In a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Harvard professor Dr. David Ludwig proposed that the government should take obese children away from their parents. He co-wrote the article with lawyer/researcher Lindsey Murtagh of the Harvard School of Public Health.
OMG! Another example of liberals’ love of stateism, where liberals believe that the state can solve all problems great and small. That when faced with any problem, they believe the government will always make the best decision for everyone involved.
Clearly Dr. Ludwig and Mr./Ms. Murtagh believe that these awful parents should be relieved of their parental rights because they are allowing their children to become obese. Why that’s tantamount to burning them with cigarettes or shoving bamboo splinters under their fingernails! These people can’t be trusted with the raising of the next generation of government funders, oh, wait a minute, I mean citizens.
We have so many examples of where government intervention has worked out so well, like the government’s taking over of the social welfare system. Now we have gone from churches and other community groups working to assist individuals to get back on their feet to a government system where sloth is rewarded. A system where now we literally have multiple generations of families in the welfare system. Why? Because they are rewarded for not working! They receive housing, food stamps, utilities, etc., etc. so long as they remain unemployed. And how do they increase their income from the government? They increase the size of their brood, that is, so long as they are not married. Thanks to such thoughtful programs as ADC and the like, the more kids they have out of wedlock, the more money they receive from the all powerful state. And where does this money come from, why straight from the pockets of those who don’t count on the government for their living.
Now I’m not saying the thought behind the program was evil, but as often is the case, the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head. As the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Most liberal programs are well intended enough. But when you try and impose an un-natural one size fits all solution to a problem, it predictably goes horribly wrong.
Let’s take another look at the government thinking they can solve all manner of problems. Let’s consider the Corps of Engineers (CoE) and their flood abatement programs.
Before the CoE got involved with the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, they would regularly flood. The waters would disperse over thousands or millions of acres. Normally not to any great depth, but flood they would. Those who would inhabit the areas would build their homes above the levels the rivers would rise to. Then along came the government and the CoE. They built damns and levies all along the rivers and told the folks they could control the flooding. And the silly people believed them.
So of course they built in the areas that had formerly flooded, because they were told that these areas were safe now. Then the inevitable happens, mother nature has a high snow winter, or a heavy rain spring. More so than the government and the CoE planned for. All of the water that would have spread out over millions of acres gets penned up behind damns and kept channeled in between levies. Since the water was not allowed to spread out like it was intended to, the levels rise higher and higher until it eventually and inevitably does, it breaks down the damns or levies and comes rushing over the land. Not with the slow gradual rise of water as nature had planned but in a torrent, destroying all of the stuff that the government had told the citizens was safe. Not to the depth of inches as it naturally would have done had it been allowed to spread out, but rather to the depth of feet and yards. All thanks to government knowing better.
And here we see it again. A couple of liberals believing that government knows best. That the government should take over the raising of these children because their parents have allowed them to eat too much or the wrong things, and quite probably, many of them have done so using the food stamps they got from the government in the first place.
Well, I say, “Get The Hell Out Of Our Lives And Get Back To Doing What Governments Should Be Doing!” And just what is that you may be asking. Well that’s just what the founding fathers laid out in the original documents. Protecting our Lives, our Liberties and our Property from loss due to force or fraud. That’s pretty much it. Period.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Civic Minded Activist or Publicity Whore.....You Decide
Well now, here’s an interesting quandary. Women in Pittsburgh have apparently been faced with some hostility while breastfeeding in public settings. An art instructor at Carnegie Mellon University has decided upon a confrontational approach to dealing with this situation.
Ms. Jill Miller has decided to create an emergency response unit to come to a nursing mother’s aid when she is pressured while publicly nursing her child. This unit will consist of a refurbished ice cream truck with pictures of women nursing on the sides and a breast(s) on the roof. It will have an awning that will unfurl to offer shade as well as chairs that can be set out underneath as well as a comfortable interior if the mother would care for something a little more private. (This would seem a little oxymoronic since they had already been exposing their breast in public to start the whole cycle.)
The plan is, when a woman is harassed she would call for assistance and this garish truck would pull up outside of the establishment. Then a flash mob orchestrated through Twitter and/or Facebook would show up as well, in an attempt to make an even bigger scene. To quote Ms. Miller, “Thought the nursing mother created a spectacle? Meet ‘The Milk Truck’!”
The idea is, to make it more painful for the offending establishment to harass the nursing mother than it is to let her offend a few patrons and possibly the owners and staff.
In a way, I kind of like the idea.
Of course the business owners ought to have the right to control what goes on inside of their establishment. If they don’t want a woman exposing her breast, even if it is to feed her off spring, it ought to be the business’s right to ban such a practice. On the other hand they need to be aware that such actions might expose them to public protests which could lead to even larger embarrassments, such as ‘The Milk Truck’ setting up camp in front of their business.
My real question here is concerning Ms. Miller. When I first started reading this I thought, hey this is kind of a novel approach to addressing such a problem. As I read further I’ve come to consider the possibility that Ms. Miller may be motivated by a little more self-serving interest.
While she recounts that the ‘Milk Truck’ will provide the mother with a supportive place to nurse her child, it will coincidentally be part of an art exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum. Additionally, it will be available for appearances at events (Lilith Fairs and the like, no doubt).
The more cynical side of me keeps whispering “She’s a self-promoting publicity whore who’s found a way to get her name in front of her target audience without any real cost to herself!”
I don’t know a single thing about Ms. Miller other than she teaches at a university and her area is art. But I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that she is a strident feminist socialist.
She is currently in the process of raising money from OTHER people that she can use to further a feminist agenda while elevating her status as a champion of feminist/liberal causes AND getting a piece of her work and her name in the Andy Warhol Museum.
Had this idea come from someone who was not an “artist”, but rather a frustrated mother with no art background, someone who just wanted to do something. Had it not been scheduled to appear at an art museum, or available for public appearances, I would probably feel differently. But as it stands, I’m going to have to stand with my cynical side.
I could be wrong, at which point I would owe Ms. Miller an apology. But I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
Ms. Jill Miller has decided to create an emergency response unit to come to a nursing mother’s aid when she is pressured while publicly nursing her child. This unit will consist of a refurbished ice cream truck with pictures of women nursing on the sides and a breast(s) on the roof. It will have an awning that will unfurl to offer shade as well as chairs that can be set out underneath as well as a comfortable interior if the mother would care for something a little more private. (This would seem a little oxymoronic since they had already been exposing their breast in public to start the whole cycle.)
The plan is, when a woman is harassed she would call for assistance and this garish truck would pull up outside of the establishment. Then a flash mob orchestrated through Twitter and/or Facebook would show up as well, in an attempt to make an even bigger scene. To quote Ms. Miller, “Thought the nursing mother created a spectacle? Meet ‘The Milk Truck’!”
The idea is, to make it more painful for the offending establishment to harass the nursing mother than it is to let her offend a few patrons and possibly the owners and staff.
In a way, I kind of like the idea.
Of course the business owners ought to have the right to control what goes on inside of their establishment. If they don’t want a woman exposing her breast, even if it is to feed her off spring, it ought to be the business’s right to ban such a practice. On the other hand they need to be aware that such actions might expose them to public protests which could lead to even larger embarrassments, such as ‘The Milk Truck’ setting up camp in front of their business.
My real question here is concerning Ms. Miller. When I first started reading this I thought, hey this is kind of a novel approach to addressing such a problem. As I read further I’ve come to consider the possibility that Ms. Miller may be motivated by a little more self-serving interest.
While she recounts that the ‘Milk Truck’ will provide the mother with a supportive place to nurse her child, it will coincidentally be part of an art exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum. Additionally, it will be available for appearances at events (Lilith Fairs and the like, no doubt).
The more cynical side of me keeps whispering “She’s a self-promoting publicity whore who’s found a way to get her name in front of her target audience without any real cost to herself!”
I don’t know a single thing about Ms. Miller other than she teaches at a university and her area is art. But I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that she is a strident feminist socialist.
She is currently in the process of raising money from OTHER people that she can use to further a feminist agenda while elevating her status as a champion of feminist/liberal causes AND getting a piece of her work and her name in the Andy Warhol Museum.
Had this idea come from someone who was not an “artist”, but rather a frustrated mother with no art background, someone who just wanted to do something. Had it not been scheduled to appear at an art museum, or available for public appearances, I would probably feel differently. But as it stands, I’m going to have to stand with my cynical side.
I could be wrong, at which point I would owe Ms. Miller an apology. But I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Last US Citzen
I saw where in a soccer match over the weekend, the USA lost to Mexico 4 to 2. No big surprise there.
In the stadium, there were reportedly about 20,000 USA fans and 80,000 Mexico fans. Again, no big surprise. The surprising part, according to the article I read, was that the event was at the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles, California, USA. The Mexican team, in essence, played in front of a home crowd in a foreign country. (That IS making the assumption that Southern California is still part of the US.)
I’m not sure which is the real story here? Is it that more fans showed up for a foreign team than for the home country, or is it that thanks to our lax, some might say non-existent, border enforcement, we have ceded control of portion of our country?
Various groups and persons in this country have been trying to make soccer a major sport for over 30 years. I remember when the New York Cosmos brought Pele to America (1975) in order to boost American soccer into the big time. This trend has continued right up to and through David Beckham coming to Los Angeles in 2007. And still, soccer in America is on par with the WNBA. Something of a curiosity for most of the country with a few diehard fans.
Those who are in favor of the gentrification of America have been pushing hard for 30 plus years to have soccer replace football as the preeminent sport in the country. They’ve sponsored youth soccer programs all over the country and ramped up the “football is dangerous” rhetoric in order to push moms to enroll their kids in soccer. And yet, after all this time, it’s still a backwater curiosity in this country. The majority of folks don’t give a damn about soccer. For most the surprise isn’t that ONLY 20,000 fans showed up to root for the US, the big surprise is that they found 20,000 folks who were interested enough to show up and root for them at all.
I’m firmly convinced that most folks who show up to soccer games and pay good money to walk through the gates are either relatives or they just want to go watch some sports outside and the soccer game is the cheapest option. I am willing to bet you dollars to donuts that if you charged the same price to go to a soccer game that you do to go to a football game, you’d see about one third as many native born Americans sitting in the stands. That coupled with the fact that there isn’t any REAL football to watch at this time explains most of the folks from the US who are there.
Which brings us to the other possible story here. I wonder just how many of those Mexican fans could have produced a Green card or legitimate citizenship documentation. If ICE had been at the gates to the Rose Bowl, those 20,000 US fans may have been an overwhelming majority of those present.
With the past several presidents being unwilling to defend our borders, the southwestern United States has become a no-mans-land. No real overarching authority attempting to maintain our national sovereignty. And when a state steps up to fill the void, our current occupant of the Oval Office sides with a foreign country in bringing suit against them. They have created an open door policy so every criminal, drug dealer, etc. etc. that would like to try their hand in this country can just walk right in. And while southern California is a beautiful place, I actually lived there for a short while in the early 70’s, the flight out of there is starting to reach epidemic proportions. It’s starting to remind me of a bumper sticker I once saw which read “Would the last US citizen out of Miami please bring the flag?”
In the stadium, there were reportedly about 20,000 USA fans and 80,000 Mexico fans. Again, no big surprise. The surprising part, according to the article I read, was that the event was at the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles, California, USA. The Mexican team, in essence, played in front of a home crowd in a foreign country. (That IS making the assumption that Southern California is still part of the US.)
I’m not sure which is the real story here? Is it that more fans showed up for a foreign team than for the home country, or is it that thanks to our lax, some might say non-existent, border enforcement, we have ceded control of portion of our country?
Various groups and persons in this country have been trying to make soccer a major sport for over 30 years. I remember when the New York Cosmos brought Pele to America (1975) in order to boost American soccer into the big time. This trend has continued right up to and through David Beckham coming to Los Angeles in 2007. And still, soccer in America is on par with the WNBA. Something of a curiosity for most of the country with a few diehard fans.
Those who are in favor of the gentrification of America have been pushing hard for 30 plus years to have soccer replace football as the preeminent sport in the country. They’ve sponsored youth soccer programs all over the country and ramped up the “football is dangerous” rhetoric in order to push moms to enroll their kids in soccer. And yet, after all this time, it’s still a backwater curiosity in this country. The majority of folks don’t give a damn about soccer. For most the surprise isn’t that ONLY 20,000 fans showed up to root for the US, the big surprise is that they found 20,000 folks who were interested enough to show up and root for them at all.
I’m firmly convinced that most folks who show up to soccer games and pay good money to walk through the gates are either relatives or they just want to go watch some sports outside and the soccer game is the cheapest option. I am willing to bet you dollars to donuts that if you charged the same price to go to a soccer game that you do to go to a football game, you’d see about one third as many native born Americans sitting in the stands. That coupled with the fact that there isn’t any REAL football to watch at this time explains most of the folks from the US who are there.
Which brings us to the other possible story here. I wonder just how many of those Mexican fans could have produced a Green card or legitimate citizenship documentation. If ICE had been at the gates to the Rose Bowl, those 20,000 US fans may have been an overwhelming majority of those present.
With the past several presidents being unwilling to defend our borders, the southwestern United States has become a no-mans-land. No real overarching authority attempting to maintain our national sovereignty. And when a state steps up to fill the void, our current occupant of the Oval Office sides with a foreign country in bringing suit against them. They have created an open door policy so every criminal, drug dealer, etc. etc. that would like to try their hand in this country can just walk right in. And while southern California is a beautiful place, I actually lived there for a short while in the early 70’s, the flight out of there is starting to reach epidemic proportions. It’s starting to remind me of a bumper sticker I once saw which read “Would the last US citizen out of Miami please bring the flag?”
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Barack Obama, Pesident of ????
One really has to ask the question, just what effin’ country does our current Oval Office resident think he’s the president of? I mean really! Does he realize that he is the President of the United States of America?
I say this after looking at several of his recent actions. He and his minions, in secret, designed a socialistic medical plan for US citizens, then forced it down the county’s throat despite overwhelming protests by the citizenry. He took over two thirds of America’s auto production and proceeded to close hundreds of factory dealerships, despite the fact that many of them were profitable. (I don’t suppose the fact that nearly all of the closed dealerships had supported McCain/Palin had anything to do with the decision.) He has “apologized” for our past actions to every country he has come in contact with, never mind the fact that virtually the entire world would be speaking either German or Japanese if it weren’t for us. Never mind that we have shed American blood all over the globe for the past 100 years to help oppressed peoples, without colonizing one of them.
Within the last month he has, in essence, called for Israel (a country that has been one of our staunchest allies ever) to commit suicide by calling for them to return to their boarders that existed prior to the 1967 war. This war gave control of the Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula to the Israelis. These are essential to Israel’s ability to protect itself and its citizens. Without these lands, Israel’s sworn enemies have a HUGE tactical advantage over them. An advantage they wouldn’t hesitate to use.
Now I read that he has sided with such notables as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua against our other great ally, Great Britain. To put it simply, he’s telling Great Britain they need to give up the Falklands Islands. Islands that they re-captured in 1982 after Argentina invaded and occupied them. The residents of the Falklands are British citizens and want to remain so. But our President feels it’s necessary to join these anti-American luminaries against our true allies. He and his have gone so far as to even refer to the Falklands as the “Malvinas” as Argentina calls them. A clear sign that he feels the British should give the islands up to the Argentinians.
It makes one wonder what he would do if Angela Merkel demanded that we give back New Mexico and California, which we won from Mexico during the Mexican American War of 1846-48. Most Americans would tell her to go pound sand and mind her own business. President Obiewan, I’m not so sure. (Actually, the whole California thing might not be that bad a plan. Let them deal with all those liberal weenies and all the debt they’ve incurred. It would also solve a significant percentage of the illegal immigration problem. It would repatriate them without moving a soul. Of course then we’d have to fence off Cali so they wouldn’t run away from Mexico again.)
I say this after looking at several of his recent actions. He and his minions, in secret, designed a socialistic medical plan for US citizens, then forced it down the county’s throat despite overwhelming protests by the citizenry. He took over two thirds of America’s auto production and proceeded to close hundreds of factory dealerships, despite the fact that many of them were profitable. (I don’t suppose the fact that nearly all of the closed dealerships had supported McCain/Palin had anything to do with the decision.) He has “apologized” for our past actions to every country he has come in contact with, never mind the fact that virtually the entire world would be speaking either German or Japanese if it weren’t for us. Never mind that we have shed American blood all over the globe for the past 100 years to help oppressed peoples, without colonizing one of them.
Within the last month he has, in essence, called for Israel (a country that has been one of our staunchest allies ever) to commit suicide by calling for them to return to their boarders that existed prior to the 1967 war. This war gave control of the Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula to the Israelis. These are essential to Israel’s ability to protect itself and its citizens. Without these lands, Israel’s sworn enemies have a HUGE tactical advantage over them. An advantage they wouldn’t hesitate to use.
Now I read that he has sided with such notables as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua against our other great ally, Great Britain. To put it simply, he’s telling Great Britain they need to give up the Falklands Islands. Islands that they re-captured in 1982 after Argentina invaded and occupied them. The residents of the Falklands are British citizens and want to remain so. But our President feels it’s necessary to join these anti-American luminaries against our true allies. He and his have gone so far as to even refer to the Falklands as the “Malvinas” as Argentina calls them. A clear sign that he feels the British should give the islands up to the Argentinians.
It makes one wonder what he would do if Angela Merkel demanded that we give back New Mexico and California, which we won from Mexico during the Mexican American War of 1846-48. Most Americans would tell her to go pound sand and mind her own business. President Obiewan, I’m not so sure. (Actually, the whole California thing might not be that bad a plan. Let them deal with all those liberal weenies and all the debt they’ve incurred. It would also solve a significant percentage of the illegal immigration problem. It would repatriate them without moving a soul. Of course then we’d have to fence off Cali so they wouldn’t run away from Mexico again.)
Saturday, June 4, 2011
How A Progressive Thinks
And you were just saying to yourself, “Jeez, that Obama Administration hasn’t given any thought to how much I’m going to have to pay for my mandated health insurance!”
Well you couldn’t be any further from the truth, you uncaring money grubber you.
Why just the other day, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Neal Kumar Katyal, while responding to a Fourth Circuit Court judge’s query about what people who were concerned about how much they were going to have to pay, said if they didn’t like what they had to pay they could “just earn less”.
This was his actual response! You can just earn less!
And people wonder why this crowd can’t get our economy back on track.
But Hey, according to Gallup, 71% of Democrats are in favor of redistributing wealth. And as we all know, wealth is a zero sum game. For one person to gain in wealth, another must lose it. So if you just earn less, somebody else will get more. Right?..... No, wait a minute. That doesn’t seem right.
Wealth is created. Just because I make a dollar more doesn’t mean 100 people must make a penny less. The whole concept of limited wealth and one person’s collection of wealth keeps another from acquiring wealth is fallacious. And yet those who manipulate the masses through pandering to wealth envy continually sell that soap to those who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.
Our current administration has operated from that position from day one. They have pandered to their 71% and have tried to put more people into a position where they will envy those who are not believers in wealth redistribution. That they will want to take from those who have made the right decisions, who have chosen the correct path, who have been willing to risk the wealth they have in an effort to create more.
So Neal Katyal’s suggestion of “just earn less” is completely consistent with the belief system of those who wish to “level” the playing field. Code language for stealing from those who produce in order to reward those who don’t. “Just earn less” and we will reward you by taking care of that pesky insurance for you. Thus making you even more dependent on Big Brother.
These are the same people who want to raise the taxes on the producers. Not because they think it will raise more money, during the Obama campaign he even admitted that he knew it wouldn’t raise more money, but because it would allow for the leveling of income.
The real trouble with that whole concept seems to be that when you take the incentive from the producers (by taxing them into submission), everyone is hurt. Why, because it’s the producers who create the jobs for others to fill, thus creating wealth for more people. When they don’t have the incentive to create more wealth because it’s just going to be taken from them anyway, they stop. Then all those down stream from them are negatively affected. Those who work for them no longer have jobs, those who supply them no longer have a customer, those who sell their product no longer have a product to sell, those who would like to buy what they sell have to go elsewhere. And in our global economy, that usually means going to an off shore supplier, which then takes even more money out of the system.
Well you couldn’t be any further from the truth, you uncaring money grubber you.
Why just the other day, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Neal Kumar Katyal, while responding to a Fourth Circuit Court judge’s query about what people who were concerned about how much they were going to have to pay, said if they didn’t like what they had to pay they could “just earn less”.
This was his actual response! You can just earn less!
And people wonder why this crowd can’t get our economy back on track.
But Hey, according to Gallup, 71% of Democrats are in favor of redistributing wealth. And as we all know, wealth is a zero sum game. For one person to gain in wealth, another must lose it. So if you just earn less, somebody else will get more. Right?..... No, wait a minute. That doesn’t seem right.
Wealth is created. Just because I make a dollar more doesn’t mean 100 people must make a penny less. The whole concept of limited wealth and one person’s collection of wealth keeps another from acquiring wealth is fallacious. And yet those who manipulate the masses through pandering to wealth envy continually sell that soap to those who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.
Our current administration has operated from that position from day one. They have pandered to their 71% and have tried to put more people into a position where they will envy those who are not believers in wealth redistribution. That they will want to take from those who have made the right decisions, who have chosen the correct path, who have been willing to risk the wealth they have in an effort to create more.
So Neal Katyal’s suggestion of “just earn less” is completely consistent with the belief system of those who wish to “level” the playing field. Code language for stealing from those who produce in order to reward those who don’t. “Just earn less” and we will reward you by taking care of that pesky insurance for you. Thus making you even more dependent on Big Brother.
These are the same people who want to raise the taxes on the producers. Not because they think it will raise more money, during the Obama campaign he even admitted that he knew it wouldn’t raise more money, but because it would allow for the leveling of income.
The real trouble with that whole concept seems to be that when you take the incentive from the producers (by taxing them into submission), everyone is hurt. Why, because it’s the producers who create the jobs for others to fill, thus creating wealth for more people. When they don’t have the incentive to create more wealth because it’s just going to be taken from them anyway, they stop. Then all those down stream from them are negatively affected. Those who work for them no longer have jobs, those who supply them no longer have a customer, those who sell their product no longer have a product to sell, those who would like to buy what they sell have to go elsewhere. And in our global economy, that usually means going to an off shore supplier, which then takes even more money out of the system.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Guilty Is Guilty
Jared Loughner, the man who shot and killed 6 people in Arizona, including a six year old girl, this past January, has been held incompetent to stand trial. The court held that he was incapable of understanding what the consequences of the trial were to him.
This ruling, at the very least, sets up his defense lawyers for an innocent by reason of insanity plea. A plea that I believe should be removed from our legal system. I believe it should be replaced with something like "Guilty But Insane".
Many of you may feel that I'm making a fine semantical point. "What difference will it make if you end up saying he's insane either way?"
Well, I think it will make a lot of difference on a couple of levels. The first would be for the victims and their relatives. Something is just wrong when you judge a person who is clearly responsible as "innocent". It's like you are saying to those who have been harmed, "Just pretend it didn't happen, 'cause you know, they didn't know what they were doing."
By using the word "Guilty" I think you give the victims and their relatives a feeling of justice being done. The person who has caused their loss and pain has been identified and publicly held accountable. That has to help the healing process.
Secondly, by using the word "guilty", it would seem to open up worlds of sentencing options that "not guilty" takes off the table. If John Hinckley had been judged "guilty and insane", even if he became "cured" he would not have to be released, but could just be moved into a regular prison instead of a psych institute. He would not be being let out on weekend passes. He wouldn't have the possibility of being a fee man without an attempted murder conviction tagging along after him. This would remove many shysters incentive for trying to get their clearly guilty clients classified insane.
This would also remove the possibility of yet again having some psychiatrist say some psycho is sane and turning them back out into society. Leaving society exposed to the possibility of having a relapse and a return to their evil ways. Or the alternate possibility that someone beat the shrinks and only played being crazy, and now get out to return to their ways.
So I say it's time for "innocent by reason of insanity" to be retired. Let's admit that it was put in play by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who felt bad about holding somebody responsible for their acts if they were crazy. I say if you did it, you're guilty! Sane or insane, you're guilty. Being a whack job doesn't make your victim any less injured or dead!
This ruling, at the very least, sets up his defense lawyers for an innocent by reason of insanity plea. A plea that I believe should be removed from our legal system. I believe it should be replaced with something like "Guilty But Insane".
Many of you may feel that I'm making a fine semantical point. "What difference will it make if you end up saying he's insane either way?"
Well, I think it will make a lot of difference on a couple of levels. The first would be for the victims and their relatives. Something is just wrong when you judge a person who is clearly responsible as "innocent". It's like you are saying to those who have been harmed, "Just pretend it didn't happen, 'cause you know, they didn't know what they were doing."
By using the word "Guilty" I think you give the victims and their relatives a feeling of justice being done. The person who has caused their loss and pain has been identified and publicly held accountable. That has to help the healing process.
Secondly, by using the word "guilty", it would seem to open up worlds of sentencing options that "not guilty" takes off the table. If John Hinckley had been judged "guilty and insane", even if he became "cured" he would not have to be released, but could just be moved into a regular prison instead of a psych institute. He would not be being let out on weekend passes. He wouldn't have the possibility of being a fee man without an attempted murder conviction tagging along after him. This would remove many shysters incentive for trying to get their clearly guilty clients classified insane.
This would also remove the possibility of yet again having some psychiatrist say some psycho is sane and turning them back out into society. Leaving society exposed to the possibility of having a relapse and a return to their evil ways. Or the alternate possibility that someone beat the shrinks and only played being crazy, and now get out to return to their ways.
So I say it's time for "innocent by reason of insanity" to be retired. Let's admit that it was put in play by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who felt bad about holding somebody responsible for their acts if they were crazy. I say if you did it, you're guilty! Sane or insane, you're guilty. Being a whack job doesn't make your victim any less injured or dead!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Kudos To You Hillary
As I’m sure those of you who have followed my musings could easily extrapolate, I’m not a big Hillary Clinton supporter. Unlike the far left, I don’t see her as the “smartest woman in the world”. I would venture to say that her boss, the Socialist In Chief, isn’t really a big fan of hers either. I say without much fear of contradiction, Mr. Obama gave her the position of Sec. State, to keep her from actively working to set herself up for another run. I believe this is born out in the number of special envoys that he appointed to deal with the various hot spots while Hillary was left to deal with the already stable situations.
Having said that, I want to give Hillary props for her snubbing of that ass hat, Jimmy Carter. What a TOOL!
It’s hard to believe that a Naval Academy trained man could have turned out to be such a simp. He was, without a doubt, the worst president of the 20th Century. He was ineffectual in nearly everything he was involved with. His botched attempt to rescue the Tehran hostages turned out to be the centerpiece of his buffet of ineptitude. Unfortunately for Jimmy, Barack was elected in the 21st Century, so Jimmy will have to live on in infamy as the singularly worst president of his century, instead of having Barack as company.
Since Jimmy left office, he has proceeded to insert himself in situations around the globe where America would rather he not. He has been involved with certifying elections as valid in places like Venezuela, where they were grossly tainted. He has spoken out against Israel, one of our strongest and most loyal allies in the entire world. He has suborned our government’s efforts to control North Korea’s desires to develop and expand their nuclear weapons program. In short, he has continued to be an embarrassment to this country and has thwarted our efforts at every opportunity. He couldn’t just let it go that he was a total bust as a president. He had to continue to reduce America in the eyes of the world after he left office.
So when he and a group of other jelly livered ex-officials from around the world went to North Korea last month, Hillary refused to meet with them when they returned. Who’d a ‘thunk it? After Jimmy et.al. said such nice things about the US’s policy toward North Korea.
At a Seoul press conference on April 28 he said "to deliberately withhold food aid to the North Korean people because of political or military issues not related is really indeed a human rights violation." (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/state_department_snubs_the_elders)
The nerve of her! Refusing to see an ex-President of the country after he had just publicly accused us of committing a Human Rights Violation, how dare she?!?
I don’t say it often, but “GOOD ON YA’ HILLARY!”
Reportedly, when asked if she wanted to meet with Jimmy, she said “No” then paused a moment and came back with “HELL No!!!”
Now I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been proud of Hillary over the years, and this is one of them. Contrary to the way I normally feel about her actions, I fully support her position. Again I say “Good on ya’!” And the sooner Jimmy Carter ceases to be an embarrassment to this country, the better off we will all be.
Having said that, I want to give Hillary props for her snubbing of that ass hat, Jimmy Carter. What a TOOL!
It’s hard to believe that a Naval Academy trained man could have turned out to be such a simp. He was, without a doubt, the worst president of the 20th Century. He was ineffectual in nearly everything he was involved with. His botched attempt to rescue the Tehran hostages turned out to be the centerpiece of his buffet of ineptitude. Unfortunately for Jimmy, Barack was elected in the 21st Century, so Jimmy will have to live on in infamy as the singularly worst president of his century, instead of having Barack as company.
Since Jimmy left office, he has proceeded to insert himself in situations around the globe where America would rather he not. He has been involved with certifying elections as valid in places like Venezuela, where they were grossly tainted. He has spoken out against Israel, one of our strongest and most loyal allies in the entire world. He has suborned our government’s efforts to control North Korea’s desires to develop and expand their nuclear weapons program. In short, he has continued to be an embarrassment to this country and has thwarted our efforts at every opportunity. He couldn’t just let it go that he was a total bust as a president. He had to continue to reduce America in the eyes of the world after he left office.
So when he and a group of other jelly livered ex-officials from around the world went to North Korea last month, Hillary refused to meet with them when they returned. Who’d a ‘thunk it? After Jimmy et.al. said such nice things about the US’s policy toward North Korea.
At a Seoul press conference on April 28 he said "to deliberately withhold food aid to the North Korean people because of political or military issues not related is really indeed a human rights violation." (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/state_department_snubs_the_elders)
The nerve of her! Refusing to see an ex-President of the country after he had just publicly accused us of committing a Human Rights Violation, how dare she?!?
I don’t say it often, but “GOOD ON YA’ HILLARY!”
Reportedly, when asked if she wanted to meet with Jimmy, she said “No” then paused a moment and came back with “HELL No!!!”
Now I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been proud of Hillary over the years, and this is one of them. Contrary to the way I normally feel about her actions, I fully support her position. Again I say “Good on ya’!” And the sooner Jimmy Carter ceases to be an embarrassment to this country, the better off we will all be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)