Recently in A Good Idea? Category

The police often say 'We put our lives on the line every day to serve and protect' and as far as it goes, they do.  A typical, well known example is the cop approaching the driver of the car he just pulled over - will the driver pull a gun and try to shoot the cop?  Some few times the answer is yes and some fewer times the cop ends up dead.

But what about the times they don't risk their lives?  What about the times they blast away at someone rather than risk their lives? 

Consider that time in NY, February 4, 1999, when 4 undercover cops blasted away at Amadou Diallo, a civilian in the shadows who was attempting to show them his identification?  One cop said he thought the victim was pulling a gun, and in fear for his life, this cop opened fire on the victim.  When his brother cops realized the first cop was shooting at the victim, they joined in.

These cops didn't know if the victim had a gun, they were just 'afraid' he did.  Rather than risk their lives in order to determine if the victim intended them harm, they shot him down in a hail of 41 bullets.

"We risk our lives."  Compare that statement to the soldier's: "We give our lives."  What does it mean when someone risks their life but stops short of giving it?  Or contrast the cop's stance with that of those hero's of Search and Rescue who say "If I have to give my life for yours, I will".

Sometimes cops actually go beyond merely risking their lives to giving them.  On That 2001 NY day, scores of cops became rescue workers, and three score perished. 

As harsh as it sounds, I want the cops to default to dying rather than killing innocents.

"Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing." George Bernard Shaw

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

Per year averages for the 15 year period from 1980 through 2005:

§  10,751 cops were assaulted by folks using weapons - 22% of these assaults involved firearms

§  About 50,000 assaults on cops without weapons

§  140 cops were killed - 56% of these deaths were accidental, the remaining 62 were felonious 

In 2004 there were more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States, yielding an average of 8 deaths per 100,000.  The homicide rate from 1976 through 2005 was 7.8 per 100,000.  While my calculations here are only approximate, it seems that being a cop is about as risky as not being a cop.

"The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000." David C. Stolinsky, MD

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"The only thing that I feel when I kill, is the recoil."

I would implement a 50 year plan to end the use of combustibles for energy:

1)     3 years: Cancel all combustion based generating plant projects that haven't broken ground

2)     5 years: Require all new construction to include as many free-fueled energy devices and/or eco-helpful environments on the roof as practical

3)     20 years: All oil fueled generating plants would be dismantled

4)     30 years: All fossil fuel generating plants would be dismantled

5)     50 years: Fossil fuels would no longer be used for transportation

6)     Possible exceptions: Air and Space travel; military and emergency; waste reclamation

 

Make it a criminal offense for members of the media to come in physical contact with their subjects or the subject's escorts.  This would include:

·         Being propelled into contact by another would not be allowed as a defense

·         The subject initiating contact would not be allowed as a defense unless the subject actually chased the member of the media

·         Mandatory jail time for 2nd and subsequent offenses

·         Escalating fines for both the contactor and their employer

 

At my own expense, commission:

·         The development of an inexpensive consumer device that lets me control the magnitude of the difference in volume between the quietest to the loudest in any audio stream

·         The present day equivalent of a Statue of Liberty gift for France honoring the creation of the EU

 

Correct the Educational System by:

1st.        A return to a catechism oriented classical curricula

2nd.       Require any school experiencing an unacceptable level of violence to implement a comprehensive surveillance system

3rd.        All students will be subject to searches of their persons and effects at the reasonable discretion of the teachers (law enforcement searches will still require a warrant).

4th.        If a student creates a serious problem, and strenuous efforts to correct the problem fail, place the student in a problem student class

5th.        Require much more from the brightest students

6th.        End the strict association of age with grade; all students would advance a grade only after demonstrating mastery of the current grade's material

7th.        Resurrect the Primary and Secondary education systems by guaranteeing that only those who have mastered the curricula receive diplomas

8th.        Require everyone to complete a year in the military followed a few months later by a year in an approved militarily structured organization by their 29th birthday

9th.        All college applicants would have to pass a comprehensive entry test before enrolling in their first course

 

Apply the 4th Amendment to current technology:

v  Medical Information:

a.       Within 5 years, create a national medical database containing everyone's entire medical history and all the data generated by providers and funders and other stake holders. 

b.       All the information in the database will be under the sole ownership of the patient and classified as a Federal Secret; access granted by permission only, and only as far as necessary to provide the proper care. 

c.       Unless authorized by the patient, possession and/or use of this information will be a criminal offense.  Insurance companies and employers and recruiters, and their agents, are specifically prohibited from accessing this information

v  Personal Information:

a.       All the information and data generated by a person's personal activity are the sole and exclusive property of that person (with an exceedingly long and specific list of exceptions). 

b.       Except for extreme situations and parents testing minors, all drug tests are prohibited and possession of recreational drugs will be decriminalized.

 

Let our children be children:

         I.            Return responsibility for and authority over our children to their parents.  This especially includes medical, health and reproductive activities; religious beliefs and values; associations; education, corporal punishment, etc...

       II.            Return the voting age and majority age to 21; active military stays 18

     III.            Require DNA verification of parenthood for all children born to minors. The parents of the father and mother are responsible for children born to minors until the mother's and father's majority

    IV.            Allow minors to marry only with their parent's permission

      V.            Bring back the curfew

 

Make sure we all speak the same language: Require all commercial, political and legal communications to be in English (with a long list of exceptions)

 

 

Quotes:

 

"MAGPIE, n. A bird whose thievish disposition suggested to someone that it might be taught to talk. "  Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary:

 

"One's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

Fun Facts to Know and Share:

 

The term "basket case" originated after WWI to refer to a wounded soldier who has lost both arms and both legs to amputation, and had to be carried around in a basket.

 

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

 

"I've read about the evils of alcohol, so I gave up reading."

 

"To err is human; to blame it on somebody else shows management potential."

The free version of BYKI v3.6, or Before You Know It, is nothing more than a simple foreign language flashcard app.  I really didn't expect too much from a computerized version of such a time-worn technology as flashcards, but I'm glad I gave it a try.  It's so simple to use that I just leave it running whenever I'm working at my computer.  Now, when I have to wait those agonizingly long seconds for my computer to finish doing what I just told it to do, I just flip a few flashcards, learn a little Spanish, and I'm no longer waiting!!!  There are plenty of times I'm on my computer and have to wait for 3 or more seconds as it.  With BYKI these waits are no longer boring.  That alone is enough for me, so it's all gravy that it's kind of fun also.  And I can now count to10 in Spanish too.

In my Spanish download there are 16 different vocabulary lists with around 14 words per list; lists such as Counting Numbers, Polite Conversation, and Meeting and Greeting.  The new vocabulary is presented via 5 "Learning Modes":  Review It; Recognize It; Know It; Produce It; and Own It.  Following this sequence worked pretty well for me.  I also got other languages, Latin and German, and more are available from the vendor; all free.  If you upgrade to the commercial version for $45 - $55, you'll get quite a bit more functionality, including recording you saying the word and comparing your pronunciation to the native's.  For a Franklin, you'll get BYKI and 4 other apps.   c|net Download  :  Vendor's site   

Or, one of the things surfers have in common with every mature, experienced person.

I find everything about surfing a blast.  I like riding the wave the best.  Next best I like getting outside.  Next best I like wipeouts.  They can be as cool as a marble in a shoe box, or better still, a sock in the washer.  And best of all wipeouts, a sock in the drier, going round and round and round.  Of course, if you hit something it could mess you up, and sometimes it seems as if the Ocean will never let you up; I only like these wipeouts when reminiscing.

The overriding lesson surfers learn, is that the Ocean always wins.  If you fight her, she will win.  Always.  You've just got to learn to live with her under her rules.  When she has you, many ordinary things become impossible, like breathing for instance.  If you don't recognize or accept her omnipotence, you'll get into trouble.  You'll get into trouble anyway, but if you learn the things she'll let you do, and learn to do them the way she likes, you'll hardly be powerless.

So in the surfer's world, there is this group of things that are just impossible to do; they know this group intimately.  There is also this other group of things that can be done, but only if you do them 'just so'; they know this group intimately also.

It is in the acceptance of the world the way it is; it is in the letting go of the impossible; it is in the learning what can be done and how to do it; it is in these that the surfer is the same as the conservative.

When a conservative looks at society, she sees lots that's impossible to do; and puts those things away until they become possible.  Then she gets busy learning what can be done and how to do it.  Then she does it and it works.

From: "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day (copyright 2004), by Joe Scarborough, ex US Rep, from Florida; now has news show on MSNBC:

Joe proposed the following contract which is to be signed by anyone running for Congress or Pres/VicePres.  If they don't sign it, you don't vote for them.

1. Ban congressmen, senators, and White House officials from lobbying for 5 years.
2. Freeze the pay of congressmen, senators, and White House officials until the federal budget is balanced.  This includes cost-of-living adjustments!
3. Force political candidates to immediately scan and post all campaign contributions on their campaign website.  Failure to do so results in criminal penalties.
4. Pass term limits now! Since the House of Representatives authorized the federal spending, limit House members to three terms (six years).
5. Make Congress and every Washington bureaucracy undergo an independent, professional audit, line by line, program by program every four years.
6. Pass a constitutional amendment requiring Washington to balance the budget every year except when Congress passes a resolution declaring a national emergency.
7. Create a federal rainy-day fund that would set aside ½ of 1% of all tax receipts each year for national, state and local emergencies.
8. Reenact pay-as-you-go rules that would require Congress to offset new spending programs and tax cuts with spending cuts from other programs.
9. Reinstitute congressional spending caps that would force congressmen or senators to live within their previous spending projections.  These caps will not be broken unless Congress passed a separate resolution declaring a national emergency as described in #6.
10. Pass a new American tax code written by a bipartisan panel of budget experts instead of the lobbyist groups who regularly carve out special-interest deductions and greatly simplify the tax system.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

"Few men have [the] virtue to withstand the highest bidder." George Washington

As stated so concisely by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, America was to be a land with "government of laws and not of men".

The rule of law requires the law to be written down, available to the public, and enforced by established procedures.  Furthermore, everyone, even those who create the laws, is bound by them.  No longer were Americans to be subject to the arbitrary dictates of one who claims: "My will is the law".  Not only has this principle served America well, it has become accepted by large portions of humanity.

The adversarial system of settling disputes at law, criminal and civil, was implemented here because it was, and still mostly is, believed to provide us with our best chance for justice.  Sounds great, right?  Well, we all know how it has evolved . . .

The problem is simple, and we all know what it is.  Money.  For the adversarial system to work as advertised, all parties need to be represented by experienced attorneys who have the resources necessary to skillfully prosecute a case.  And, as with most things in human society, this costs money.  I'm willing to bet that over 90% of those asked would agree that "justice costs money, and the more money you have the more justice you will get".  Any takers?

To the parties involved in a legal proceeding, the goal usually is to win, i.e. to receive a judgment to their liking.  To society at large, the goal is to see that justice is done.  Obviously, these goals often conflict.  Court proceedings that make it into the major media outlets often involve questions or issues dear to the heart of many.  I wonder what percentage of these folks want to see 'their side' win rather than see that justice is served?  I wonder how many of these folks sincerely believe that 'justice' requires that their side win?  I wonder how many of these folks have even analyzed the case from the prospective of winning vs. justice?    In fact, now that I'm on a roll, I wonder how many can even see the value of the other side, much less entertain the possibility that their 'winning' might be wrong?

Since justice costs money, it's no wonder that corporations, governments, and rich folks, all with deep pockets, usually win against 'the little guy' with meager resources.  I don't think this is right, but what's to be done?

A lot of possibilities have come to my mind and been dismissed for one reason or another.  The only thought that is still rattling around in there Is something like this:

What if all the parties to a proceedings decided, beforehand and independently, how much they were willing (and of necessity able) to spend for justice, have each of them throw that amount of money into a pot to be split evenly among the parties?  Anytime any of the parties wants more justice, they can throw more money into the pot which will also be split up.

I've come up with some obvious problems with this proposal, and lots of not-immediately-obvious problems.

I wonder if there is any merit to this idea?

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: pros·e·cute
transitive verb
1 : to follow to the end : pursue until finished <was...ordered to prosecute the war with...vigor -- Marjory S. Douglas>
2 : to engage in : PERFORM

From the wikipedia:

The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance.

Fun Facts to know and share:

According to the 2006 World Almanac and Book of Facts, page 184, around 26,000 of the 44,800 auto fatalities in 2003 were caused by sober drivers.  Imagine that, 57% of all 2003 auto fatalities were caused by SOBER drivers!

Cryptic quote from hippy chemist:

"It's the blue band, man. The blue band!"

When I was a high school lad, I think I would have jumped at the chance to shower with the girls in their locker room.  And so would most of my male friends.  From my perspective on top of decades of life, I wish I had not been so cavalier about sex then and for some years after.

I think I would have fit the label of your garden variety 'macho heterosexual teenager' (this was before the word "gay" became popularized) back then, at least as far as sex was concerned.  I admit it; I definitely had a prurient interest in taking that shower.

Still, I don't think the girls would have let me shower with them.  And if they couldn't get rid of me, I don't think they would have undressed, let alone showered.

Here's something that might have gone through the mind of some of those girls:  "Getting undressed and showering in front of others is kind of a personal thing for me.  The last thing I need is for some oversexed boy staring at me like I'm a hunk of meat. Or worse yet, looking at me and thinking about ... well, you know".

In fact, I don't really believe that boys and girls are required to shower separately simply because of their different body parts. Well, a little maybe.  Today, I think one would say that those girls didn't want to be sexually harassed, or exposed to an exploitive, objectifying, demeaning environment.  Even today I don't think you could get unanimous approval from all the naked women in their locker room shower to let a few horny males in.  I wonder, could one find a shower where 20% of the women agreed to shower with the boys?

Boys. Lots has been said about boys, or rather, young men.  e.g. On average, they have sexual relations with more partners than woman do.  Heck, didn't Wilt Chamberlain claim thousands of partners?  They think about sex, on the average, more often women.  Many teenage males claim to have uncontrollable erections at unpredictable times.  At least that's how I remember it.  Males are much more willing to have sex without intimacy than women.  Don't They say "any port in a storm"?  I heard an old wise man say: "The key to a good relationship?  She gives him sex, and he gives her intimacy".  Even gay males are said to have a higher than average number of partners. (I wonder if this sentence is true?  I wonder if what that old man said is true?)

Here's one way all the above can be put together, although only one way out of many:

When a homosexual man takes a shower with hetrosexual men, will it be like the above?  After all, I would expect the nude male body to be viewed by homosexual men in an analogous way.  I could be wrong about this.  Might not the hetrosexual men feel a similar objectifying atmosphere?  Might they also feel they have the right to shower in a, shall we say, lust-free environment?

If this is true, it would pose quite a dilemma, wouldn't it?  If homosexual men needed approval to shower with hetrosexual men and didn't get it, would they be restricted to showering only with other homosexual men?  If so, what if one of those homosexual men said they would like to shower in a lust-free environment?  Would they then have to shower alone, one at a time?

What a thought!  A homosexual man's 'natural' sexual desires possibly creating a hostile environment.  What will They think of next?

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

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Function: noun
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

Bumper stickers that caught my eye:

"Vegetables are not food.  Vegetables are what food eats".

 

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most".