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

Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Imus


The most recent development in the story is that MSNBC, which televises Imus' morning show live weekday mornings, has gone beyond its initial two-week suspension, and has decided to dump the show from its lineup.

All of this is due to the reaction after Imus' comments last week about the Rutgers women's basketball team. By now, we've all been blasted again and again with someone or other recounting the phrase "nappy-headed hos." I think that this phrase is going to become a cultural touchstone for years to come, sort of like "You are the weakest link," "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" and "You forgot Poland."

When I first heard the clip, my reaction was that Imus had said something stupid and offensive, and it came off as a lame attempt at humor. Imus has certainly been in these waters before, although in his career, he has a had a lot more good moments than bad, and I don't say this as a fan of the show. I like some of his interviews with politicians and others, but by and large, I find it a bit dry. Imus is very good at what he does, it's just not for everybody.

I wasn't really offended by what he said, although I'll admit I was actually shocked to hear his producer, Bernard McGuirk, use the word "jigaboos." That's some old-school racist verbiage, there. Interestingly, in the non-stop feeding frenzy since then, I've heard no one on television repeat this part of the conversation. Now, they may be sparing our delicate sensibilities, but if "nappy-headed hos" is so awful, then I suppose it shouldn't be repeated ad nauseum, either.

Jigaboos. Christ.

I thought about that word, and was fairly sure I hadn't heard it since college, and that was in a history class.

African-American studies, if you must know.

Again, I was surprised when I heard it last week, and it started me thinking about the word. I suppose the be-all end-all of racist slurs is "nigger." That is just one of those things you say when you're pretty sure that you're ready to be punched in the face. It's not a word that I use, or even think of to use, to be honest. I understand the weight of it, and the baggage it carries. It's a shocking thing, and it ought to be. Unfortunately, it isn't anymore. I know I can turn on the radio in any city in America, and maybe anywhere in the world, and if I have the right station on, I will hear that word and many others like it in no time at all. And to be honest, it doesn't shock me in the least when I hear it.

Have I become desensitized to it? Has it lost its power through the constant use in certain musical circles? And is that a good thing somehow?

That's a separate topic, and besides, Imus didn't say "nigger." He didn't say "jigaboo" either. He called the women "nappy-headed hos."

And in a medium where Rush Limbaugh can refer to Barack Obama as a "Halfrican-American" and Neal Boortz can opine that a black US Congresswoman from Georgia looks like a "ghetto slut," it's hard to understand why Imus is in so much hot water.

It was a stupid attempt to make fun at their expense. Did they deserve it? No. Do most people who get skewered by deejays, pundits, talk show hosts and late-night comedians deserve it? All of them? Probably not.

But like the Bat signal from the Batman TV show (I suppose it could have been any brown mammal, in retrospect), the usual suspects have raced to the front of the fray, and they have been there often enough to remember to bring their own microphones.

The Revs, Jesse and Al.

I have spoken about Jesse Jackson before. This man was in the shit during the civil rights movement in the US in the 60s. This guy marched, protested, and put his life at risk time and time again to further the cause. He was standing with MLK on that damned balcony in Memphis when the doctor was assassinated. He was a legitimate candidate for president in 1988, and has a lot of good to his credit, more than me, and more than most.

Since '88? Not a hell of a lot. He tends to show up at places where racism or the old-boy network may be impacting maybe eight people. Wasting time protesting Major League Baseball for not having enough black employees in the front offices is a misuse of effort. Defending Michael Jackson as he faces child molestation charges destroys your credibility. You may have noticed that black males are dying at one another's hands in obscene numbers, and too many of the ones that live end up in prison.

And frankly, after you refer to New York City as "Hymie Town," you don't get to call anyone a bigot anymore. Sorry, that's just how it goes.

Sharpton, on the other hand, started badly, coming on the national scene as the point man in the Tawana Brawley fraud, but since then has gotten his hair together, dumped the velvet warm-up suits and gold medallions, become respectable, and a man of consequence in political circles by speaking the truth. In the 2004 campaign, he was the only candidate who seemed to be speaking English at the debates. I like Al.

But he cannot resist the lure of the big takedown, be it Michael Richards, or Don Imus. I don't recall seeing him or Jesse hovering around the Mel Gibson circus, but I suppose they may have been busy that week.

This gets into what Bill Maher has aptly referred to as "fake outrage." I couldn't possibly put it any better than that.

You know who doesn't get to be outraged by what Imus said? Anyone who owns a 2Pac or 50 Cent CD. You've heard black women degraded, and danced along to it. You need to shut the fuck up.

It's not absolutely relevant to the issue, but I would like to know if any of the women on the Rutgers team had even heard of Don Imus before last week. I would also like to know if any of them had anything on their individual iPods that could be considered offensive in the same way as Imus' remarks.

And if so, do you hear it differently now? I hope so, I really do.

I feel bad for these women. They didn't deserve this. They play a game at a world-class level, they are students at a good school, and not one of them probably ever dreamed she'd be famous for something like this. If they have injured feelings, I am sorry for that.

But hurting your feelings is not a criminal offense.

This is nothing less than a free speech issue. Don Imus can say anything he wants, this is America. If the Klan gets permits to have a rally in the park because they meet all the conditions in order to obtain them, then the Klan gets to march. I can choose to not listen to Imus, or not attend the rally if I desire. I can call the President of the United States a sonofabitch, and there's not one thing anyone can do about it. My friends might shun me, and I may get kicked out of the NRA, but that's part of the equation. Free speech has consequences.

Imus may lose his audience, his sponsors may pull their ad budgets, and CBS Radio may decide after those things happen that he's no longer a commodity worth keeping. If they can him then, it's a business decision, and that's how it ought to be.

Firing Imus because he went over the line and hurt someone's feelings is cowardice.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that CBS will cave, just as NBC did, and send Donny off to his ranch. No one has any balls anymore, and it's better to put out a mediocre product than to occasionally stir up controversy. They fired Dan Rather over those memos about Bush's AWOL time during Vietnam, even though everything that was in these faked memos was 100% true.

CBS. The Tiffany Network. What a joke.

Tiffany. That sounds like a nappy-headed ho's name, but that's just my opinion.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


posted at 11:42 PM

0 comments

Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Narcissist

I don't believe I've devoted any time to the Lacey & Scott Peterson fiasco. The main reason is because I'm sick of the media circus that follows around any case that involves the unsolved disappearance or murder of an attractive young white woman. People go missing in this country every day, but if you are a bit homely, or a bit brown, the media doesn't care. Sorry to be blunt about it, but it's true.

I didn't sit down to even talk about the case, to be honest, but I'll just tell you my opinion. Before the trial even started, there were constant leaks in regard to evidence and lines of questioning, etc. Months ago, I was of this thought process:

Statistically, and logically, Scott killed his wife. When a spouse is murdered, it is almost always the beloved that did it. No one else loves you or hates you as much as your own family. People get killed at random once in awhile, but not normally.

However, I don't think they can prove he did it. His actions make him look guilty as hell, but I don't think they can pin the murder on him, aside from circumstantially.

But that's not why I'm writing now. I turned on the news tonight, and saw another cliche' that I am thoroughly sick of. In the California town where the trial is taking place, some jackass dumped a boat similar to Scott Peterson's in the middle of the sidewalk, and within minutes, it's being filled up by ghouls toting flowers, stuffed animals, hand-drawn signs and candles. A shrine is born. It was disgusting.

Anytime someone famous dies, or in Lacey's case, dies and becomes famous, we have now taken to ridiculous mass displays of public grief. Princess Diana's death was the first time I remember seeing something like this. People dropping off flowers, teddy bears, and all manner of crap. I mean, it was a shame when it happened, but I was pretty shocked to see normally reserved Brits behaving this way.

But now, it's just a never-ending thing in America. We see them every day, too. Somebody dies on the road in an accident, and for months, we get to drive by a makeshift cross, little signs, flowers, and whatever else. I'm sure you may feel that this is the deceased's loved ones paying tribute, but you are wrong. This is littering. Assuming that the person is not buried by the side of the road, they probably have a nice grave somewhere. Pay tribute there. Stop imposing your grief on me. It's not that I don't care, but I have enough on my plate without having to add your tragedy to my daily commute. I'm not telling you to internalize the grief and get an ulcer, but there is a word, decorum. Please look it up.

A quick aside: As long as I have been alive, I have never seen anyone erect a crappy little Star of David by the side of the road where some poor Jewish person has met his or her fate. I'm quite sure that Jews die in cars at a similar rate to the rest of the population, but unlike Christians, they don't pester you with proselytizing, and that carries into how their dead are honored, apparently. I guess it's a matter of confidence.

To me, it's a sign of insecurity to constantly talk and recruit the way Christians do. If you're so sure of yourself, why must you yell so loud and so long? I know that when I'm in an argument, and I begin to sense that I'm wrong, I tend to get louder. It obscures the fact that I'm off track. Most people act that way. I'm very comfortable in my relationship to things spiritual, and I really don't discuss it much, even when asked. I don't need validation from anyone else.

But as for these massive, public displays, just admit it: They are not about the dead, they are about you.

"Look! I'm broken up about this awful thing! See! I'm sad! I'll go on somehow, but look at me grieve!"

I'm just sick of it. Even the dead must be an excuse for you to be a victim. More reasons for you to confirm how hard your life is, and how truly wonderful you are to be carrying on. The problem with life is, you get up each day, go to work, deal with your responsibilities, and for some reason, no one hands you a medal. It's so unfair. So you go on Jerry Springer, or some shit reality show, so you can show the world how wonderful and special you are. I find it pathetic.

First of all, live your life. If you have to work, try and find something that you like to do. At the very least, find something that you can tolerate. Stop complaining about your fucking job, no one cares. Everyone is annoyed that they have to work for a living; it's a flawed system we live in. There may be little joy in your work, but it is an honorable thing to do what's necessary to survive. No one is going to give you anything, but I will give you respect for honoring your commitments.

When you aren't at work, enjoy yourself. Get some rest. Do what you like. Life is short, and you need to have fun with it. However, if fun for you is going to the Peterson trial, I hope your inbred relatives put up a nice cross by the side of the road for you very soon.

Labels: , , ,


posted at 11:25 PM

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