Yeah. Right. I've been outrageously busy in many different directions (par for the course, I suppose). I *am* working on long post. Someday soon (this weekend?) I'll get it posted...
I must say - in the short term - your recent diatribes strike both surprising and familiar chords for me. Tough questions. No simple answers. Or so those who don't frequent LRA&H may think. We specially in glaringly obvious answers to otherwise untouchable questions.
Here's my short answers on recent posts - thereby giving you gobs of room to scream and holler, as I will leave out far too many critical details...
1. The Health Care Bill - Why the surprise? Of *course* the Act is un-Constitutional at its core. Since when have politicians and bureaucrats allowed their never-ending desire for power to take a back seat to the Rule Of Law? Didn't one of Ayn Rand's characters claim (paraphrasing), "What do you think those laws are for? We need more laws that cannot be followed without breaking them because the only excuse to exercise power is against criminals..."
My guess is that Republicans/Conservatives will eventually cave in on Democrat/Liberal PR pressure and agree to remove some of the more troubling provisions/requirements of the act, while leaving the more subtle (but more damaging in the long-term) parts in place, so they can claim, "we did something, and we do care". Thus, as usual, reaching for the emotional 'feel-good' and political preening will trump both common sense and Doing What Is Right. *sigh*
2. Death Penalty - Personally, I have no problem with executions - after a swift, prompt legal review to confirm the sentence. I even suggest these events should be made truly PUBLIC, so as to provide an additional measure of proof that "actions have consequences" to the populous at large.
However, I remain concerned that our legal reluctance to implement such a final sentence (in appropriate cases, of course) is a direct result of society's never-ceasing efforts in favor of what I call "the Oprah Effect" - placing group dynamics above individual responsibility in *all* cases (e.g., yes, it's a Bad Thing, but it cannot be his/her fault). Yes, I know the Great "O" adopted her philosophy from her mentor Phil Donahue, but she has pushed to ever-greater heights, so she gets credit for the label on the syndrome.
There. That should get your blood pressure up. Stay tuned.
- Steve
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
WTH?
Steve,
Last night while casting around for something to watch in the desolate wasteland of TV, I came upon a documentary about David Berkowitz - the New York "Son of Sam" murderer. The hook for me in shows like these is all the patient detective work that goes into tracking down the criminal, which I find fascinating.
Anyway, I'm watching the show and all of a sudden, here comes a contemporary interview with David Berkowitz himself! You couldn't have pried my chin off my chest with a 4 foot crowbar. I'm thinking, "WTH? For no reason whatsoever, this guy murdered 6 completely innocent kids, not to mention rendering another girl permanently paraplegic, and he's still above ground?" Are you serious?
He looked pretty good, too. Nice hair cut, clean clothes, new pair of glasses... Except for the scar on his neck from where some fellow inmate tried to slit his throat, he looked for all the world like the kind of guy you wouldn't mind entrusting your Little All with at a fairly conservative investment brokerage ("Gacy, Berkowitz and Manson " comes to mind).
For the heck of it, I went to a list of serial killers at Wikipedia and determined to find out how many of those convicted in the U.S. were ever executed. I got so depressed after the first 15 I had to stop. Of these, it turns out only two had been executed, while most of the rest had been given life sentences.
By the way, Terry Blair was tried on 8 counts of first degree murder, was sentenced for 25 years, got out in 21, then turned around and murdered 6 more women. Now he's serving life without parole. Maybe I'm a little dense, but it looks for all the world to me like 6 women would still be alive if the state of Missouri had been able to just get rid of this guy after the first go 'round.
Incidentally, this list is just of the people we recognize serial killers, and doesn't include the thousands more who murdered by onesies and twosies. Imagine that. If they can give a guy a life sentence for murdering 60 people, what do they give the guy who had the prudence to limit himself to one or two, a gold watch?
Steve, what a farce this is! And here I thought nothing could beat American politics for mind blowing inanity. As it turns out, when compared to the criminal justice system, politics is just a mile marker on the road.
Here's my logic: Some guy does away with someone, just do away with him. Simple, don't you think? I don't view this kind of thinking as liberal or conservative, moral or amoral, Christian or atheist. Neither does this strike me as an expression of vengeance - or even of appropriate punishment (for "appropriate punishment" you can check with one of the moms or dads of the kids the Son of Sam shot down). It is instead to me just ordinary common sense. Follow this plan and we all save ourselves the expense of haircuts, new pairs of glasses and clean clothes for people like David Berkowitz.
This is not to mention the annoyance of having to listen to him blathering on about how "prison is Hell". Why not just punch his ticket and give him a chance to see what Hell is like first hand?
Your turn.
-Chris
Last night while casting around for something to watch in the desolate wasteland of TV, I came upon a documentary about David Berkowitz - the New York "Son of Sam" murderer. The hook for me in shows like these is all the patient detective work that goes into tracking down the criminal, which I find fascinating.
Anyway, I'm watching the show and all of a sudden, here comes a contemporary interview with David Berkowitz himself! You couldn't have pried my chin off my chest with a 4 foot crowbar. I'm thinking, "WTH? For no reason whatsoever, this guy murdered 6 completely innocent kids, not to mention rendering another girl permanently paraplegic, and he's still above ground?" Are you serious?
He looked pretty good, too. Nice hair cut, clean clothes, new pair of glasses... Except for the scar on his neck from where some fellow inmate tried to slit his throat, he looked for all the world like the kind of guy you wouldn't mind entrusting your Little All with at a fairly conservative investment brokerage ("Gacy, Berkowitz and Manson " comes to mind).
For the heck of it, I went to a list of serial killers at Wikipedia and determined to find out how many of those convicted in the U.S. were ever executed. I got so depressed after the first 15 I had to stop. Of these, it turns out only two had been executed, while most of the rest had been given life sentences.
By the way, Terry Blair was tried on 8 counts of first degree murder, was sentenced for 25 years, got out in 21, then turned around and murdered 6 more women. Now he's serving life without parole. Maybe I'm a little dense, but it looks for all the world to me like 6 women would still be alive if the state of Missouri had been able to just get rid of this guy after the first go 'round.
Incidentally, this list is just of the people we recognize serial killers, and doesn't include the thousands more who murdered by onesies and twosies. Imagine that. If they can give a guy a life sentence for murdering 60 people, what do they give the guy who had the prudence to limit himself to one or two, a gold watch?
Steve, what a farce this is! And here I thought nothing could beat American politics for mind blowing inanity. As it turns out, when compared to the criminal justice system, politics is just a mile marker on the road.
Here's my logic: Some guy does away with someone, just do away with him. Simple, don't you think? I don't view this kind of thinking as liberal or conservative, moral or amoral, Christian or atheist. Neither does this strike me as an expression of vengeance - or even of appropriate punishment (for "appropriate punishment" you can check with one of the moms or dads of the kids the Son of Sam shot down). It is instead to me just ordinary common sense. Follow this plan and we all save ourselves the expense of haircuts, new pairs of glasses and clean clothes for people like David Berkowitz.
This is not to mention the annoyance of having to listen to him blathering on about how "prison is Hell". Why not just punch his ticket and give him a chance to see what Hell is like first hand?
Your turn.
-Chris
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
This just keeps getting jucier...
Steve,
You know how much I hate it when you smirk, and cringe at every opportunity you have to do so. Now it looks like Federal Judge Roger Vinson has given you carte blanche to engage in this annoying activity. As I'm sure you are aware, yesterday he ruled against the constitutionality of The Affordable Health Care Act. And to top it all off, in a key section of the ruling he uses an analogy which should set the Tea Party a'crowing:
"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” "
As I said before during out discussions on Prop 8, I always admire the way an informed and intellectually competent jurist goes about rendering an opinion - and Judge Vinson's work is no exception. If you have time, take a moment to skim through the 78 page ruling. His argument here is compelling. To wit, it is: What exactly are the limits of the Commerce Clause? And we might as well recognize that the answer to this question has implications which go quite beyond this particular case. Judge Vinson invokes the troubling idea that an unrestricted interpretation of the Commerce Clause could give Congress the power to do almost anything.
That idea should give us all pause. I'll have to admit, I mostly like the Affordable Health Care Act - including the Individual Mandate provision on which Judge Vinson's ruling principally turns. However, if indeed his reasoning is correct, shouldn't we all be wary of a constitutionally derived power which allows the Federal Government to enact and enforce a host of laws we may not like? After all, practically every activity and (as Judge Vinson states in this case) inactivity is going to impact interstate commerce.
Ironically, the White House has termed the ruling a case of "judicial overreaching". Funny, that. I guess the application of the "activist judge" motif, so common these days among social conservatives, ultimately depends on whose ox is gored.
At any rate, this latest ruling only evens the score. Before this, two Federal judges had ruled in favor of the Act and now, two have ruled against. I haven't yet decided if I agree with the logic of the ruling. But one thing is for sure. Back when several states joined this suit, most in the media gave them virtually no chance. Now we find they're batting .500 and knocking on the Supreme Court's door.
Since there is no doubt the world's great statesmen frequently depend on LRA&H as a source of wisdom on the crucial issues of our times, I suggest a brief account of your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated....
-Chris
You know how much I hate it when you smirk, and cringe at every opportunity you have to do so. Now it looks like Federal Judge Roger Vinson has given you carte blanche to engage in this annoying activity. As I'm sure you are aware, yesterday he ruled against the constitutionality of The Affordable Health Care Act. And to top it all off, in a key section of the ruling he uses an analogy which should set the Tea Party a'crowing:
"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” "
As I said before during out discussions on Prop 8, I always admire the way an informed and intellectually competent jurist goes about rendering an opinion - and Judge Vinson's work is no exception. If you have time, take a moment to skim through the 78 page ruling. His argument here is compelling. To wit, it is: What exactly are the limits of the Commerce Clause? And we might as well recognize that the answer to this question has implications which go quite beyond this particular case. Judge Vinson invokes the troubling idea that an unrestricted interpretation of the Commerce Clause could give Congress the power to do almost anything.
That idea should give us all pause. I'll have to admit, I mostly like the Affordable Health Care Act - including the Individual Mandate provision on which Judge Vinson's ruling principally turns. However, if indeed his reasoning is correct, shouldn't we all be wary of a constitutionally derived power which allows the Federal Government to enact and enforce a host of laws we may not like? After all, practically every activity and (as Judge Vinson states in this case) inactivity is going to impact interstate commerce.
Ironically, the White House has termed the ruling a case of "judicial overreaching". Funny, that. I guess the application of the "activist judge" motif, so common these days among social conservatives, ultimately depends on whose ox is gored.
At any rate, this latest ruling only evens the score. Before this, two Federal judges had ruled in favor of the Act and now, two have ruled against. I haven't yet decided if I agree with the logic of the ruling. But one thing is for sure. Back when several states joined this suit, most in the media gave them virtually no chance. Now we find they're batting .500 and knocking on the Supreme Court's door.
Since there is no doubt the world's great statesmen frequently depend on LRA&H as a source of wisdom on the crucial issues of our times, I suggest a brief account of your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated....
-Chris
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Science of Libertarian Morality?
There is a new(?) social psychology study which explores the formation of the libertarian personality. Naturally, I have issues with many of the conclusions presented, but it is an interesting read anyway. It can be found here.
- Steve
- Steve
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Insanity
Steve,
Here's one I really don't get. Some guy murders another guy, then goes to court and pleads "insanity".
Huh? How does that work? I mean, don't you have to be insane in the first place to murder someone?
While I'm thinking about it, what's the deal with this "crimes of passion" malarkey? OK, murderer "A" gets the maximum penalty because they prove in court that he "planned" to murder some poor schmoe. Murderer "B" gets off easy because they prove he just all of a sudden went off the deep end and started blasting away.
I mean, what possible difference would it make if you "planned" to murder someone or just got a wild hair? For that matter, why would society enact laws which are more lenient for people who are "insane" and tend to start shooting at the drop of a pin? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if the aim of our justice system is to "rehabilitate" people, wouldn't it be better to start out with a sane person who plans ahead instead of some whack job who doesn't even know what day it is?
One more thing. How come most of the time when a murderer causes death they sentence him to life? This makes no sense to me.
Now I assure you I'm not a big revenge guy. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that when some creep murders somebody they turn around and "punish" him by giving him three squares a day and a warm bed to sleep in for the rest of his life? Wouldn't it make better sense to let Hell foot the bill for the dude's room and board rather than the American tax payer?
If you've got an explanation for any of this, I'd love to hear it.
-Chris
Here's one I really don't get. Some guy murders another guy, then goes to court and pleads "insanity".
Huh? How does that work? I mean, don't you have to be insane in the first place to murder someone?
While I'm thinking about it, what's the deal with this "crimes of passion" malarkey? OK, murderer "A" gets the maximum penalty because they prove in court that he "planned" to murder some poor schmoe. Murderer "B" gets off easy because they prove he just all of a sudden went off the deep end and started blasting away.
I mean, what possible difference would it make if you "planned" to murder someone or just got a wild hair? For that matter, why would society enact laws which are more lenient for people who are "insane" and tend to start shooting at the drop of a pin? Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, if the aim of our justice system is to "rehabilitate" people, wouldn't it be better to start out with a sane person who plans ahead instead of some whack job who doesn't even know what day it is?
One more thing. How come most of the time when a murderer causes death they sentence him to life? This makes no sense to me.
Now I assure you I'm not a big revenge guy. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that when some creep murders somebody they turn around and "punish" him by giving him three squares a day and a warm bed to sleep in for the rest of his life? Wouldn't it make better sense to let Hell foot the bill for the dude's room and board rather than the American tax payer?
If you've got an explanation for any of this, I'd love to hear it.
-Chris
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
You've miles to go before you sleep...
Gentlemen.
As LRA&H approaches its third year in business, I should like to wish you both a Happy New Year. May you both prosper this year in all ways civil and honorable - not to mention those endeavors to which civility and honor may not be as tightly fastened.
I wish I could say all of your posts have been uniformly entertaining. Some, to be honest, have been stupefyingly boring - a category in which Mr. Rhetts leads by a nose (Though Mr. Green has made many remarkable contributions). Yet no road fashioned by human hands will ever be free of ruts and potholes, and at least this one appears to be going somewhere.
Whither? I suppose you'll know when you get there. But let's hope that won't be anytime soon...
Best wishes,
Bernardo
As LRA&H approaches its third year in business, I should like to wish you both a Happy New Year. May you both prosper this year in all ways civil and honorable - not to mention those endeavors to which civility and honor may not be as tightly fastened.
I wish I could say all of your posts have been uniformly entertaining. Some, to be honest, have been stupefyingly boring - a category in which Mr. Rhetts leads by a nose (Though Mr. Green has made many remarkable contributions). Yet no road fashioned by human hands will ever be free of ruts and potholes, and at least this one appears to be going somewhere.
Whither? I suppose you'll know when you get there. But let's hope that won't be anytime soon...
Best wishes,
Bernardo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
