Two Upsetting Stories
The Baltimore Sun carried an
article today about one of the most despicable crimes I'd heard of in a long time... A ring of theives, working as baggage handlers for the military at BWI, were stealing from the bags of soldiers deploying to Iraq. Police confiscated over 1,500 CDs and DVDs from the thieves, as well as laptop computers, video games, knives, and "small military items such as compasses." I can only hope nobody died because they deployed sans knife or compass.
If that doesn't get your ire up, how about this: The Tennessee Supreme Court
ruled that victims of a drunk driver can sue a gas station that sold gas to an intoxicated man. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw an attendant at a gas station. Should gas station attendants now have the authority to conduct breathalyzer tests? And why can't we just place the blame exactly where it belongs -- on the drunk who decided to drive when he was too drunk to do so safely?
Sorry for ruining your Friday night....
Labels: alcohol, iraq, nanny state
Nervous Rodent's Manifesto
Last updated: 29 September 2005I figure everyone has the right to know where a blogger is coming from, so I'm posting a manifesto of sorts. This isn't all-encompassing, but it should serve to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from politically.
- The government that governs best, governs least. -- Thomas Jefferson
- Every service provided by the government is paid for out of the coffers of American wealth, e.g., taxes. To endorse spending is to postulate that the government can get more productivity from the wealth than private citizens, corporations, or organizations.
- It is not a crime that hurts none. All laws should exist to protect innocents; any law that does not is superfluous.
- The economy knows best. Only in the most extreme cases should the government interfere with the free working of the economy. Having said that, many problems are caused by government interference, and may require additional action to correct.
- All people have equal rights, and should be treated equally under the law. Giving privledges to one group over another to correct perceived "disadvantages" is insulting and degrading.
- It is better to fight for your country on foreign soil than at home. Like all rational people, I oppose war on principle. But I would rather fight in Iraq and Afghanistan than Maryland and Virginia.
- There is nothing wrong with religion. Except that no government should ever invoke it, for any reason. Government, by definition, has power over people, and the combination is dangerous in the extreme.
- All citizens have the right to argue and petition for change. Our Constitution has an amendment procedure for a reason. Violent action against a government is only justified against governments that do not, and it is especially justified in that situation.
- Debate and discourse of individuals is preferable to news and editorials dictated by major corporations.
- Opinions change, including mine. This manifesto may change with time. That's because I will, too.
The images at the bottom give a bit of a clue. They are courtesy of the
OkCupid politics test. Feel free to take the test, and post your results as a comment so I can see what my readership is like. I'm 71% socially liberal, and 83% economically permissive. The first graph tells me I'm a Libertarian, the second tells me I'm similar to Jefferson, and the third tells me that people who scored similar results to me were split between Bush and Kerry in the last election.
Thanks to
Dave's Not Here for pointing me to this test.
Labels: afghanistan, church, iraq, nanny state, personal freedoms, privacy, racism, state's rights, taxes
Guilty Unless Proven Innocent
This is truly disturbing news. I was surfing blogs and came across
this entry on
The New England Republican, which ought to bother the crap out of you.
Apparently, a twenty year veteran of the Marine Corps, and veteran of three foreign wars, was dismissed from his job as a police officer because seven years earlier an ex-girlfriend charged that he had harrassed her. No evidence was found to substantiate the claims, and he was never taken to trial.
I was going to take a day off from blogging, but this just sickens me. Having been falsely accused of crimes a couple of times in my life, and having spent a few days in court on the wrong side of the bench, I've got a lot of sympathy for those accused of crimes they didn't commit. While our legal courts may require evidence to convict a person, increasing the courts of public opinion do not. Just ask
Tom Delay, indicted on charges that I can't even fully comprehend. I'm not saying I like the guy, but I just can't quite figure out what was illegal. IANAL, but don't you have to show intent to intent to commit a crime in order to convict someone of conspiracy?
It's time to stop judging people prematurely. That, and I really wanted everyone to hear Dennis Walsh's story. These things need to be told.
Labels: heroes, nanny state, personal freedoms, privacy
Why We Are Right, And Why We Will Win
A day does not pass where I do not read an editorial about us losing the war in Iraq. In fact, in a
recent poll, most Americans said the US will not win the Iraq war. Well, I've got news for you. We won a long time ago. We came in, removed a dictator, and began building a peaceful democratic country.
What we have now is an "insurgency," fueled by forces from outside Iraq, attempting to prove to the world that the US is weak and vulnerable. After a searing defeat in Afghanistan, the Jihadists need a new country to act as safe haven and sponsor -- and if they can show the world they can take it from under America's nose, well, that's one hell of a cherry on the top.
That's not an insurgency in my book. Insurgents are people unhappy with their government, willing to fight against it. The correct word for outside criminals fostering violence to overthrow a society for personal gain is
terrorists.
We must prevail in Iraq, because to fail would elevate this war to a new scale. An Iraq run by Jihadists, planning attacks against the US homeland, would be the worst of all possible scenarios. Do you really think these terrorists will be satisfied with just one country? Not in a million years!
But let us look for a moment at who we are fighting. Who are these strange men who wrap bandanas around their heads and chant oddly while firing in the air? They aren't Iraqis. Many, like
Zarqawi, leader of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, are criminals from other countries who found an opportunity to gain fame and power. Others, like Ahmad Al-Shaye', are idealists who were tricked into supporting these criminals.
Yes, I said tricked. And no, you've never heard of Ahmad Al-Shaye'. But you should have. On September 18th, Al-Majd TV in Saudi Arabia aired a
hospital interview with Ahmad Al-Shaye'. (For those with Arabic skills, visit
MEMRI and search on that name. Clip #861 has the entire interview. Everyone else can click the first link for a translated transcript.)
The terrorists that co-opted Ahmad Al-Shaye' asked him if he wished to conduct a suicide bombing. He answered he did not. They took his identification and money "for safekeeping," and asked him to drive a fuel-laden truck to provide supplies. What he did not know was the truck was an armed bomb, and his route was designed to kill innocent civilians and Iraqi government officials. His "leaders" had already called his parents to tell them he died bravely in combat.
Fortunately for Ahmad Al-Shaye', he survived the explosion. Badly wounded, he returned to Saudi Arabia and told the story of his attempted murder on national TV.
Thank you, Ahmad Al-Shaye', for exposing the truth about the evil criminals who are masterminding the "insurgency" in Iraq for their own gain. Thank you,
Al-Majd TV, for telling Saudi Arabia the truth. Shame on you,
CNN, for telling America that we are losing a war against an insurgent Iraqi population that never wanted to be rescued from Saddam Hussein's death squads.
Labels: iraq, media, Saudi Arabia, terrorism
Bring Your Bible To School!
In the sweltering summer of 1925, in Dayton Tennessee, the State
brought forth and prosecuted one Mr. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher accused of teaching evolution in the classroom. Be still my beating heart!
For those who forgot that two hour trial, John Scopes was convicted and fined one hundred dollars, later overturned on a technicality (the fine exceeded the amount allowable by law). John Scopes said, after hearing the sentence,
"Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom, that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our Constitution of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust."
Thirty seven years later, the law forbidding the teaching evolution in Tennessee was finally struck down as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The same year, John Scopes published a book,
Center of the Storm, in which he said: "The day will come when we will not be bothered by Fundamentalists."
Friends, that day is not today.
Nor is the current legal challenge in the backwaters of Tennessee. Today, this battle is being fought in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The state capital, and only two hours from Washington, DC, this
well-developed city boasts an International Airport, a well-esteemed minor league baseball team, and has been twice-honored as "All America City"(according to the National Civic League) -- and is now offering ringside seats to
The Monkey Trial II.
Eight families in the Dover Area School District are taking the school to federal court, arguing that the government has no right to teach their children "Intelligent Design," or the belief that evolution is bunk and God created everything.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Oh, but it is hard. As recently as 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that States cannot require schools to teach creationism. Yet even our President, George W. Bush,
has stated that schools should teach it. What's the deal here?
It's simple, folks. Teach your kids about religion at home, in church, and in your community. Don't ask the government to do it for you. Don't give me any crap about Intelligent Design not being religious -- it's the belief that a deity created the universe. That's a religion to me. Don't give me crap that it's "all religions," and therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. It clearly violates polytheistic beliefs, atheist beliefs, and the beliefs of many other religions that believe that while god(s) exist, they did not create the universe.
Maybe we should look at this from another point of view. Do you trust your government? Do you trust them enough to want them to teach your children about God?
I didn't think so.
9/27 - Update --
ScrappleFace is now covering this topic. Good to see a little light on the topic.
Labels: church, free speech, intelligent design
Big Brother or Nanny?
Only one day before
Tom DeLay announced that eleven years of GOP domination of the house has finally won the war on wasteful government spending, the
FBI has opened a new account, and fitted it with blank checks.
After nearly two decades of fighting child pornography online, with only moderate success, the FBI has decided to expand the War on Pornography to include activities between consenting adults. Yes, consenting adults. We're not talking about child pornography or rape, we're talking about things normal people do in their own homes (and then gasp if they hear them mentioned in public). Get ready to gasp -- I'm going to say them here.
In a
Washington Post article last Tuesday, announcing the creation of a new task force to seek out obscene material, an FBI memo was quoted as saying the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."
Note to college kids: Your hardcore porn is OK, as long as it isn't too rough.This is crazy. The
Miller Test, used since 1973 to define obscenity, is already hopelessly outdated. It has three tests which a work must pass in order to be considered obscene:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Community standards? In the past, this meant the Supreme Court had ruled that material legal in San Francisco might be illegal in Utah, under the same Federal law. Now, lacking a good definition of community, Internet users form communities online. Maybe a little S&M posted in alt.childrens.books will offend, but within the S&M community it won't.
- Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Yes,a Federal law defines material as illegal under Federal law only if the state agrees. Another useless piece of legislation in the Internet age.
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Do you really think that Federal judges, the likes of John Ashcroft, are the best judges of what is art and what is not? The FBI memo said that S&M could be prosecuted, just fifteen years after Robert Mapplethorpe received National Endowment for the Arts funding for homosexual S&M works, including the famous picture of himself inserting a bullwhip into his own ass, and a crucifix in a jar of urine.
Possession of obscene material is not a crime -- only the production or distribution of obscene material is illegal under current law.
Rob Zicari, owner of a porn company, successfully argued in the District Court in Pittsburgh that citizens had a Constitutional right to view obscene material, and by prohibiting the production and distribution of such material, the government is infringing on that right. The case is currently under appeal -- assuming he wins again, this task force is investigating "crimes" that break no laws.
This is insane, and a waste of money. And you can thank Congress for it. Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said.
An unnamed FBI worker said it best:
"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."
Labels: free speech, personal freedoms, privacy, state's rights
