! Was sadaam not a constant supporter of terrorism? He posed a huge threat and because of guys like him, we lost more americans in one sitting on american soil than any other event in our history. That's enuf to piss me off. But I'm sure u thot sadam and other terrorists were reasonable enuf to talk to and negotiate with. If u negotiate with them. U r one in my book. That's what ur party wanted to do. Every man and woman who served in that war knew what they were getting into, don't dare take that away from them...they died for a much greater cause than u and I will ever get the chance die for... Including my best friend who died in iraq. Its people like u that try to tear our country apart and make it much easier for those who pose a threat on us to attack us. No one can defeat us if we all stood together. But no, ud rather stand behind those that flew planes into our buildings. Sometimes, it is just that simple!!! Everything u have has been faught for at one time. U wouldn't have a pot to piss in if it wasn't for war. So do I think war is a good thing? No... But it is an unfortunate nescessity when u have people around the world who have no care for human life. Ur rehearsed dialog is so sickening and full of shit that I literally cannot hear it anymore. I've played professional baseball for 8 yrs and the large majority of my fellow ball players would second my statements to u... Because we know what its like to sacrifice something for a higher goal. Pencil pushin bitches like u have no idea what its like to sacrifice anything. U just expect everything to be handed to u. I guess that's why u like obama. The bailouts are a joke. Give me the tools to better myself, don't do it for me. That creates dependancy on our government, we should depend on ourselves. U watch what happens in the next few years with this guy running things. U can already see if u open ur eyes. Go talk it out with sadaam, watch him say one thing to ur face, and then stab u in the back immediately after. Those type of people do not give a fuck! And yet, u come to his defense?? Un freakin believable. If u write back, I won't even open the email. I'm done letting ur ideology into my life cuz its pure crap. The thing that bugs me so much is how u think ur so smart. Words are words buddy. U can pull numbers and so called "facts" from anywhere. Real truth lies in ur heart and backbone, two things u clearly do not have!

sims: January 30 at 10:20am
Shocking, you've resorted to name-calling. And text-speak. But as noted earlier, you do seem to be quite emotional, and I have apparently hurt your feelings, which was certainly not my intent.

I'm also sorry that you managed to completely miss my point about trying to compare Saddam, or anyone, to Adolf Hitler. Hitler started a world war, exterminated 10-12 million people in concentration camps (6 million of them Jews), invaded nearly every country in Europe, resulting in something like 50 million deaths by the time the war was ended. Saddam was an irredeemable piece of garbage, responsible for many, many atrocities. Saying that he wasn't as awful as Hitler is not in any way defending him, it's a statement of fact, the same way it would be if I said that you aren't as bad as Saddam.

But he ain't in Hitler's class. Maybe if he hadn't been completely contained by the US & UN forces, almost completely disarmed after the first Gulf War, etc, MAYBE he would have wanted to wreak the kind of havoc Hitler did. But he couldn't, so he didn't. And if you still truly believe that there is an actual equivalency there, I'm not surprised that you view history as you do, because that would mean you lack the ability to understand perspective. You wouldn't be the first.

As for 9/11, that really wasn't the event where "because of guys like him, we lost more americans in one sitting on american soil than any other event in our history." Saddam was a secular Arab, and al-Qaeda are Sunni extremists, much like the Saudis who bankroll them. Saddam was a douchebag, but not a particularly religious one, which is another reason bin Laden hated him. I know it's tempting for you to lump all Arabs or Muslims into the same simple stereotype, and likely useless for anyone to expect you to begin to understand the philosophical differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and how that actually relates to the war on terror. But don't feel bad, Bush didn't understand it either, although I guess you can feel bad for your friend who died bravely in Iraq. It's too bad his commander in chief felt the need to sacrifice him in Iraq instead of the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, Saudi Arabia. It's too bad that the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis goes back so far that he was more comfortable putting young American men and women at risk in order to take out a man in no way responsible for 9/11, rather than deal with the people responsible. That decision to let his friends off the hook for 9/11 may be the worst foreign policy decision in the long history of this country.

I think it's funny how you talk about "ur party" as though this was about something as base and simple as politics. I'm not a member of any political party, because all they do is gum up the process so that nothing can get done. I have no use for political parties, or people who are unable to see beyond the simple scorekeeping that they use to measure success and failure, while the country's future is at stake. I would abolish them all, actually.

I love baseball, played for many years myself. Not really sure how toiling away in the minor leagues in hopes of getting a fat Major League contract is an equivalent sacrifice to a higher goal in the same way joining the Marines and going to war is. But hey, I've had to stay in some lousy motels for road games, and been hit by pitches, too. You would appear to be suggesting that makes both of us just about Pat Tillman. Frankly, I doubt you can sell your sacrifice argument to anyone who understands the word. But I have no doubt you fall asleep with a clear conscience, like most children, and I do envy you for that.

You are right about the fact that al Qaeda cannot defeat us, though. If you think about it, they could carry out a 9/11-type attack every month for a year, and they still wouldn't kill as many of as as die in car accidents each year. They just aren't big enough to defeat us. The way they win is by scaring people like yourself, who then beg authoritarians to protect you at any cost, even by violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I know you think that you're a better American than I am because you're willing to send our own to die for payback against a country that wasn't a threat to us, but you really aren't. What you are is a frightened little boy who is willing to give up the rights and protections that MILLIONS have fought and died for, in order to gain some small illusion of safety.

You are pathetic, and it is people like you that will be the death of our way of life, not a few thousand Muslims with death fantasies. Sleep well, and just keep on never thinking about the cost.

There's really nothing you can say to people like this, I mean, just nothing at all. You would think people as panicky as this wouldn't sleep like babies, but they do. I sometimes wonder how well I'd sleep if I could give up 25 IQ points.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 10:21 AM

0 comments

Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Home of the what, now?

The past couple of weeks have really been astounding as the debate about the closure of Guantanamo creeps forward. The truly elegant stupidity of this uproar, is that no one is talking about whether or not the facility is legal under any interpretation of US law, or whether the torturous acts committed there will be prosecuted. We're only talking about the closure, and what it means for the people incarcerated there. Where will they go?

"Well, you can't just let them go! they'll return to the battlefield! Anyone who would do that is soft on terror!"

There's probably some truth to that. There are currently 240 terror suspects being held in Gitmo. Even though I'm sure that some of them are guilty of some prosecutable crime, I can't say this with certainty, because none of them have had trials. Details, details...

I'm not advocating just letting all 240 of them go at all. And I definitely wouldn't let them all go if there were even as many as 540 of them. Some of them might return to terror activities, or the not guilty ones might be so pissed at us, they might sign on to the cause.

Funny about that number, 540. That's actually how many Guantanamo detainees that the Bush administration let go without trial. Just let them go. That seems kind of whimsical, to determine on one day that a man so terrifying that he needs to be locked up without charges is, on the next day, no threat whatsoever. But what else can you do, right?

"You can't bring them to the US, buddy! Don't even suggest that! Willingly import terrorists? Why do you hate America?"

Again, it's apparently better to release these guys, than to bring them here to be held, tried, and probably convicted.

"That won't work! That's why we have the military tribunal system!"

You're right, the US system of justice wouldn't work on terrorists. I mean, aside from the blind sheik who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Timothy McVeigh, shoe-bomber Richard Reed, and Jose Padilla, there are only a bunch of other terrorists who have been convicted in US courts. They're all still in jail.

"Yeah, well... not in my backyard!"

Okay, mine then.

There is a maximum security state facility less than 10 miles from where I sit. I will take every damned one of the 240 Guantanamo detainees, have them placed in this prison while they await trial in US courts, and I will not lose a moment of sleep over it. Honestly, between the Aryan Brotherhood, the Mexican Mafia, Crips, Bloods, La Nuestra Familia, the Mexikanemi, and the Nazi Low Riders, I just don't think any of these guys would last a month.

"But what if they escape? What about my family?"

Okay, here's the thing: I'm starting to think you're a real spineless candyass.

If my state prison can't be trusted, I suppose we can always turn to the federal government's one and only supermax facility, ADX Florence in Colorado. "The Alcatraz of the Rockies" they call it. Florence opened in 1994, I will go ahead and list for you the names of everyone who has ever escaped from this prison:

*crickets*

So, I just don't buy your arguments about why these suspects can't be imprisoned and tried in the US, and under US laws. It's a really good system, one that has worked for a couple of hundred years, and truth be told, it's a better system now than when it was designed, because improvements have been made the entire time. Not so much lately, but still, it's pretty well designed.

Unfortunately, you still have professional pants-wetters like House Minority Leader, John Boehner who wails that "importing the (Gitmo prisoners) would be a strategic mistake and an incredible risk. Or Senator John Thune of South Dakota who noted, quite astutely, that "the American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighborhoods!"

But I'd really like to give special attention to Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who cast a vote against President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, because, as he explained at a press conference, "I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear."

A reporter was decent enough to point out the obvious: "No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States."

Reid replied: "Can’t put them in prison unless you release them."

While this may not be the single most idiotic thing I've ever heard a politician say, I'm sure we can do a hell of a lot better with our elected representatives, and we can make the country a hell of a lot safer merely by following the rules laid out in the Constitution. They work really well.

In the mean time, but on a Depends, you weeping, pathetic coward.

Labels: , , ,


posted at 3:37 PM

0 comments

Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Transfer

Tuesday will be a momentous day, as one president leaves office, and another assumes responsibility. As much as I've wished for a coup in the past eight years, I'm still kind of proud that we manage to make changes like these without bloodshed. We've done it this way longer than most.

The worst president in my lifetime will head back to Texas, which would be considered a punishment in many circles. But he will live richly, and his lackeys will cast a wide net over the oil-producing regions to raise money to build his presidential library. The first lady, in her younger days, was a librarian, but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether George W. Bush would even consider setting foot in a library, even one bearing his name. One may tempt him with a complete bound collection of Highlights magazine, but discerning the literary tastes of a man more Goofus than Gallant is not easy.

But what this monument to arrogance will not contain will be any hint of second-guessing, admission of mistake, and certainly evidence of responsibility taken for the damage done to the United States, in both the physical and mental senses, not to mention to the reputation of this nation as a country of laws. I hope the president will be buried in his Mausoleum of Thought, and right soon.

The Bush administration has an endless list of crimes for which it is responsible. It has been relatively easy for the ever-increasing throngs in this country who have turned their backs on the failed dreams of a bankrupt ideology to pin blame where it belongs. It took a great deal of looking the other way on the part of the press and citizenry of this nation to allow such outrages to be perpetrated in our names, but on Tuesday one thing changes:

Bush crimes become American crimes.

At noon Eastern time on Tuesday, the people of this country, and the Obama administration do not begin a new history, we merely continue one. Over the past few months, administration officials and others in a position to know have said in no uncertain terms that this country has tortured people. There is no longer any need to use euphemisms, the word is out there, and the word is "torture." We have unofficially admitted to officially sanctioned war crimes.

The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, when asked at his confirmation hearing whether or not waterboarding is torture, stated unequivocally that is. As the highest ranking law official in the United States, his responsibility is simply to apply the measure of the law to people in this country. No one is above it, no one is exempt. He will take his cues from the new president on what to do with the evidence that exists, and that which still requires investigation.

Barack Obama is reticent to start a cycle of the new gang going after the old gang, which, practically speaking is sensible. In this case, he simply has no choice but to allow the Justice Department to freely investigate the heinous crimes of the Bush administration. There are two simple reasons:

This country can not be allowed to sink to the depths of third-rate dictatorships, where whomever is in charge can make arbitrary decisions about what the law means, and whom it applies to.

If these crimes are not prosecuted, they will serve as precedent for the next time it happens.

And there is always a next time.

The United States has made a much-needed course correction, but it has not done anything to fix the damage done. I beg of you, President Obama, for the greater good of the American ideal, and that of justice, investigate, investigate, investigate. Anything less is tacit approval and continuation of the crimes of the Bush presidency. That is not change. And I cannot ever believe in it.

Labels: , , ,


posted at 5:34 PM

0 comments

Monday, December 17, 2007
Chris Dodd

This man is an American hero, plain and simple. "Hero" is a word that is used far too often, and it has become largely meaningless, but once in awhile, someone stands up for principle, and sadly, it's remarkable.

Senator Dodd today, stood up against the president, the Republican party, and even against his nutless fellow Senate Democrats as he filibustered against the FISA Amendments Act. This proposal, which would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also would provide legal immunity to the giant telecommunications companies which handed over information about your phone conversations to the NSA following September 11, 2001. That's the sticking point.

These companies all insist that they did nothing wrong, and yet want immunity against lawsuits. Well, to paraphrase the people who are monitoring our communications, if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of, right?

These companies have entire departments full of lawyers, and they know damn good and well that the government had no right to the information that these companies willingly handed over. I know this because I can read the Fourth Amendment, and also because of Qwest Communications.

When Qwest was approached, in some cases well before 9/11/01, they realized that the program was designed to gather significant amounts of entirely domestic communications, based on the fact that the NSA wanted access to Qwest's most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls and that only limited international traffic also passes through these switches. Qwest said to the NSA, "Get a warrant, and you can have what you want."

The government never bothered Qwest again.

So now these collaborationist companies, who just let the government spy on whoever the hell they wanted, with no legal justification, now they want protection from the law.

Call someone who gives a damn.

Chris Dodd (who is running for president, you may be surprised to find out), flew back to Washington to filibuster in order to prevent this complete giveaway of your rights to giant corporations from coming to a vote.

And it worked.

The bill was pulled from consideration until January, at which point Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (a Democrat, you may be surprised to find out), will attempt to do what the president wants, and ram this immunity bill through into law. Reid is a wishy-washy lameass in the Arlen Specter mold, who always talks a good game in terms of respecting the law, but in the end always capitulates to what the president wants, because if he doesn't, the Republicans will say he's helping Osama.

And that always works.

I'm very proud that there are still Americans in high places who are principled enough to stand up for what's great about America, able to see beyond the fear card, and who understand that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are far more important than any one, ten or million of us.

I've said it before: The terrorists can not destroy this country, no matter what kind of mayhem they wreak, and how many of us they kill. We are better than them, and we are stronger, because we have laws and rights, and freedoms that are as good as any ever codified by man.

And let us never forget that these guarantees were established by men along the lines of Chris Dodd, and not Harry Reid or George W. Bush.

Also, you should switch to Qwest. They've earned some loyalty.

Labels: , , , , ,


posted at 10:03 PM

2 comments

Thursday, September 13, 2007
The old Switcheroo

I was thinking this week about how great the war was going in Iraq, and it took me back to an article I read in the Fall of 2004, about why we had to invade. I know now that it is because we must grant democracy to the Iraqi people, but even three years ago, we had already gone through 21 different reasons for attacking. I shit you not, and here they are:

1) To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
2) For regime change.
3) To further the war on terror.
4) Because of Iraq’s violation of United Nations resolutions.
5) Because of Saddam Hussein’s evil dictatorship and actions.
6) Because of a lack of weapons inspections in Iraq.
7) To liberate Iraq.
8) Because of Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.
9) Because Iraq was an imminent threat.
10) To disarm Iraq.
11) To conclude the Gulf War of 1991.
12) Because Hussein was a threat to the region.
13) For the safety of the world.
14) To support the United Nations.
15) Because the United States could (easy victory).
16) To preserve peace around the world.
17) Because Iraq was a unique threat.
18) To transform the region.
19) As a warning to other terrorist nations.
20) Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it.
21) Because history calls the United States to action.

Now, I suppose Number 18 might cover the whole "grant democracy to the Iraqis" thing, so I won't say that this notion is yet another excuse. But lists aside, have we made any progress?

According to the rather sunny report that General Petraeus delivered to Congress this week, the number of Iraqis being killed in terrorist incidents has dropped by 50% this year (only 2000 a month now!). In spite of this great news, the Iraqi government can't seem to get anything done. There are hopeless divisions due to the different Muslim factions that are trying to get their piece of the action, none of which are willing to compromise, take a step back, or admit that their side may have blood on its hands anytime in the, oh, let's say, eight centuries or so.

If you are willing to acknowledge these facts, you may want to throw your hands up in despair. I look at them, and can only think, "Mission Accomplished." In reverse.

George W. Bush, in his efforts to make Iraq more like the United States, has actually managed to make the US more like Iraq.

In Iraq, we have religious groups who have aligned themselves politically with parties that support their particular dogma. There is not, nor has there ever been, any room for compromise between these parties, because all sides are convinced that they are the only ones who know The Truth.

In the United States, where we used to have a two-party system that was capable of compromise, especially on important issues, we now have idiotic, fruitless (no offense Senator Craig) squabbling, because both parties are certain that their way is the only way to do things, and that compromise is a sign of weakness.

Iraq is in the Middle East, it is overwhelmingly Muslim, and even as an ostensible democracy, would still have an Islamic-oriented government. There could never be an institutionalized writ of separation between church (or mosque) and state.

The United States is predominantly Christian, and even though many of the founders were themselves believers in Christianity, they saw fit to not exclude anyone by having a de facto state religion.

Now, however, we have a government in place which is run at the highest levels by evangelical Christians, whose views on the universe and law are not altogether different than those held by Taliban clerics. They believe god, or more specifically, Jesus, should be a part of every single facet of American life, and that there is no type of charity but that of the Christian variety. They know that to believe otherwise makes one an infidel in this life, and condemned to hell in the next one.

Well, no thanks.

I wish the Iraqis well, but they and their inevitable theocracy can go rot. I want my country back. I want people running things that understand science and the value of research. I want the ones in charge to be able to see past their own selfish desires and dogma, and try to figure out what the consequences of actions might be, not just today but for the next fifty years. I want a president who has doubts, because no one but children and imbeciles could possibly ever have a clear conscience. Certainty, especially the moral brand, is the clearest evidence of a closed mind, and people who claim it ought not be left in charge of anything more important than a microwave oven.

These men who would protect us from evil have instead trashed our Constitution, and lowered us to the level of the enemy whom we proclaim to be so utterly backward in its thinking. And I'm not just talking about our Saudi allies who knocked down the World Trade Center, we have become more like the fascist Communist governments run by Stalin and Mao. We may be a ways off from that level, but we sure as hell are as close to that point as we have ever been.

George W. Bush, the staunch anti-Communist who kept the skies over Texas safe from the Viet Cong in the 1960s, and now battles to keep the American Way intact by taking moral lessons from the worst people on Earth. The 3,000 who died on 9/11/01, and the nearly 3,800 American servicemen and women who have died since then are casualties of a war to promote American-style democracy. It is a war we lost the moment the so-called Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001, and its headstone was cemented in place with the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which eliminated Habeus Corpus.

We have forfeited our birthright to a group of inbred fanatics who could not take it away from us if they had their numbers increased a thousandfold. And we have done it thanks to the type of leadership one would expect in a third-rate, pissant country like Iraq.

Iraq has American-style democracy all right. If that country even exists in ten years, I'll buy you a Coke.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


posted at 4:43 PM

0 comments

Tuesday, July 31, 2007
FUBAR's Rube

I'm hardly extraordinary in my news consumption. I try to read the paper each day, and maybe catch an hour or so of news. These are a couple of the rare activities in my life that make me feel like an adult, so that's not so bad. Because of these things, I am aware that for some reason, Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General of the United States of America. I just can't understand why.

The Democratic majority in Congress has shown that it is spineless in holding the administration accountable on the war, the faked intelligence leading to the war, the slow strangulation of the middle and working classes, unlawful eavesdropping on law-abiding American citizens, or anything else. There is so much to impeach George Bush over, that most of us wouldn't know where to begin.

Well, not this Congress. There don't appear to be more than a handful who value the rule of law and this country over the prospect of the next election. There are more important things, you stupid bastards. Nancy Pelosi announcing at the end of 2006 that "impeachment is off the table." Damn her.

It's not your job to decide what is a crime and what isn't! Not one bit. Your job is to pass laws, and when necessary, rein in the other branches that have decided to ignore these laws. Your job, the oath you took as a matter of fact, is to protect the Constitution of the United States. Since the President and Vice President have pissed on their oaths, it is time for you to do your job, your Constitutional duty, and try these men for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution.

Frankly, if you haven't instituted impeachment hearings by November, you and Harry Reid should both resign the leadership positions, and your seats in Congress as far as I'm concerned.

Someone tell me why Alberto Gonzales is still the highest ranking law official in this country. Won't someone please defend this man? Anyone? I used to just think he was a mindless automaton, doing his patron's bidding since both were back in Texas, but it's really much more than that. Gonzales has proven to be ignorant of the law in so many ways. He's not even a very good lawyer, apparently! Even I know that an attorney never asks a question to which he doesn't already know the answer. All of these Senators questioning Gonzales are attorneys, and Chairman Pat Leahy was a prosecutor. Do you really think he's just up there winging it with Gonzo?

And if Al believes it, the only conclusion that one can reach is that not only is he a courtier, a lackey, and bad at his job. He also appears to be a damned moron.

These hearings are like the chess club ganging up on the village retard. It seems cruel, but this man and the administration he so brazenly represents need to be held up to the light. If people feel pity that the smart men are picking on Corky, then we will never see the end of this tunnel of criminality that Bush/Cheney has burrowed into the bedrock of a nation that used to value its laws and freedoms.

It also likes a really extended metaphor now and again.

Impeach Gonzales. Impeach Cheney. Impeach Bush. The evidence is overwhelming, and the true beauty of the case is that these men won't even bother denying their crimes. they will sit in the dock, straight-backed and proud, desperately trying to make us understand that the only way to save America was to destroy it.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 8:21 PM

0 comments

Wednesday, June 27, 2007
What Say You?

Me? I like the Constitution. I think it is one of the greatest things ever written, and in the couple of centuries since it was put down, I have yet to see a nation anywhere on earth write a better founding document. It has been amended a few times, mostly to beneficial effect, although more idiotic proposals to "improve" it have been tossed around than I'd care to recall.

My guess is that most Americans, and even citizens of other countries can agree that it's a pretty superlative document. Flexible enough to give discretion to judges, while at the same time providing clear and sensible guidance. For example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is that clear enough for you? We understand that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater endangers lives in a concrete way, so we file that under "inciting panic." Sensible. There is room for this sort of interpretation, and I'm confident that the founders understood and wanted it that way.

The Constitution also established that there would be three co-equal branches of government: The Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislative. No branch would be able to go rogue without being reined in. Article II even went so far as to define the specifics of the branches:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term...No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The 12th Amendment further clarified the requirements of office:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The President is the head of the Executive branch. The Vice-President must meet all of the same requirements of office as the President, and has always been an obvious member of the Executive.

Until now.

Dick Cheney is now claiming that he, as VP, is not part of the Executive Branch of the US government. Because his duties include being president of the Senate in order to break tie votes once every couple of years, he has asserted that he is a member of the Legislative branch in order to skip out of a request for classified documents for archival purposes.

Please don't confuse this tactic with his repeated and nearly constant claims of executive privilege in order to avoid having to disclose information about policy meetings and the like. It might be easy to make that mistake, because the word "executive" appears in both "Executive branch" and "Executive privilege." Let me assure you that according to Mister Cheney, that is some sort of weird coincidence.

I just need to ask those who have defended the Vice President (an deliciously ironic title), what do you say now? How do you explain with a straight face this twisted perversion of the law? How do you defend this administration from so many egregious violations of our country's most sacred text? Can you honestly say that these men love our country? Can you possibly believe that what they do is in anyone's interest, save their own? And most curiously, why would you bother defending any of it?

Make me understand. Demonstrate that these many illegalities are somehow ethical. I don't want to believe that I live in a country being run by amoral criminals.

I will not leave. This is my country. I will not allow it to be changed to suit the whims of a short-sighted few. I would gladly stand before the entire country and shout these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Defend the Constitution.

Not the office of the President. Not even the country. The Constitution. America means nothing if these words are allowed to be rendered meaningless.

Your defense of these men is partisan, and it is small. This is not about party, agenda, or ideology. It is about liberty, freedom, and the right to know what our leaders are doing. To want or expect anything less is, to me, un-American.

Labels: , , , , , ,


posted at 7:50 PM

maystar maystar maystar designs | maystar designs |
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com