Recently in A Bad Idea? Category

In a speech early in his campaign, Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America".  Even though this  is  a common theme for liberals, I still wondered why he would say such a thing,  Here's my best guesses:

Maybe he's  an idiot?

The word "poverty" is defined as the financial condition of those having the lowest values along a range of wealth.  It's like the word "cold".  "Cold" is  not a temperature, like 42 degrees Fahrenheit; it's  a range of temperatures that are lower than those temperatures which are called "Hot", or warm or cool, etc... To a person, 32^OF is cold, but to a Penguin maybe it's  only cool; or even warm?  Maybe Sen. Obama doesn't know this;  that poverty is relative?  That would certainly make him a idiot.

Maybe he's  a Communist?

If Sen. Obama set it up  so that everyone had the same amount of wealth, there would be no range of wealth at all ,and so no poverty.  We all know what communist societies  are like.  I suppose it's possible that some folks actually want to live under tyranny.  I personally know some folks who would love to be a tyrant.  And if George Washington, or even Timoleon, were the tyrant, life probably would be better.

Maybe he's  a Child?

'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.'  This promise of Marxism is certainly attractive to many of us; even compelling.  Such a society might be a Utopia, and who wouldn't want to live in Utopia?  Unfortunately, history teaches  us  that Utopia is currently an unattainable ideal.  Only children believe in such things.

Maybe he's using a sophism?

This would get my vote as the most likely reason Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America".  He's lying through his teeth; shoveling it out by the truck full to secure the support of those who fall for such tricks..

If one isn't liberal while they're young they probably have no heart.  And if one isn't conservative when they're grown up they probably have no brain.  Or they don't use it.  Or they're tyrants.  Or I don't really know as I've spent decades searching, futilely, for a liberal willing or able to explain it to me.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com/dictionary:

Main Entry: id·i·ot

Pronunciation: \ˈi-dē-ət\

Function: noun

2: a foolish or stupid person

Main Entry: pov·er·ty

Pronunciation: \ˈpä-vər-tē\

Function: noun  

1 a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

Main Entry: soph·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈsä-ˌfi-zəm\

Function: noun

1: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

Quotes:

"Some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."

Mark Twain

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"My mind is like a steel trap; rusty and illegal in most states."

"Don't believe everything you think".

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

Gold is so dense that where a cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs, and a cubic foot of iron weighs 500 lbs., a cubic foot of gold weighs 1,200 lbs.  If that gallon of milk you buy were gold, it would weigh 150 lbs.

Dear Governor Kaine,

I am deeply saddened by the terrible events at VA Tech; and perhaps more horrified than some because of the conclusions published by the Review Panel this Wednesday, which stated:

"There does not seem to be a plausible scenario of a university response to the double homicide that could have prevented the tragedy of considerable magnitude on April 16."

In other words, the panel 'said' they believe there is nothing that could have been done differently that would have stopped or reduced the bloodshed.

I know many folks fear and hate guns, and I am sympathetic to their feelings; but only up to a point.  Just as I am grieved by the slaughter and the incredible pain their loved ones must feel, I am just as angry with the typical liberal's blind hatred of our 2^nd Amendment.

If Even One of the Victims or Witnesses Were Armed, they could have Stopped the Carnage.  If a Handful Were Armed, they Certainly Would Have Stopped It!

Tragically, the mass murder of our youth is a price the gun-haters are only to willing to pay, if it means keeping arms out of the hands of normal, law-abiding citizens.

I beg you!  Please don't continue to pursue policies which guarantee our loved ones will be helpless when the next madman comes around.

Respectfully yours,

P.S. I've found that many folks are surprised by the truth about firearms in America and the world, so I included a few facts that may be new to you:

·         Between 1,500,000 and 3,600,000 crimes were prevented in 1994 by armed citizens, according to a Department of Justice report, and the L. A. Times, respectively.  In most of these cases, the citizens merely demonstrated they were armed by displaying their firearm to the criminal.

·         You are over 16 times as likely to be killed by your Doctor, than you are by a gun (in 2002, there were 195,000 deaths due to medical error - 2004 study by HealthGrades, a healthcare quality company; and 11,829 homicides involving firearms - 2007 World Almanac).

·         "Reducing firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce violence worldwide", conclude Kates and Mauser, in their "Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy" article: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?  A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence".

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns"

"Gun Control means hitting what you're aiming at"

Richard Dawkins is brilliant, educated, credentialed, articulate and persuasive, and consequently so is his book "The God Delusion".  If you are an atheist looking for some scientific criticisms of the concept of God, this book is for you.  If you are a Christian, wondering what 'they' have come up with lately, this book will also interest you.  On the other hand, if you are a seeker of truth - the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" - there is little here of value.

Dawkins presents this book as a scientific work, written as a scientist.  Yet the domain of science is the natural world, not a supernatural one.  Science has nothing meaningful to say, now and for the foreseeable future, in the domain of theology.  A scientist would know this.  Still, to be fair, Dawkins was trained as a Zoologist who earned a D.Sc. (a curious scientific degree that seems to be left over from the Enlightenment), and his field is not constrained by the rigors of logic and mathematics, as is physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc.  That's why some say it's not properly called a science at all; rather a craft.  I loved "The Selfish Gene", but now I find myself embarrassed for him.

What little science there is in this book comes from the study of animals.  To Dawkins, man is merely an extremely sophisticated animal endowed only with more; more intelligence, more language, more tools, etc.  To those who believe in God, man is not merely an animal for he is endowed with a soul.  Dawkins may be right that we have no souls and are only animals, but this is not a scientific fact; it can't even become a valid scientific question.  In any event, knowledge of the animal kingdom can only take one so far when it's applied to humans.

Looking underneath Dawkins' pseudoscience, I found a pervasive sentiment; rebellion.  To be a Christian, I must acknowledge that I fall short of what's required of me by God; I am a sinner.  If I can't tolerate the idea of being a sinner, I have only 2 choices.  One, do no sin, which is difficult if not impossible.  Or, reject God and thereby reject the rules which label me a sinner.  Once there is no such thing as sin, there can be no sinner.  This is an atheist's freedom.  And their power?  Once there is no God, there can be no revelation, leaving it to the individual atheist to be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in the universe.  This is, of course, a violation of the 1^st commandment:  'I am the Lord God.  Not you.'  Now that's a lot of freedom, and a lot of power; it's no wonder folks like Dawkins find atheism so seductive.

Intellectually, atheism is one answer to a perennial question; if not God, what?  There is no demonstrably correct answer to this question so it ends up as a matter of opinion, or perhaps choice. 

Historically, you won't find many atheistic cultures; they don't seem to last.  The few that have tried it barley made it a century or 2.  In Dawkins' terms, atheism seems to be selected against, and the route they take is pretty clear:  Since there is no God, there can be no 'personal' afterlife, so the greatest possible evil to befall a person is death.  Once a society no longer holds values worth dying for, it's hard for its members to see why they should sacrifice anything at all.  And why should they?  In those utterly human moments when we ask, "Is this all there is?", the atheist's answer is "There is nothing more than you.  So yes, this is all there is."  Not a very satisfying answer, is it?

Anyway, this book is a lucid presentation of Dawkins' beliefs, and as such is an excellent read.  Just don't expect too much enlightenment from it, and don't expect any science.

"Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."  George Washington

Fun Facts to know and share:

From 2001 thru 2003, while ORACLE's stock lost %54 of its value, CEO Larry Ellison's total compensation was $746,748,000.

As of June 30, 2006, there was $36,593,331,930 worth of US coins in circulation.

In 2005, when the GNP was $12.4 trillion, the Chicago Board of Trade traded over $45,000,000,000,000 ($45 trillion) worth of Federal Government Debt.

TO: The Leaders of my Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

RE: The 2007 Assembly's decision regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals

Dear Leaders,

I have spent many hours at our website, elca.org, researching our Church's thoughts and actions regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals.  Our most recent position is the result of the 2007 assembly which states:

Assembly Encourages Restraint in Discipline of Congregations, Leaders

The Churchwide [sic] Assembly made no changes to ELCA standards for professional leaders, declining proposals that suggested specific policy changes. By a vote of 538 to 431, the assembly asked its synods and bishops to 'refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining' people and congregations that call otherwise-qualified candidates in mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships, and it called for restraint in disciplining rostered leaders in committed same-gender relationships. The proposal was adopted as a substitute for a recommendation of the Memorials Committee.

Following the decision, Hanson said, "These are words of counsel. They are not words that change the standards of the church. They reflect the mind of this assembly as it seeks to give counsel to the leaders of this church."

I am sorry to say that I think Presiding Bishop Hanson is dissembling (see above - ...not words that change...); the previous standards of the Church called for the removal of practicing homosexuals from all official positions, whereas our current position is to condone (as in 'refraining from disciplining') homosexual behavior among our Leaders.

By the various votes is clear that our church is deeply divided on this issue and that an official position of disciplining those engaged in homosexual behavior might fracture our church as it has the Anglican/Episcopal Church.  I suspect that at least some of you Leaders wish to prevent this at all costs; some of you see it as a Civil Rights issue; some of you see it as tolerance, or acceptance, of diversity; some of you see it as the loving inclusion of practicing homosexuals into the life of the Church; and so on...  Some may even see it as a financial issue in terms of the potential lost revenue if thousands leave our Church.  The rest of you see it as I do; a Sodom and Gomorrah-esque rejection of God.

By accepting practicing homosexuals as Ordained Priests, you are declaring them to be approved role-models worthy of emulation by all in our congregations.

In my opinion, Protestantism had come to a point analogous to that of Roman Catholicism right before Luther began the Reformation, where the common Christian could no longer support the corrupt institution the Church had become.  The current state of extreme and pervasive secularism and licentiousness in America has put a tremendous strain on Christianity, and those religious institutions too attached to this world will fail in their commitment to Christ and become ensnared by that world.

While we may all, hopefully, "love the sinner", please let those that also 'love the sin' go; let them leave our church for one of their own.  Let our church stand fast in 'hating the sin'.

"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." John Milton

"I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor." Henry David Thoreau

He who walks with the lame learns how to limp. - Latin Proverb

Bumper Sticker that caught my eye:

     "If Bush is the answer, it must have been a STUPID question."

Background:  From the Guttmacher Institute (the CDC asserts that this institute has the most complete/accurate abortion info):

• 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion.  24% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
• Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion.
• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.
• The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.

According to the American Medical Association:

The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction" (or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester.

According to Warren M. Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. testifying before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate 17 November 1995:

While about 1% of all abortions are performed after about 20 weeks of pregnancy, only about .03%, or fewer than 500, are performed after 26 weeks. The majority of these are now performed by me or one of my medical colleagues. These abortions are almost always performed for the most tragic reasons of severe fetal anomaly, genetic disorder, or immediate risk to the woman's life. They are not performed for frivolous reasons, contrary to statements by those opposed to abortion.

According to gentlebirth.org, on Nov. 29, 2005, the LA Times published an article by Stephanie Simon called "Offering Abortion, Rebirth" in the "Start Page: A.1 Section: Main News; Part A; National Desk".  In order to read the actual article I'd have to pay the LA Times, so instead I'll rely on this extract posted in the Midwife Archives:

According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate [sic] of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

Approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb.  Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid.  (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)

Dr. Harrison says the partial birth and the "draining" of the fetus' skull is actually drawing off of this fluid from the brain area of the fetus. The collapsing of the fetal skull is to allow the removal without the brutal rupturing of a woman's uterine passage or necessitating a classic cesarean section that poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies. The fetus with severe hydrocephalus cannot live and we wish someone would let people like Ralph Reed, Orin Hatch, Pat Robertson, and Pope John Paul II know that they are condemning women to death for no reason - no reason except their damned puny male egos.

Approximately 500 women face this procedure each year. Mild to moderate hydrocephalus can be sometimes be treated in utero and the fetus saved, and some very mild cases can be delivered and treated after birth. Those which have advanced or severe hydrocephalus cannot. Without the "partial birth" abortions, their births can easily kill their mothers with no chance of fetal survival.

"The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) GANDHI

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it."

"Ever stop to think and forget to start again?"

Fun Facts to know and share:

As cowboys sat around in saloons in the latter part of the 19^th century, they often played poker.  To reduce cheating, the deal would change hands and the next in line to deal would be given a marker.  This marker was often a knife which often had buck-horn handles; hence the marker becoming known as a buck. When the dealer's turn was done he 'passed the buck'.  Silver dollars were later used as markers and this is probably the origin of the use of buck as a slang term for dollar.

Well George, you missed it by 10 years, and that's not so close considering you made your prediction as recently as 1949 with your novel "1984".  It wasn't until 1994 that federal law created thoughtcriminals by passing a law against hate crimes. ^[1]  Not only were you 10 years too early, but we still don't have a special branch of Thought Police to 'protect' us.  As for Big Brother; let's leave that for another time.

On the surface, I find the justifications for hate crime legislation pretty convincing.  After all, the legal concept of mens rea -- literally 'guilty mind'; usually used synonymously with "intent" -- has been a fixture in western jurisprudence for a long, long time, and the person committing a hate crime ^[2] certainly intends to commit a crime. (And 'criminal intent' is required to be culpable, therefore punishable; the law often forgives 'accidents'.) These particular crimes are also said to produce greater suffering for the victim, ^[3] as well as harm the victim's community. ^[4] 

On the web I have found a plethora of sites defending, justifying and legitimizing hate crime legislation, ^[5] and a dearth of sites challenging this legislation. ^[6]  Since so many states have passed hate crime legislation and so many Supreme Courts have upheld them, ^[7] maybe the disparity between the number of sites, Pro and Con, can be explained because the issue has been debated enough and is now closed; hate crime legislation won.

This may be the case with our legal system, yet many claim that system has become so radicalized, its opinion doesn't count for much anymore.  As evidence, they point to the fact that the General Counsel for the ACLU - from 1973-1980 - is now sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States --  Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I wonder ... With such credentials, if Justice Ginsburg isn't legitimately labeled a radical, who in America could be?  Or have we moved so far that the ACLU is no longer radical; is now so much closer to the middle of the road as to be only liberal?

Here's an amusing twist: vegetable hate crimes.  (Is it interesting that the ACLU seems to be defending the hatred of vegetables while working to criminalize the hatred of certain people?)

If you look into the Pros & Cons of hate crime legislation and the judicial rulings surrounding them, you will find lots of references to the perpetrator's motive and motivation, as well as what the perpetrator intends to do, -- their intention; and how these apply to the law.  If you then look up the definitions of these words, you'll find reference to the words: believe and belief; thought and think; opinion and of course hate.

Take note of the subtle, esoteric similarities and differences in the definitions of these words.  For instance:

• The noun thought is defined as: 1a) the action or process of thinking; and 2b) the power to imagine.  It is also defined as: 3b) a developed intention or plan.
• The verb think is defined as: 1) to form or have in the mind; 3a) to have as an opinion; 4a) to reflect on.  It is also defined as: 2) to have as an intention.
• The verb intend is defines as: 4a) to have in mind as a purpose or goal.

Notice particularly that to intend (mens rea) is to "have in mind", and to "have in the mind" is to think. 

Can the case be made that the esoteric reasoning surrounding the legitimization of hate crime legislation is mere sophistry?  Whatever your answer to this question, it must be admitted that stating in public something like: "I hate XXXXXs"; ^[8] or "I enjoy it when a XXXXX is hurt"; or "I like to hurt XXXXXs"; or "I want to hurt XXXXXs"; is constitutionally protected.  It must also be admitted that thinking and/or announcing these thoughts while committing a crime against a XXXXX is now illegal.

Maybe the proponents of hate crime legislation ^[9] are correct (a lot of good minds think so).  That despite the possible confusion of terms, hate crime legislation does not make the thinking, or speaking, of a thought illegal.  What is clear is that reasonable folks of goodwill disagree regarding this claim. 

But the larger question is why our lawmakers and courts are so willing to tread so close to the line ^[10] of making certain thoughts ^[11] illegal, if they haven't crossed it already? ^[12] Our Supreme Court has often avoided entanglement in certain issues because they feel they are not properly involved in such areas or not competent as a body to render judgments in some areas.  Is the freedom of thought one such area?   In other areas, the court said there was a wall of separation which so many deem so important.  Why is the line between criminalizing behavior and criminalizing thought practically impossible to see and comparatively so unimportant?

With the line between thought and action so blurry, how will one know when one has crossed it?  Heck, maybe it won't even matter in our politically correct times:

"In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be nowords in which to express it". Syme; one of Big Brother's henchmen from Orwell's 1984

 

Notes:

[1] On September 13, 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was amended, to make hate crimes illegal, via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R.3355, Public Law No: 103-322) to include the following:

SEC. 280003. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION REGARDING SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS FOR HATE CRIMES.

(a) DEFINITION- In this section, `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

(b) SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT- Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

[2] According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Hate Crime Statistics for 2004, there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents, out of 1,367,009 violent crimes and 10,328,255 property crimes; 0.065% of crimes committed in 2004 were hate crimes.    In perspective, according to the National Safety Council, or NSC, in 2003 there were 4,500 accidental workplace fatalities and 13,900 fatalities due to accidental poisoning.  I wonder how many of the hate crimes were fatal to the victim?

[3] In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the American Psychological Association, or APA, said:

"... the experience of a serious hate crime has more severe psychological ramifications for the victim than a random crime of similar severity ..."

[4] According to the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL,

"Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victim's community."

[5] Some interesting reading supporting hate crime legislation, soon to be called 'bias-crimes':

• University of Tennessee: Hate Crimes Laws: Progressive Politics or Balkanization? 
• Boston College: THE RHETORIC OF LEGAL BACKFIRE [against hate crime legislation]
• Harvard Symposium Essay: AGREEING TO AGREE: A PROPONENT AND OPPONENT OF HATE CRIME LAWS REACH FOR COMMON GROUND. (This is a particularly thoughtful, scholarly essay.)

[6] Some criticisms of hate crime legislation:

• A 'Google book'  excerpt of Jacobs' and Potter's book "Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics"
• FraudFactor: Fixing Criminal Justice System Weakness Only for a Select Few
• The Any Rand Institute, Op-Ed piece: Criminal law should not be used to enforce ideological orthodoxy.

[7] In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed and upheld Todd Mitchell's enhanced sentence for committing a hate crime.

[8] For XXXXX, substitute any particular race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

[9] Criminal law:

• North Carolina Wesleyan College: Basic Intro to criminal law.
• From Northwestern Law School: What is a crime Outline.
• Boalt Law School: Criminal Law Outline.

[10] Quotes surrounding freedom of thoughts:

• Benjamin Franklin: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom"
• Victor Frankl: "The last of the human freedoms is to choose one's attitudes".
• William O. Douglas:  "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."

[11] "A History of Freedom of Thought"; The University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1913

[12] "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."  James Madison.