tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39174307451539877702023-11-15T09:30:02.160-08:00Hairy ThoughtsSocial and political commentary from a hirsute humanist perspective.Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-10871039761690540372013-07-16T20:17:00.002-07:002013-07-16T20:17:33.037-07:00Standing Your GroundAs I write this the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case recently came to a close. The demagoguery around this case has been staggering. A couple of things that really bug me -<br />
<br />
1) Zimmerman was NOT told to stay in his car during a 911 call. He had not called 911, he called a non-emergency police number. The dispatcher on the phone asked him where Trayvon was going when Trayvon ran out of sight. George got out of his car to see. When the dispatcher told George that George didn't need to follow Trayvon, George said OK and started walking back to his truck.<br />
<br />
2) George did not confront Trayvon, it was the other way around. That's what George said, and that is even what Rachel Jeantel said. Her first report said that Trayvon spoke first and said "Why are you following me?" This clearly happened after Trayvon had disengaged from George and circled back to confront George.<br />
<br />
And most importantly, the constant drumbeat of criticism of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. This law was NEVER USED in the case. It was never mentioned by the Prosecution or the Defense. It was NOT in the jury instructions. This case was decided PURELY on self defense laws. Florida's are similar to those of every state in the union. The jury found as a question of fact that George was on his back being struck by Trayvon, that George was in fear of his life and/or great bodily harm, and was therefore justified in using deadly force. They also believed that Trayvon came up to George, while George was returning to his truck, and that Trayvon threw the first punch. George was on the ground being beaten and never had the opportunity to retreat, so the Stand Your Ground law never applied.<br />
<br />
But let's talk about the Stand Your Ground law for a second. Earlier tonight I asked one of The Hairy Urchins about standing his ground. "If you were minding your own business, and some guy comes up to you, starts screaming at you about how he is going to punch you out, and starts waving his arms around, should you be required to retreat to avoid a fight?" He answered "No!" I agree with him. Despite what Atty Gen Eric Holder said, neither federal nor state law makes that requirement. It might be SMART to do that, but the law doesn't require it. Nor do I think it should. We should be able to go about our business without having to run from people who are annoying or threatening us.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately believers in big government would disagree. One of the underlying goals of the bewildering profusion of laws and regulations we have seen come out of government in the last few decades has the result of making Americans less self reliant. We have less and less power to defend ourselves, settle our disagreements with our neighbors, or even decide what we and our children will ingest.<br />
<br />
I saw a perfect example the other day. Some little jerk teenagers broke into a house and started vandalising it. They were discovered by an adult who was watching over the property. I think it would have been appropriate for him to give them a good spanking (note - I have never felt the need to spank my kids, but they have never done anything so horrible), grab them by the scruff of the neck, and march them to their parents where they would hopefully receive appropriate negative reinforcement. But no, the guy just shut them in a closet to wait for the police to come. He caught them in the middle of committing a felony, and safely detained them for the police. He was charged with kidnapping and child abuse. Apparently in his jurisdiction he has no authority to even touch a kid who was destroying property in front of him.<br />
<br />
The results of this kind of philosophy can be seen in Britain. I recently saw several episodes of the British equivalent of COPS. On several occasions old people were being harassed by young hoodlums. They were struck, their property vandalised, and they were regularly subjected to verbal abuse. They weren't allowed to directly interact with the kids. Hose them down for example. They were told to call the coppers. The coppers would show up, tell the thugs to be good little boys and girls, and that was it. You see once the government had taken the ability to help themselves away from citizens, usually with the promise that the government would protect them, the government in turn chose not to use the power that the citizens had given it to protect the citizens.<br />
<br />
That will happen here if we let the government take away the existing Stand Your Ground laws. We do not have a DUTY to retreat in the face of bullying. <br />
<br />
HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-77814977237330176442012-04-11T02:50:00.000-07:002012-04-11T02:50:08.773-07:00Understanding Christian PrejudicesOne of the most irritating aspects of christians who have at least some
knowledge of why they believe what they believe is the belief in the
base nature of mankind. I think humans are naturally good and
empathetic on the whole, and that their environments tend to damage
their better and more altruistic impulses. But christianity disagrees
with that position. They believe that only through god can our better
natures be found. I found a well written explanation of that in the
book "Reborn" by F. Paul Wilson. It is part of a multi-book sci-fi
series that I am currently reading, and I thought I would share. This
is a Jesuit priest speaking to a woman whose husband had just died a
horrible death at the hands of others.<br /><br />
<blockquote class="uncited">
<div>
Priest:
"A lot of adults never grow up when it comes to religion. They could
never accept that Satan is just a symbolic externalization of the evil
that lurks in all of us."<br />Widow:"But where does that evil in us come from?"<br />Priest:
"From the merging of the spirit and the flesh. The spiritual part of us
comes from God and wants to return to Him. The physical part of us is
like a wild beast that wants what it wants when it wants it and doesn't
care who gets hurt in its drive to get it. Life is a process of striking
a balance between the two. If the spiritual part prevails, it is
allowed to return to God when life is over. If the baser drives and
emotions of the physical aspect taint the spirit too deeply, it is not
allowed to return to God. That, Carol, is hell. Hell is not a fiery
place with pitchfork-wielding demons. It's a state of being bereft of
God's presence."</div>
</blockquote>
<br /><br />I found it interesting that
the priest said that very few Jesuits believe in the existence of an
actual Satan or Hell. It had the ring of truth to it, and I had always
associated jesuit thought with a more intellectual approach to
catholocism. <br /><br />This crutch of needing to give yourself up to god
in order to become a truly good person and to get to heaven is one of
the most fundamental disagreements I have with xian thought. It leads
to blaming god when things don't go well and writing problems off to
"God's Will".<br /><br />I find that attitude even more clearly in Islam.
While xian fundamentalists have the country song "Jesus Take the Wheel"
(Really? Your car starts to skid on ice as a metaphor for you life
being out of control, and your best advice is to close your eyes, throw
up your hand, and hope god steers your car/life away from the ditch.
Really? But I digress.) muslims have the expression Insha'Allah or As
God Wills.<br /><br />I see that a lot in news reports and interviews on TV,
and have had Muslim friends and acquaintances use it in situations
where I think they would have been better off trying harder for the
results they wanted. I think a touch of that attitude peeved Winston
Churchill when he was talking about the muslim culture's "fearful
fatalistic apathy."<br /><br /><blockquote class="uncited">
<div>
How dreadful
are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the
fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a
dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent
in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture,
sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever
the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism
deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity
and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong
to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a
concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of
Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may
show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers
of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger
retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund,
Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already
spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every
step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms
of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the
civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of
ancient Rome.</div>
</blockquote>
<br /><br />Oh well, just railing against the Nine Billion Names of God on a Wednesday.Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-61481761644411727992012-01-05T23:36:00.000-08:002012-01-05T23:36:17.884-08:00Life on the EdgeOne of the problems I have with Obamacare is the implied ability of the FedGov to control our personal life choices or reducing care options available to us, in the name of keeping costs down. We are already seeing that in England where people who are overweight aren't allowed to get hip or knee replacements. Big private/public employers like insurance agencies and hospitals are mandating urine tests and refusing to hire people who test positive for nicotine. Is caffeine next?<br /><br />I'm fat. On the "Fluffy" scale I am somewhere between DAMN! and Oh Hell No!!! Is the government going to tell me what I can and can't eat? Will I be allowed to get that bypass that I am probably going to needs someday? Probably not if Obamacare takes over. It may be a few years, but our freedoms are being slowly eroded in the name of safety.<br /><br />Sure I should lose weight. I don't enjoy being fat. But I enjoy eating bad things and choose to make the trade off. Every life choice has its downsides, and I am generally very happy with my life. Government, leave me the hell alone.<br /><br />You know they are going to come for the easy targets first. The smokers and the fatties. But that is just the beginning. What about motorcyclists? Heck, people who drive cars instead of the much safer mass transit. All of these can be regulated in the name of health care once we give the government that power over us.<br /><br />I wonder what they are going to do about these guys.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/0fwH0vbJjNY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Hairy <br />
<br />
<br />Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-89974033821207941592011-12-10T01:01:00.001-08:002011-12-10T01:01:07.034-08:00Leaning Toward the Newt<br />
Been perusing the political news. Funny thing, the pundits claim that our republic yearns for an outsider to run the country. Then they claim that Romney and the Newt are both insiders so neither has a chance. But I think they are wrong in both cases. <br />
<br />
Mitt is easy. He had a lot of business experience before he got into politics. If a voter kinda likes Mitt (or dislikes everybody who is left) and is looking for an outsider, it is easy enough to assert that Romney's experience outside of government makes him outsider enough.<br />
<br />
Newt is tougher. He's been tramping around DC for a VERY long time. But he has a couple of things going for him. First, he really did upset the status quo in his first incarnation with the Contract With America, welfare reform, and inflicting balanced budgets on Clinton. Second, a LOT of established politicians just HATE him. To me, that makes him an outsider. Anybody so disliked by so many political hacks just HAS to have something going for him.<br />
<br />
The Pundits also assert that Newt loses focus and gets disorganized. That is also a positive for me. If something really important comes up, he will get focused and be the smartest guy in the room. Until then he won't get much done. That government governs best that governs least.<br />
<br />
Barring some major meltdown, I am leaning in Newt's direction. Even though I too like the idea of a political outsider to shake things up.<br />
<br />
Hairy<br />Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-43238294180619583182011-11-21T23:27:00.001-08:002011-11-21T23:29:06.995-08:00A Part of the Case for Voter Photo ID<br />
There has been a recent push to require photo ID before someone is allowed to vote. I think it's a great idea. Naturally the left is against it. They want to continue to control vote outcomes through their city and state machines. They disingenuously claim that it is a racist tactic to disenfranchise blacks and the poor. They also claim that voter fraud is incredibly rare, and challenge ID supporters to find court cases where fraudulent voting has been found. Of course those are virtually non-existent because the people who would investigate and prosecute such cases are the same people who are committing the fraud. But every once in a while a liberal with a conscience comes along.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: #ffff99; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 15px;">Democrat says Democratic Party bosses use voter fraud</span><br />
<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democrat-says-democratic-party-bosses-use-voter-fraud-video/">http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democrat-says-democratic-party-bosses-use-voter-fraud-video/</a><br />Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-53358403005866993772011-11-10T00:13:00.000-08:002011-11-10T00:13:32.700-08:00A Few Thoughts on Faith and Free WillI was recently asked if humanists have an open mind about the existence of god, and what science can do to find god. My opinion is that the answer is yes, but that humanists haven't seen anything that they would consider evidence of the existence of an anthropomorphic god. Scientific research into the existence of god really doesn't have any good place to start. The existence of god will need god to provide an unambiguous signature of his presence. Measuring wavelengths, timing events, creating compounds are the kinds of things scientists do, and do very well. Those things aren't like to produce the answer to life, the universe, and everything any time soon.<br /><br />In myth and legend gods interact with humans all the time. But generally only in private so you have to take the word of the person who suffered the divine presence. "You saw who? And he said what? And he personally gave you that magic kazoo that can heal the sick. Oh, but you can't cure my athlete's foot right now. Uh Huh." God needs to be less shy to overcome natural skepticism in a scientific age.<br /><br />There is a common argument that god shouldn't provide proof of existence because that would rob man of freedom of choice. That man must prove his allegiance through faith rather than evidence. I find that argument less than compelling. First, of course, there is the inherent unfairness of god taking that precious gift away from so many of his messengers. Moses, anybody who got healed by Jesus, Joseph Smith, or anybody else who became a prophet of god through divine communication just got screwed. Hardly the actions of a just god deserving of worship. Second, and more important, just because you KNOW god exists doesn't mean that you will choose god. Plenty of people choose to be evil. Just ask Judas or Lucifer. Freedom of choice is still there, it is just a more informed decision after god gets a regular talk show on Fox News. (The other networks probably wouldn't give him a show.)<br />
<br />
HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-81097399327336545432011-10-12T21:50:00.000-07:002011-10-12T21:56:17.753-07:00Obama and the Deadly DronesOne of my favorite conservative blogs is Powerline. They recently posted an article discussing President Obama's program of blowing up bad guys with drones. It raises serious constitutional and ethical questions. This particular discussion noted that there aren't really clear limits or boundaries on presidential powers in some areas, and questioned whether there should be more. Here is the article:<br /><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/what-could-go-wrong.php">http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/what-could-go-wrong.php</a><br /><br />And my response:<br /><br />One of the biggest problems I have with over regulation is that it enforces mediocrity and lowest common denominator outcomes. We see that with the public schools. Every move, every curriculum, every textbook, every teacher promotion or firing, must follow a rigid set of rules using written standards monitored by bureaucrats. While this may defend against really poor outcomes, it also reduces the chances for greatness and innovation. I believe that over regulation generally degrades outcomes, even if it does make them more consistent and predictable.<br /><br />So yes, there are times that ambiguity of law, and the executive reaching in ways that were not considered by laws (Or that would never have gotten approval if publicly proposed.) is probably a good thing. We may not like it when that executive belongs to a party we don't approve, or if we don't like the particular action. But overall, on the balance, I believe that most Presidents of the United States make the right decision most of the time. Particularly on hard calls like whether to target a terrorist, citizen or not, with a drone.<br /><br />I don't like Obama. Not as a person. Not as a politician. Not as our President. But I would not take the power to act independently away from him. Because if we take away some of his ability away to do bad things, we also take away part of his ability to achieve great things.<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-50340436009033588182011-09-07T17:29:00.000-07:002011-09-07T17:39:03.902-07:00A Discussion on CharityA friend of mine recently posted on his Facebook page:<br /><br /><blockquote>I remember once upon a time, conservatives talked about a kinder, gentler society, lit by a thousand points of light. Can we no longer afford compassion? We're becoming a meaner, harder, sharper-edged society, and those thousand points of light are dimming because we're told that we can't afford the candles.</blockquote><br /><br />I responded:<br />The question is how best to show compassion. Government handouts have proven to make people more poor and more dependent. It is a false compassion to ask for more money to hand out. Our world has become softer, not harder. The people who claim to be helping the disadvantaged are more likely to be harming them. Nationalizing charity was a bad idea. <br /><br />Just because someone thinks government handouts have grown too big does not mean that person lacks compassion. Demeaning those who disagree with you detracts from the debate.<br /><br />He responded, also talking to another commenter:<br /><blockquote>I don't think that I was demeaning anyone in particular. We seem to be on a trend of blaming the poor for poverty, though. I don't think that that's very constructive either. Private assistance, like food banks, only goes so far, and when there's hard times there's a lot more going out than there is coming in. <br /><br />Kat - you know as well as anyone, that there's lots of people out there who want to work hard, and can work hard, but just can't find work. Gov Snyder just signed the bill limiting lifetime welfare assistance to 48 months. What happens to the 12,000 families who get kicked off the rolls in October?</blockquote><br /><br />And I replied:<br />Actually, your post was an attack on conservatives. It would be impossible to read your post without concluding that you think conservatives are meaner, harder, sharper edged, and lacking compassion. Read it again and think about how much you would like it if you were conservative and had dedicated your life to helping others, as I am and have.<br /><br />As to the 12,000 people who have been on welfare for 4 years, yes they have had plenty of time to find work, move to where more jobs are available, start businesses, get help from their family, or find other means of supporting themselves. While there will always be a very few who need that kind of long term aid, 12,000? I don't think so.<br /><br />Your comment on soup kitchens and private assistance was also interesting. Before The Great Society our country was filled with charitable groups working in the community. Rotary clubs, Elks, Eagles, Shriners. They have been devastated by the nationalization of charity. To the detriment of the poor. These private organizations could look at each distressed person or family individually and give them the help they needed, not letting them get away with bullshit as easily. Today it is a bureaucrat checking off boxes on a form, with the "less motivated" learning the right answers to give to maintain a low, but very easy, standard of living. Not good for them or our society.<br /><br /><br />Back to Hairy Thoughts.<br />I find myself in this kind of discussion fairly often. It is very frustrating to see public statements of moral superiority based on a policy disagreement. In effect, people saying that because they have a different way of solving a problem that they are a better person than I am. They might be, but not for the reasons they assert.Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-64048818969111689382011-08-31T02:19:00.000-07:002011-08-31T02:26:38.753-07:00Tip of the Hat to Justice Thomas.Supreme Court Justice Thomas is one of the most maligned public figures of our day. Because he is black and conservative, far too many on the left assume that he must be an intellectual lightweight. I've seen many articles and facebook comments making this assertion. So it was refreshing to see this article by Jeffrey Toobin.
<br />
<br /><a href=" http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all</a>
<br />
<br />Jeffrey Toobin , one of the left's leading legal reporters, acknowledging Thomas's impressive intellectual credentials. Toobin may not agree with, or even like, Thomas, but his description of Thomas as a brilliant leader of the court is fascinating.
<br />
<br />The above article is quite long. Michael Barone summarizes it very nicely. Both articles are well worth your time.
<br />
<br /><a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obamacare-and-jurisprudence-clarence-thomas-0">http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obamacare-and-jurisprudence-clarence-thomas-0</a>
<br />
<br />Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-56330322174709434022011-08-26T20:35:00.000-07:002011-08-26T20:43:09.191-07:00Dominionism, another Conspiracy Theory.Today I saw a post on Powerline about Dominionism.
<br /><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/if-dominionists-didnt-exist-liberals-would-have-to-invent-them.php">http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/if-dominionists-didnt-exist-liberals-would-have-to-invent-them.php</a>
<br />
<br />I thought I knew what it meant just from context, and it turns out I was right. The wiki game me some general background.
<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</a>
<br />
<br />Dominionism is a belief that God gave man Dominion over the earth, and that Christians should take that responsibility seriously and apply it to all aspects of their lives. The practical implications being that they should only trust other Christians, and they should try to get political control of their locality and the whole US to create Christian based government. Some liberal author decided that this was all some kind of big secret threat. As is generally the case, this is a VERY overwrought conspiracy theory.
<br />
<br />Until reading this article I hadn't heard of "Dominionism", although in retrospect I have experienced it. I used to run an adoption agency and found a pretty clear dividing line between agencies. There were religious agencies and secular agencies. The secular agencies made it a point of not asking about a potential adoptive family's religious beliefs, outside of health of the child issues. (Christian Scientists can find it difficult to adopt as they are generally not willing to take their kids to traditional doctors.) Religious agencies often expected an affidavit of faith, sometimes a letter from the priest/pastor of a church affirming that the potential adoptive parent was Christian.
<br />
<br />When taking general information calls from prospective adoptive parents, I would frequently be asked if I was Christian, or if ours was a Christian agency. I would respond that my personal beliefs were private, and that we were a secular organization that accepted both religious and non-religious client families. -*CLICK*- That would be that. Most religious people weren't so strong in that requirement. We had plenty of Christian clients
<br />
<br />A lot of folks just didn't want to do business with anyone who didn't share their faith. That was fine with me. It is important to be comfortable with the adoption agency you choose. But this kind of attitude seemed to be stronger among evangelicals than any other group I encountered, with the potential exception of gay rights advocates. (They had an edge all their own.)
<br />
<br />I suspect that this discomfort with non-Christians led to the concept of Dominionism, apparently largely created by non-religious political authors. I don't think that Dominionism is any kind of a conspiracy, it is just like minded people grouping together. That grouping then gets interpreted as a threat by people with a different opinion. So yeah, I think this is largely an invention of the liberal media, and not a big deal in a broad based political sense.
<br />
<br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-77915480319573663292011-08-21T21:35:00.000-07:002011-08-21T21:44:05.874-07:00Conspiracy Theories, a minor observation.The sheer nuttiness of so many conspiracies can be breathtaking. On a local Seattle blog one regular poster began claiming a conspiracy against Navy SEALs. Some members of the SEAL team that killed BinLaden were killed when a copter was shot down in Afghanistan. Note, while it was member of the same SEAL team, it was a different part of the team. SEAL teams consist of hundreds of SEALS. It appears that NONE of the SEALS who were killed were actually on the BinLaden raid.
<br />
<br />Nevertheless, this whack job was convinced that the BinLaden raid didn't take place, and the helicopter shoot down was friendly fire designed to kill possible witnesses to the lack of a raid. Just nuts.
<br />
<br />More rational commenters posted a host of logical and factual flaws with this "theory". To no avail. He just dug in his heels. I expected that.
<br />
<br />I've long felt that conspiracy theory advocates are compensating for some sense of powerlessness in their lives. It lets them feel that they have higher powers of perception than those around them, and a secret knowledge that makes them special. No amount of facts or logic can sway those opinions, it is giving up the only part of themselves that they like.
<br />
<br />Don't feed the trolls.
<br />
<br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-21570403442235544942011-07-19T00:30:00.000-07:002011-07-19T00:46:41.666-07:00Too Many Laws.The other day a stand up comic made a joke about unemployed guys sitting around in their underwear watching court TV shows. Guilty! Judges Judy, Milian, and Alex are my current favs. The other day Judge Alex posted a question on his facebook page.<br /><br />"Have you ever said to yourself..."there outta be a law..."?<br />If you could make up your own law, what would it be?"<br /><br />While an interesting topic for discussion, I think it points out a real problem in our society. The desire to meddle. <br />There are far too many conflicting, overlapping, and unenforced laws. I'd like to see a limit on the number of laws each level of government can have. If they want to pass a new one they have to remove an old unused or bad one. Perhaps each law should have a 10 year expiration period, and if no one has been charged with it, it just automatically deletes itself.<br /><br />But I believe there are few things as corrosive to a society as unenforced and ignored laws. When laws are not enforced law breakers have more contempt for the rule of law generally. It leads to excuses like "everybody does it", or "it's no big deal". Breaking laws should be a big deal. For people to take them seriously, legislators need to exercise care in finding the things that are really important, and that the police are able and willing to enforce. Sure, it's only speeding, or littering, or smoking a joint. The more little laws you break and justify in ignoring, the more likely you are to break bigger ones and have less respect for yourself and those around you.<br /><br />So while I enjoyed Judge Alex's conversation starter, I think a better question would be "What laws can we do without?"<br /><br />How about this. It takes a 2/3 majority to approve a law, but only a 1/3 minority to take it off the books. If 1/3 of the people don't want a law, is it REALLY a good idea?<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-78681098161720167022011-07-01T14:31:00.000-07:002011-07-01T14:46:29.397-07:00The Hypocrisy of Limousine LiberalsOne of the Hairy Urchins just graduated from High School. The commencement speaker was none other than Bill Gates Sr. Father of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. Bill Gates is a locally noted local progressive activist. Even though Washington State is one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation, he was the driving force behind an effort to ADD a state income tax.<br /><br />His commencement speech was every bit as horrible as I expected it to be. It was little more than a long list of things that he thought had been bad about America. Yes, some progress had been made, but it was up to the graduating students to make things even better. This "Hate America First" philosophy seems to be the place from which rich, privileged liberals start their thinking. Yes, we had segregated schools and rest rooms. Yes, we had miscegenation laws. Yes we had Japanese internment camps. Yes, women were not always allowed to vote. But those injustices are not what makes America exceptional.<br /><br />Just now I am watching a John Stossel special, "What's Great About America." Now that is a message for graduating students. We do more for the world, have done more for the world, have led the world to more freedom, have given the world more advancements than any other country in history. The students should have been encouraged to be proud of their past and to carry forward with our grand traditions. While America has done bad things, and while we must learn about them and acknowledge them, they are not the most important things about America. And to spend the vast majority of a commencement speech droning on about past injustices did an injustice to the class of 2011.Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-9486384665246155812011-06-07T22:26:00.000-07:002011-06-07T22:46:25.966-07:00Why TSA Should not be Government EmployeesWhen the Department of Homeland Security was created the D.C. left wing bureaucracy saw a great opportunity to swell the ranks of government unions and the size of government. All of the ports and airports in the country hired private security contractors to ensure the safety of travelers. That clearly wouldn't do. In a stunning takeover of private industry, the government created a new bureaucracy and an army of workers forced to join government unions.<br /><br />I believe that this places travelers at much greater risk and provides a much lower level of service. Why? Accountability.<br /><br />It is virtually impossible to fire government union workers, no matter how egregious their behavior. They know that once they get hired they have a sinecure for life. Plus, they know that their wages, job security, and often promotions are not based on merit. It doesn't matter if you do a good job or bad job, all that matters is seniority.<br /><br />A system like this inevitably leads to a significant portion of workers who are lazy, arrogant, and have no fear of negative repercussions for providing poor customer service. In a private system if a security agent is rude to a traveler, a complaint goes to a private employer. If that private employer gets too many complaints about too many offended travelers, that airport or port is going to start looking for another security company. The same is true of passenger safety. Today if an airport worker fails a security test by allowing a fake bomb through a checkpoint, their job is not at risk. They might get a reprimand, but they aren't going to get fired or get a pay cut. With a private security firm, if somebody is doing a crappy job screening they can be shown the door much more easily.<br /><br />But one of the things that pains me the most is the sheer arrogance and punitive nature of Immigration, Customs, and TSA agents. The story below is a perfect example. A cruise ship of elderly British tourists docks in LA. Everybody on the ship has been screened multiple times. One of the tourists complains about TSA officiousness. The TSA replies by hugely ramping up security checks on the old folks. Pure retribution and pettiness. Our burgeoning government is weakening our nation.<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8559732/Cruise-passengers-tell-of-seven-hour-security-revenge-nightmare.htmlHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-30999485723743319832011-05-28T20:11:00.000-07:002011-05-28T20:21:24.873-07:00Government Regulation of Tree PruningOne of the ways government overreaches through regulation is by licensing activities that really don't need licensing. Washington State recently created a license for interior decorators. Wow. I can sleep at night.<br /><br />In Charlotte NC apparently you must get permission from the city to prune trees on your own property. Here is a link to an article that describes this requirement.<br /><br />http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/05/28/2333197/church-fined-for-improper-tree.html<br /><br />The line that gives it away for me is this:<br /><br />"The state Division of Forestry recommends that anyone trimming trees should be certified by the National Horticulture Board . . ."<br /><br />The state wants to prevent people from helping themselves. Anything not prohibited is mandatory. Want to defend yourself from an attack by muggers? Sorry, you're not qualified. You must call the police and wait for them. Otherwise you might violate the rights of the mugger out of your ignorance of the law. Want to pack a lunch for your kid at school? Sorry, you aren't a nutritionist. You might put in chocolate milk, a known fattening agent and carcinogen. You must have your child only eat the perfect meal provided by the school.<br /><br />More government, more government employees, more regulators, less freedom. A license to prune a tree on your own property, indeed.Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-82003642911051891602010-11-09T21:33:00.000-08:002010-11-09T21:34:26.088-08:00Some thoughts on the Rossi v Murray ad campaign.I was thinking about Rossi's loss over the weekend, particularly as it related to ads. Both Rossi and Murray engaged in the time honored tradition of taking a vote or position on one bill/subject, and then criticizing their opponent for a side effect of that vote. Rossi thinks that governments shouldn't subsidize defense contractors in violation of international law. This means that Boeing shouldn't get unfair help, even if airbus DOES get unfair help. Murray then says Rossi is anti-Boeing. Bunch of crap. Problem is, Rossi did the same thing to Murray. Just offhand I forget which one really bugged me. Did Rossi accuse Murray or sending jobs to China? Maybe because Murray supported a wind power green energy bill, and most windmills are built in China. It clearly wasn't Murray's intent to move jobs offshore, so Rossi was playing the same game as Murray. That's a bunch of crap too.<br /><br />When I was getting bombarded by their adds, I couldn't see the difference between Murray and Rossi in terms of personal standards and ethics. Rossi may be the greatest guy on the planet, and Murray the Queen of Darkness, but you couldn't tell the difference from the style and tone of their adds. To me, Rossi just looked like another self serving politician.<br /><br />Yeah I voted for him, but it was without enthusiasm. Truth be told, I was voting against her. I don't dislike Rossi. I agree with him on most of the issues. But he fell far short of distinguishing himself from her on a personal level, from my watching of his campaign.<br /><br />How I wish I could vote for Chris Christie for anything. So for me, this wasn't a dirty season, this was a same old, same old season.<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-46491810215339188022010-05-20T21:16:00.000-07:002010-05-20T21:20:09.404-07:00Everybody Draw Mohammed Day<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad49/HairyBuddah/MohammedBuddah.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 262px; height: 286px;" src="http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad49/HairyBuddah/MohammedBuddah.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />What he might have looked like if he had actually WANTED to found a "religion of peace".Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-76947107187694189142010-01-03T23:52:00.000-08:002010-01-03T23:57:37.074-08:00Beyond Motor CityA while back a friend commented that they didn't want the future to look like a Mad Max movie, and that was why they supported government control of the economy. To prevent global warming, don'tcha know. I suggested that we were FAR more likely to get that kind of outcome FROM government control. It is possible that global warming may do it. Seems unlikely, but possible. It seems MUCH more likely that government control will do it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw">Detroit In Ruins</a>Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-35851912066065197502009-11-22T21:57:00.000-08:002009-11-22T21:58:57.410-08:00Climate Change Fraud UncoveredUsually when proprietary data is stolen and published, it is the left attempting to discredit the right. One of the reasons for this is the far left bias of most of the press. But in the last decade a combination of the blogosphere, talk radio, and fox news have broken the strangle hold that the left had on the news. This means that stories that would have been ignored in the past get to see the light of day. And it has happened again.<br /><br />A hundred odd megabytes of emails and files from one of the centers of man made global warming "research" were stolen and published on the web. The contents are shocking, but not particularly surprising. They show that the people calling themselves climate scientists are actually just big government activists who will lie, cheat, and steal to show a single, biased, inaccurate point of view. Here is one of the many articles discussing the scandal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html</a><br /><br />Bottom line, these jokers were caught cherry picking data, using mathematical trickery to provide misleading conclusions, threatening editors of scientific journals for publishing alternate points of view, destroying evidence called for by Freedom of Information Act requests, and generally conspiring to print conclusions not backed up by the data.<br /><br />Deplorable.<br /><br />Is the globe warming up? Well, it was for a while, but hasn't for the past decade. Has human activity been responsible for some of the warming that was occurring? Possibly, but the case certainly hasn't been made. Should humans work to reduce pollution? Of course. Do we know how much of a reduction it would take to have an impact on the climate? Clearly not. Have we even established the "best" temperature for human life on this planet? No, not really.<br /><br />Perhaps, someday, we will have the computing power, programming expertise, and sufficient data collected to truly model our weather and climate. But we aren't there yet. And those guys know we aren't. To me, this scandal demonstrates that climate change legislation is a lot more about politics than science.<br /><br />I'll believe in anthropogenic global warming when the people who are telling me about anthropogenic global warming start behaving like they believe in anthropogenic global warming.<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-40789930366421133132009-11-21T12:51:00.000-08:002009-11-21T12:56:26.646-08:00Exciting News from the European UnionThis article was quite fascinating and delightful.<br /><br />It discusses the first President of the European Union. Apparently Europeans don't get to vote for their president. After all, we can't have IMPORTANT positions decided by the LITTLE people. The whole democracy thing. So . . . . common. At last Europe can get back to being ruled by those born to the job.<br /><br /><blockquote>Herman van Rompuy, a serenely uncontroversial, 63-year-old Belgian centrist, became the EU's first president, but the big winner was Baroness "Cathy" Ashton, an obscure New Labour quangocrat who landed the job of High Representative for Foreign Affairs. From the far corners of the couple's unruly new empire came an encouragingly harmonious chorus of: "Qui?" "Wer?" "Chi?" "Who?"</blockquote><br /><br />Ahh, the equivalent of the Secretary of State position for all of Europe. Someone supremely well qualified to lead, probably behind the string pulling Europe's power brokers.<br /><br /><blockquote>Cathy's curriculum vitae is a spirit-sapping recitation of posts held and causes served, far from the rigours of the real world. Born in Lancashire, she has been a "vice chair" of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, founded an organisation to promote equality in the business world, and served as vice president of the National Council of One-Parent Families. Given a life peerage in 1999 by Tony Blair, she was sent to Brussels last year as a replacement for Peter Mandelson. Married to the former journalist Peter Kellner, now head of a polling organisation, she has two children and three stepchildren.<br /><br />"Baroness Ashton is ideal for her new role," says Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. "She has never had a proper job, and has never been elected to public office."</blockquote><br /><br />I also read down into the comments section and noticed some interesting observations.<br /><br /><blockquote>And so we are reduced to the role of the people of the Soviet bloc back in the days of our struggle against totalitarian socialism.<br /><br />Their role in the political process was not, as in democratic societies, to elect, remove, and hold accountable their leadership, but to READ IN THE NEWSPAPERS THE FOLLOWING DAY what the leadership had decided for them.</blockquote><br /><br />and<br /><br /><blockquote>A very disturbing compromise. It is as clear as crystal that the franco-german axis has got the other 25 states by the balls. Shut UK up by choosing a Briton who does not have a clue about most things political. Satisfy the poor rest of the members by appointing as president somebody for whom certainly no traffic will stop even if he is on a pedestrian crossing. The next step will be to ensure that the economic and financial powerhouses of the EU on the Commission and at ECB will be manned by faithful french and german bankers and politicians. That is the Lisbon treaty for the rest of us.</blockquote><br /><br />I know that a lot of progressives think we should be more like europe, and aspire to european governance. Stuff like this shows me just how wrong they are, and lead me further in my belief of American exceptionalism.<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-60987170338150502632009-11-12T05:05:00.000-08:002009-11-12T05:05:00.182-08:00On the use of the word "terrorism".So an Army Major named Hasan goes nutjob jihad and kills and maims a bunch of his fellow soldiers. Immediately the partisan divide opens. The left pretends that this is an entirely random act of madness. The right proclaims that the left are being a bunch of weenies, afraid to use the word terrorism. As well as engaging in the same kind of political correctness groupthink that allowed his bizarre behavior to be ignored.<br /><br />One of the problems with this overall discussion is with the definition of terrorism. To me, terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to intimidate a population into a particular kind of behavior.<br /><br />When most people think of the word terrorism, they think about an organized group acting together to complete a plan. 9-11 is a perfect example of that. AQ did planning, fund raising, training, had secret communications and meetings, and executed a successful operation.<br /><br />That's different from some guy going into his basement, grabbing all the guns he can find, screaming Allah Akbar, and shooting up the people around him.<br /><br />Sure, there are problems with Muslim leaders preaching "kill the infidels", but they aren't specifically working with the psycho killer. They are just providing an environment that makes the behavior politically or theologically acceptable to some. The two kinds of terrorism are very different.<br /><br />An organized group of terrorists opening fire on groups of civilians in different cities on the same day is organized terrorism.<br /><br />Not so much for the Ft. Hood whack job.<br /><br />I think equating the two does a disservice both to Islam and US Homeland security. It is reasonable to expect Homeland Security to stop an organized, coordinated attack. Not much you can do about a lone gunman attacking a soft target.<br /><br />It is even questionable whether the Ft. Hood attack can even be considered terrorism. Hasan attacked a military target, not a civilian one.<br /><br />While I agree Muslim leaders should be much more clear and vocal condemning both the attack and the voices who support the attack, I think it is also reasonable for the media to be restrained and clear about the use of the word "terrorism".<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-56389383498455370032009-05-07T23:29:00.000-07:002009-05-07T23:38:36.806-07:00Hairy DreamsI've long been fascinated by the concept of directed dreaming. While I haven't read as much on the subject as I would like, I understand that some folks can control the subject matter of their dreams by concentrating/thinking about in a particular way the subject about which they wish to dream.<br /><br />Before I had read about the concept I personally experienced it. In grade school I read a TAB book about a kid who found a bottle full of magic liquid. When he rubbed a drop on each shoulder he grew wings. Eventually he used up the bottle, rubbed just a bit of residue off the sides onto his shoulders, and got a single feather to have as a keepsake of the experience.<br /><br />I REALLY liked the book, and the night I finished it I had a dream about having wings, and flying through a hole to the center of the earth. I woke up distraught that the dream was over. The next night I focused on the dream before going to sleep, and was able to partially recreate the dream. Very satisfying. And I didn't feel a need to experience the dream again.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/YetMoreSummerGlau.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 309px; height: 465px;" src="http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/YetMoreSummerGlau.png" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Perhaps when life slows down a bit I will take the time to experience dreams of my choice.<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-48556212805055664862009-04-25T20:33:00.000-07:002009-04-25T20:53:51.245-07:00Hypocrisy of the Left on Law and Order<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For the past couple of weeks the news has been full of demands from the left that Bush administration legal advisors be tried and jailed for their opinions on enhanced interrogation techniques.<span style=""> </span>Our country was in an apparently novel position.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If we capture a soldier fighting our nation while wearing a uniform, we have rules about how that Prisoner of War is treated.<span style=""> </span>All that the soldier has to provide is his name, rank and serial number.<span style=""> </span>It is our obligation to provide the prisoner with a clean, dry place to stay, and adequate food and medical care.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If we catch a <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> citizen trying to help an enemy of the <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> while in this country, then that person receives full rights under the constitution of the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and must be proven guilty in a court of law.<span style=""> </span>Once the suspect invokes their Miranda rights they can’t even be questioned without their attorney present.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But suppose some of our soldiers are in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> conducting a security sweep.<span style=""> </span>They raid a house that is suspected of being a headquarters of a terror cell.<span style=""> </span>In the house they find bomb making equipment, and a spot on the floor where it is obvious that 5 completed car bombs had just been moved out.<span style=""> </span>We catch a guy in civilian clothes running out of the house, and it turns out he is Abdul bin BadGuy, a known bomb maker from <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Yemen</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and reputed head of the local Al-Qaeda cell.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What rules apply to this guy?<span style=""> </span>He clearly isn’t automatically entitled to POW protection.<span style=""> </span>He was not a soldier in uniform performing a military role.<span style=""> </span>He doesn’t seem to be entitled to a trial in US courts.<span style=""> </span>Heck, there isn’t any evidence you could use in a court of law to convict him.<span style=""> </span>He was just leaving a house that happened to have bombs in it.<span style=""> </span>No actual proof that he was involved in any way.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is a military operation. <span style=""> </span>It’s part of an act of war in a war zone.<span style=""> </span>So the troops go up through their chain of command and ask for guidance.<span style=""> </span>The prez goes to his legal staff and asks for opinions.<span style=""> </span>His legal staff says – you can question them aggressively, but you can’t torture them.<span style=""> </span>OK, so what is torture?<span style=""> </span>The answer comes back, you can cause them pain.<span style=""> </span>You can make them afraid.<span style=""> </span>You can lie to them.<span style=""> </span>You can’t do any physical damage.<span style=""> </span>Put them in a cold room and let them shiver?<span style=""> </span>OK.<span style=""> </span>No pulling out fingernails.<span style=""> </span>Let them think they are going to drown, but don’t actually deprive them of enough air that they actually pass out.<span style=""> </span>Make ‘em cry, but don’t let ‘em bleed.<span style=""> </span>After all, it is reasoned, these are the things we do to our own troops when we are training them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The left disagreed with this assessment.<span style=""> </span>Some on the left probably opposed the practice solely because the Bush administration was in favor of it.<span style=""> </span>Doubtless there were many reasons for this.<span style=""> </span>Some believe that this treatment can be defined as torture.<span style=""> </span>Seems to me that this devalues the term.<span style=""> </span>It’s kind of like the bumper sticker “War is terrorism.”<span style=""> </span>For most the difference is obvious.<span style=""> </span>Terror is the deliberate attack of civilian targets.<span style=""> </span>War, at least these days, is an attempt to compel by force, but done in a way to minimize civilian damage and casualties.<span style=""> </span>All civilian death is not ethically equivalent.<span style=""> </span>But that is a side issue.<span style=""> </span>I really don’t want to get into a discussion of the definition of torture.<span style=""> </span>This is going in a different direction.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that that this exemplifies one of the more interesting differences between left wing brains and right wing brains.<span style=""> </span>People on the left care less about law and order, are more likely to engage in “ends justify the means” thinking, disobey the law, and even cheat on their taxes.<span style=""> </span>There are lots of studies out there that support this.<span style=""> </span>About a year ago I saw a couple of studies that tracked kids who cheated on tests and adults who stole from work or cheated on taxes.<span style=""> </span>The scofflaws and cheaters were much more likely to come from the left side of the political aisle.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But it’s not just the anti-social acts, it is the attitude toward authority.<span style=""> </span>This was unusually well documented earlier a few months ago when a study was done on the case of Scott v. Harris.<span style=""> </span>I commented on this phenomenon in an earlier post <a href="http://hairybuddah.blogspot.com/2009/03/create-crisis.html">Create a Crisis</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In this case the police were chasing a drunk driver (Harris).<span style=""> </span>The high speed chase was caught by the dash cameras of the police cars.<span style=""> </span>Eventually the police considered this chase too dangerous, and one officer (Scott) attempted to run the drunk off the road.<span style=""> </span>The drunk’s car rolled, and he was paralyzed in the crash.<span style=""> </span>He sued the police officer for using unnecessary force.<span style=""> </span>The Supreme Court watched the dash video and, except for the most liberal member of the bench, found that the police acted lawfully.<span style=""> </span>The drunk could not collect medical expenses, and pain and suffering damages, from the police.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a generally conservative person, I thought “Right On!”<span style=""> </span>It seemed absolutely obvious to any reasonable, thinking person.<span style=""> </span>But my opinion was not universally shared.<span style=""> </span>A research group asked 1,350 people what they thought of the police actions.<span style=""> </span>The original study can be found here:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081227">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081227</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A good summary and analysis of the study can be found here:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><a href="http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1199994070.shtml#">http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1199994070.shtml#</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To my dismay and amazement lots of people think that the cops were wrong - That they should have just let the dunk keep driving.<span style=""> </span>And the people who felt that way were more likely to be politically on the left and members of racial minorities.<span style=""> </span>They apparently just don’t think breaking the law and running from the police is all that bad.<span style=""> </span>That the criminal’s life should not be put at risk, even when they are putting the lives of others at risk.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now we get to the tricky bit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">These very same leftists – the ones who oppose three strikes laws, who want felons to be allowed to vote, who think that immigration raids should not be allowed, who think Harris should have gotten big bucks for being run off the road while running from police, who think the bro should NOT have been tazed - want mere THOUGHT with which they disagree criminalized.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And THAT is the hypocrisy of the left that I find so troubling.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I was listening to the Medved show the other day (a conservative radio talk show), and he was talking about how MUCH the left wants to put Bush’s legal advisors in jail.<span style=""> </span>The gave their opinion that aggressive interrogation was legal, but in the eyes of the left, because they believe torture resulted, that the legal scholars are apparently guilty of torture.<span style=""> </span>They were never in the same room as the prisoners.<span style=""> </span>They didn’t pour a teaspoon of water on the face of a terrorist.<span style=""> </span>They didn’t watch it.<span style=""> </span>They didn’t order it.<span style=""> </span>They just said they thought it would be legal.<span style=""> </span>And for this the left wants them tried and jailed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">One caller to the Medved show was just sputtering with outrage.<span style=""> </span>He sounded like a white, gay male.<span style=""> </span>And he was so utterly convinced that the enhanced interrogation techniques were torture, that he believed the legal advisors were deliberately lying about their belief that the interrogation techniques were OK.<span style=""> </span>It was just not possible to him that anyone could have an honest opinion that disagreed with his.<span style=""> </span>So they MUST have been deliberately committing the crime of torture.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And this was almost certainly a guy who fits my liberal “weak-on-law-and-order” profile.<span style=""> </span>Let the criminals go, take power away from the police, but jail those damn right wing Bush administration conservatives for THINKING that waterboarding was not torture.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Ya know, I might find it difficult to fathom how he could possibly be so foolish as to hold his opinions, but I don't want him slammed into prison for having them. Apparently another difference between the left and right. The right is generally more tolerant of alternate opinions.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Diversity on everything except thought.<span style=""> </span>The battle cry of the left.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Pure hypocrisy.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hairy</p>Hairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-46647323947602870712009-04-15T00:34:00.000-07:002009-04-15T00:36:34.360-07:00Demonstrating a sustainable life style.I'll believe in anthropogenic global warming when the people who are telling me about anthropogenic global warming start acting like they are worried about anthropogenic global warming.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/c24hld">http://tinyurl.com/c24hld</a><br /><br />"Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour"<br /><br />Now that is lip gloss with one hell of a carbon footprint. Just how many tons of CO2 were released into the air by the extra weight of a makeup artist for a relative of the Messiah on Air Force One?<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3917430745153987770.post-91863101122859831652009-04-11T01:08:00.001-07:002009-04-11T01:08:59.964-07:00I wonder if he made Biden eat the anchovies?Ahhh, it is so wonderful to be the leader of the free world. Or is that just ruler of the world. And to be able to eat what you want, when you want it.<br /><br /><blockquote>When you're the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do - even if that means flying a chef 860 miles.<br /><br />Chris Sommers, 33, jetted into Washington from St Louis, Missouri, on Thursday with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pans to to prepare food for the Obamas and their staff.<br /><br />He had apparently been handpicked after the President had tasted his pizzas on the campaign trail last autumn. </blockquote><br /><br />Boy that slice must have had one hell of a carbon footprint.<br /><br />But this must mean the recession is over. After all the messiah would rub it in the face of all of the little people in the unemployment lines. Oh wait. Government spending IS stimulus. Oh thank you mighty leader for spending so frivolously!<br /><br />HairyHairy Buddahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05685027392829870579noreply@blogger.com0