As some of you may have noticed, posting has significantly fallen off since late August when the academic semester began. Unfortunately, law school provides little time for blogging. But, I have every intention of picking up where I left off come the summer season (and any other times I have a spare moment).
In the meantime, I've left previous posts up for your viewing entertainment.
Happy Holidays,
The Esteemed Gentleman
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
On Breaking the Law
*The following is my final essay for the semester addressing the question of whether it is ever justifiable to violate the law. Happy reading.
On Breaking the Law
Is it ever acceptable for people in a society to deliberately violate the law? If so, when is that deliberate violation justified and under what conditions? While one may intuitively conclude that laws should always be obeyed, history is full of examples where people have pursued extra-legal remedies to their ills. Some of these people, such as the framers of the United States and the leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, are revered as heroes, while others are condemned as subverting and threatening to civil society. If it is to be concluded that it is justifiable for men to break the law under certain conditions, how are we to tell the difference between those who are just in violating the law and those who are not?
To answer this question, it must first be decided whether the standard to be applied in such cases should be an objective or subjective standard. An objective standard is one based on conduct and perceptions external to a particular person, whereas a subjective standard is one which is peculiar to a particular person and based upon the person’s individual views and experiences. (Black’s, 8th Ed.) When considering these standards, it becomes clear that it is the objective standard which should apply. An objective standard uses as its basis what a reasonable person under the conditions would be expected to tolerate and do in the situation, whereas a subjective standard would arbitrarily allow the feelings of any particular individual to warp and justify any conduct which was perpetrated in response to laws they did not like.
An example clarifying each standard can be found in anti-narcotic laws. If one were to use a subjective standard, one could easily see how the feelings and logic of a drug user could quickly lead to the conclusion that because the user feels anti-drug laws are unjust, they should feel free to violate such laws and use the drugs. If one were to use an objective standard, however, one would easily see how laws against narcotics are not unjust because the majority of society has properly deemed their use to be a threat to public order and societal stability, and as such properly enacted statutes against them.
This leads to yet another question: What constitutes “just” and “unjust” laws? Again, an objective standard must be applied. While this question has been debated by wise men for millennium, its answer can be stated succinctly in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., who said in Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
Still, there may come a point in time where just laws enacted by a sovereign may become unjust; where men have on paper the ability to participate in the creation of those laws and yet still the laws are unjust because they result in unjust ends. This scenario is best explained by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
With these objective standards in mind, the question of whether it is ever justifiable to break the law can be answered yes, it is acceptable to break the law under certain circumstances. A more full answer would further stipulate that it is justifiable to break the law only when there is no legal recourse which will adequately remedy the severe and unjust issue prompting the violation.
An example of this can be seen in an unlikely, albeit theoretically possible, hypothetical of a drastically different future United States where the federal and state governments have constitutionally altered the form of the federal government from a republic to absolute tyranny. Many people dismiss such a possibility as ludicrous, but it is still possible. For example, one day Congress could pass a constitutional amendment that repeals all amendments to the Constitution, as well as Articles I and III of the Constitution, giving all the powers enumerated therein to the Executive, the only remaining constitutional institution. Furthermore, let us assume that the States ratify this amendment. As such, the government of the United States and the several States would have altered the form of the federal government from one of constitutional checks and balances to one where the Executive reigned supreme, having the authority to legislate, execute, and adjudicate all matters of rights, policy, and governance. The people may dissent, taking to the streets in protest, filing legal challenges in court, and vowing retribution at the ballot box. As we can see under our hypothetical, however, the Bill of Rights guaranteeing these civil liberties has been abolished, as has the entire judiciary. Not only would citizens not have the right to vote for, protest, or petition the government, but there would be no legislature to vote for, nor any courts to hear their claims, because they would have been “legally” abolished.
Under such a scenario, it is easy to see how the objective standard, as defined by Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, would justify violating the law to rectify the unjust, albeit legally enacted, laws now governing the people. Such a form of government under the hypothetical, while consented to by the peoples’ representatives, would leave the people no legal alternatives to rectify wrongs and sanctify rights. They would have no ability to participate in the political process, no way to participate in the creation of the laws, and no redress for the unjust application of the laws. In short, they would be in a situation where there would be no legal recourse which would adequately remedy the severe and unjust issues prompting the violation of the law. But one need not look to unlikely future scenarios to see an example of such tyranny; if one were to examine the history of the United States, they would find examples of such tyranny by studying the trials of Mr. Jefferson, Dr. King, and their compatriots.
When Mr. Jefferson wrote the Declaration, he did so after several years of an increasingly aggressive posture being taken by the Crown against the colonies. Jefferson’s colonial brothers, chiefly from New England, had become entangled with the Crown over issues of taxation, representation, and other rights which the colonists at the time felt they were entitled to as Englishmen. Secession, rebellion, and subversion of the Crown’s authority were not at the forefront of the colonies’ thought-process; however, when the colonies, in Jefferson’s words, “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms,” their “repeated petitions [were] answered only by repeated injury.” Instead of constructively engaging the colonies and their concerns of being treated unfairly by the Crown, His Majesty King George III declared the colonies in open rebellion, issued a proclamation that the colonial leaders in Philadelphia were to be hanged, and effectively closed off all paths toward reconciliation. As Jefferson pointedly observed:
Turning to Dr. King’s plight, one sees a similar pattern of oppression by the governments’ of the southern states to that of George III. While the southern states had constitutional governments with popularly elected democratic majorities authorized to enact just laws on paper, in reality the majority black population was harassed by the government, brutalized by its police forces, and forcibly kept from being able to participate unmolested in the political process. As Dr. King noted in Letter, the southern states had an “ugly record of police brutality” and of “bombings of Negro homes and churches.” When African Americans attempted to avail themselves of the political process set up to remedy such injustice, they were barred from voting en masse, and received “unjust treatment . . . in the courts” which, after over 340 years of degrading abuse, “left the Negro community with no other alternatives” than to peacefully violate the law in an attempt to highlight the law’s unjust consequences. As Dr. King notes, “the political leaders [of the south] consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiations” and “broke promises” to correct injustices, which included the southern governments’ allowing and promoting of “vicious lynch mobs [that lynch] mothers and fathers at will and drown . . . sisters and brothers at whim; . . .
The examples set forth by Dr. King and Mr. Jefferson, however, should not be confused with events and figures who justified their violations of the law using a subjective standard. For example, Henry David Thoreau, who was imprisoned for failure to pay his taxes, justified his violation of the law in Civil Disobedience by concluding that because those taxes were used to support an unjust war and (just as importantly) the slavery of man, he was not required to pay them if those policies offended his conscience. While it is clearly true that under the objective standard Thoreau may have justification regarding the slavery issue, he fails the objective standard with regards to his view that the Mexican-American War was unjust and thus warranted his violation of the law.
Thoreau justifies his actions from a subjective standard, clearly stating that while the legal remedies set up by the government may ultimately work to rectify the injustices of war and slavery, they “take too long” for his liking. He goes on to say that voting, which he is freely able to do, is “cheap” and that petitioning the government for redress is “doing nothing in earnest” to rectify the problem. He also concedes that he does not mind paying taxes for things he agrees with, such as public highways, but does mind paying taxes for things he objects to, such as war. As a result, Thoreau blasts the state as immoral and unjust, and makes clear that he wishes to have nothing to do with it.
Thoreau inadvertently undermines his own argument, however. He freely concedes that he is able to petition the government for redress, engage his neighbors freely in discussion in an attempt to persuade them of his cause, and vote according to his conscience; but since his point of view does not carry the day, he abruptly concludes that if one’s own point of view is not adopted by the society at large, then one is justified in ignoring the laws of that society. If society were to adopt Thoreau’s view as canon, it can easily be seen how organized society would cease to function orderly, likely to the detriment of all. It is a clear illustration as to why a subjective standard should be rejected in favor of the objective standard set forth above.
Contrasting Mr. Thoreau to our hypothetical, Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, one can see the clear difference between the objective and subjective standards. Whereas under the objective examples one would have no ability to participate in the political process, no way to participate in the creation of the laws, and no redress for the unjust application of the laws, under Thoreau’s subjective example, Mr. Thoreau had all of these legal remedies at his disposal, yet chose to cast them aside because he felt such a system too slow to rectify the injustice of the situation, and felt having to justify and persuade his fellow countrymen as to the righteousness of his position to be too cumbersome because a man’s just conscience should trump that of his ignorant neighbor’s. Under the hypothetical future United States and examples of Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, even the mere act of speaking about the unjustness of the law is a violation of the law, and thus the law’s violation is unavoidable if men are to attempt to rectify the law’s unjustness, whereas under Mr. Thoreau’s example, there are plenty of legal remedies available to rectify the perceived injustice.
As the above historical and theoretical examples have shown, it is sometimes justifiable to violate the law when there are no other adequate legal remedies which may be employed to correct the law’s unjust nature. This is an objective standard, albeit a high standard. Using a subjective standard would open the door to anarchy and chaos, and allow man at his whim to run rough-shod over the interests of an organized and objectively just society. In short, a subjective standard would usher in many of the very injustice the violation of the law under an objective standard seeks to rectify. But by using an objective standard, it is clear that when the laws of man unjustly block a society into the corner of tyranny and leaves that society with only extra-legal remedies to correct the injustice, such extra-legal violations of the law are not only justified, but a duty of all free men.
On Breaking the Law
Is it ever acceptable for people in a society to deliberately violate the law? If so, when is that deliberate violation justified and under what conditions? While one may intuitively conclude that laws should always be obeyed, history is full of examples where people have pursued extra-legal remedies to their ills. Some of these people, such as the framers of the United States and the leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, are revered as heroes, while others are condemned as subverting and threatening to civil society. If it is to be concluded that it is justifiable for men to break the law under certain conditions, how are we to tell the difference between those who are just in violating the law and those who are not?
To answer this question, it must first be decided whether the standard to be applied in such cases should be an objective or subjective standard. An objective standard is one based on conduct and perceptions external to a particular person, whereas a subjective standard is one which is peculiar to a particular person and based upon the person’s individual views and experiences. (Black’s, 8th Ed.) When considering these standards, it becomes clear that it is the objective standard which should apply. An objective standard uses as its basis what a reasonable person under the conditions would be expected to tolerate and do in the situation, whereas a subjective standard would arbitrarily allow the feelings of any particular individual to warp and justify any conduct which was perpetrated in response to laws they did not like.
An example clarifying each standard can be found in anti-narcotic laws. If one were to use a subjective standard, one could easily see how the feelings and logic of a drug user could quickly lead to the conclusion that because the user feels anti-drug laws are unjust, they should feel free to violate such laws and use the drugs. If one were to use an objective standard, however, one would easily see how laws against narcotics are not unjust because the majority of society has properly deemed their use to be a threat to public order and societal stability, and as such properly enacted statutes against them.
This leads to yet another question: What constitutes “just” and “unjust” laws? Again, an objective standard must be applied. While this question has been debated by wise men for millennium, its answer can be stated succinctly in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., who said in Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
“An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. . . A just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. [Put another way,] … an unjust law is a code inflicted upon a [people] which that [people] had no part in enacting or creating because they did not have the unhampered right to [participate in its creation].”Applying Dr. King’s standard of what constitutes a “just” and “unjust” law to the above example of the drug user, it can clearly be seen why such a law is just and why the user’s violation of that law is unjust. Unless the user was in some way prohibited from participating in the process of enactment of such laws, and unless the laws are in some way unevenly applied by the majority, he can not claim he is being subjected to unjust laws and thus is not justified in their violation. This becomes especially true if that same user is able to freely state his position on the matter publicly to the body politick, petition his government for a change in the law, and freely vote for whatever representatives which may support his position. As such, it is up to the user to persuade his fellow men why it is his position which is the correct one; if he is unable to do so, that in itself does not mean the law is unjust, even if it is personally inconvenient to the user.
Still, there may come a point in time where just laws enacted by a sovereign may become unjust; where men have on paper the ability to participate in the creation of those laws and yet still the laws are unjust because they result in unjust ends. This scenario is best explained by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed . . . with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any From of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”Jefferson then qualifies his remarks, making it clear such wholesale revolution has a proper time and place, and is not an option of first resort:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”Put more succinctly, men may properly establish government to secure the rights and privileges of the people, but one day that government may, under its legal authority, enact laws which allow it to violate the very rights it was set up to protect; and while it cannot be justified to resort to extreme extra-legal remedies for “light and transient” causes when they first arise, it is justifiable to break the laws of such a government after clear, long-standing, and severe violations by that government against its people.
With these objective standards in mind, the question of whether it is ever justifiable to break the law can be answered yes, it is acceptable to break the law under certain circumstances. A more full answer would further stipulate that it is justifiable to break the law only when there is no legal recourse which will adequately remedy the severe and unjust issue prompting the violation.
An example of this can be seen in an unlikely, albeit theoretically possible, hypothetical of a drastically different future United States where the federal and state governments have constitutionally altered the form of the federal government from a republic to absolute tyranny. Many people dismiss such a possibility as ludicrous, but it is still possible. For example, one day Congress could pass a constitutional amendment that repeals all amendments to the Constitution, as well as Articles I and III of the Constitution, giving all the powers enumerated therein to the Executive, the only remaining constitutional institution. Furthermore, let us assume that the States ratify this amendment. As such, the government of the United States and the several States would have altered the form of the federal government from one of constitutional checks and balances to one where the Executive reigned supreme, having the authority to legislate, execute, and adjudicate all matters of rights, policy, and governance. The people may dissent, taking to the streets in protest, filing legal challenges in court, and vowing retribution at the ballot box. As we can see under our hypothetical, however, the Bill of Rights guaranteeing these civil liberties has been abolished, as has the entire judiciary. Not only would citizens not have the right to vote for, protest, or petition the government, but there would be no legislature to vote for, nor any courts to hear their claims, because they would have been “legally” abolished.
Under such a scenario, it is easy to see how the objective standard, as defined by Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, would justify violating the law to rectify the unjust, albeit legally enacted, laws now governing the people. Such a form of government under the hypothetical, while consented to by the peoples’ representatives, would leave the people no legal alternatives to rectify wrongs and sanctify rights. They would have no ability to participate in the political process, no way to participate in the creation of the laws, and no redress for the unjust application of the laws. In short, they would be in a situation where there would be no legal recourse which would adequately remedy the severe and unjust issues prompting the violation of the law. But one need not look to unlikely future scenarios to see an example of such tyranny; if one were to examine the history of the United States, they would find examples of such tyranny by studying the trials of Mr. Jefferson, Dr. King, and their compatriots.
When Mr. Jefferson wrote the Declaration, he did so after several years of an increasingly aggressive posture being taken by the Crown against the colonies. Jefferson’s colonial brothers, chiefly from New England, had become entangled with the Crown over issues of taxation, representation, and other rights which the colonists at the time felt they were entitled to as Englishmen. Secession, rebellion, and subversion of the Crown’s authority were not at the forefront of the colonies’ thought-process; however, when the colonies, in Jefferson’s words, “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms,” their “repeated petitions [were] answered only by repeated injury.” Instead of constructively engaging the colonies and their concerns of being treated unfairly by the Crown, His Majesty King George III declared the colonies in open rebellion, issued a proclamation that the colonial leaders in Philadelphia were to be hanged, and effectively closed off all paths toward reconciliation. As Jefferson pointedly observed:
“The history of the…King is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. He has refused to pass . . . Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people; … dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions of the rights of the people; …obstructed the Administration of Justice; …sent hither swarms of Officers to harass [the] People, and eat out their substance; … [given] his Assent to . . . acts of pretended Legislation; … protected [government officers] by a mock trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they [have committed] on the Inhabitants of these States; . . . [deprived] us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by jury; . . . [and] burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people.”Applying the objective standard laid out above, it is clear that Jefferson and the rest of the colonists were left with little choice but to violate the law and use extra-legal remedies to rectify and abolish the unjust laws of the King.
Turning to Dr. King’s plight, one sees a similar pattern of oppression by the governments’ of the southern states to that of George III. While the southern states had constitutional governments with popularly elected democratic majorities authorized to enact just laws on paper, in reality the majority black population was harassed by the government, brutalized by its police forces, and forcibly kept from being able to participate unmolested in the political process. As Dr. King noted in Letter, the southern states had an “ugly record of police brutality” and of “bombings of Negro homes and churches.” When African Americans attempted to avail themselves of the political process set up to remedy such injustice, they were barred from voting en masse, and received “unjust treatment . . . in the courts” which, after over 340 years of degrading abuse, “left the Negro community with no other alternatives” than to peacefully violate the law in an attempt to highlight the law’s unjust consequences. As Dr. King notes, “the political leaders [of the south] consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiations” and “broke promises” to correct injustices, which included the southern governments’ allowing and promoting of “vicious lynch mobs [that lynch] mothers and fathers at will and drown . . . sisters and brothers at whim; . . .
“…hate filled policemen [that] curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill . . . blacks . . . with impunity;… conniving methods used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, . . . despite the fact that Negroes constitute a majority of the population; [and] …angry violent dogs literally biting … unarmed, nonviolent [people].”As King correctly asks: “Can any law set up in such a state be considered just?” Under the objective standard, the answer is no. As King further states, “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the blackness of corroding despair.” The arrival of that abyss is where the justification of the law’s violation begins.
The examples set forth by Dr. King and Mr. Jefferson, however, should not be confused with events and figures who justified their violations of the law using a subjective standard. For example, Henry David Thoreau, who was imprisoned for failure to pay his taxes, justified his violation of the law in Civil Disobedience by concluding that because those taxes were used to support an unjust war and (just as importantly) the slavery of man, he was not required to pay them if those policies offended his conscience. While it is clearly true that under the objective standard Thoreau may have justification regarding the slavery issue, he fails the objective standard with regards to his view that the Mexican-American War was unjust and thus warranted his violation of the law.
Thoreau justifies his actions from a subjective standard, clearly stating that while the legal remedies set up by the government may ultimately work to rectify the injustices of war and slavery, they “take too long” for his liking. He goes on to say that voting, which he is freely able to do, is “cheap” and that petitioning the government for redress is “doing nothing in earnest” to rectify the problem. He also concedes that he does not mind paying taxes for things he agrees with, such as public highways, but does mind paying taxes for things he objects to, such as war. As a result, Thoreau blasts the state as immoral and unjust, and makes clear that he wishes to have nothing to do with it.
Thoreau inadvertently undermines his own argument, however. He freely concedes that he is able to petition the government for redress, engage his neighbors freely in discussion in an attempt to persuade them of his cause, and vote according to his conscience; but since his point of view does not carry the day, he abruptly concludes that if one’s own point of view is not adopted by the society at large, then one is justified in ignoring the laws of that society. If society were to adopt Thoreau’s view as canon, it can easily be seen how organized society would cease to function orderly, likely to the detriment of all. It is a clear illustration as to why a subjective standard should be rejected in favor of the objective standard set forth above.
Contrasting Mr. Thoreau to our hypothetical, Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, one can see the clear difference between the objective and subjective standards. Whereas under the objective examples one would have no ability to participate in the political process, no way to participate in the creation of the laws, and no redress for the unjust application of the laws, under Thoreau’s subjective example, Mr. Thoreau had all of these legal remedies at his disposal, yet chose to cast them aside because he felt such a system too slow to rectify the injustice of the situation, and felt having to justify and persuade his fellow countrymen as to the righteousness of his position to be too cumbersome because a man’s just conscience should trump that of his ignorant neighbor’s. Under the hypothetical future United States and examples of Mr. Jefferson and Dr. King, even the mere act of speaking about the unjustness of the law is a violation of the law, and thus the law’s violation is unavoidable if men are to attempt to rectify the law’s unjustness, whereas under Mr. Thoreau’s example, there are plenty of legal remedies available to rectify the perceived injustice.
As the above historical and theoretical examples have shown, it is sometimes justifiable to violate the law when there are no other adequate legal remedies which may be employed to correct the law’s unjust nature. This is an objective standard, albeit a high standard. Using a subjective standard would open the door to anarchy and chaos, and allow man at his whim to run rough-shod over the interests of an organized and objectively just society. In short, a subjective standard would usher in many of the very injustice the violation of the law under an objective standard seeks to rectify. But by using an objective standard, it is clear that when the laws of man unjustly block a society into the corner of tyranny and leaves that society with only extra-legal remedies to correct the injustice, such extra-legal violations of the law are not only justified, but a duty of all free men.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Public Health Care, Democrats, and Ted Kennedy
An article out of the United Kingdom showcases the horrors of that nation's health care system. So this begs the question: how do we create a public option that the nation can not only afford, but one in which the care Americans receive remains at the same level it is today and doesn't become like that of Europe?
I've spoken to some Europeans who rave about their health care systems and how they are so wonderful, how America's health system has its own problems, etc. Many claim that the horror stories told of in the article above don't happen. Really?
If a private insurer treated people like England's national system, then people would simply purchase insurance from another company that treats them with dignity. One cannot do this, however, if the government puts the private sector out of business.
No matter how often my liberal friends try and convince me otherwise, I just can't envision Nancy Pelosi as the compassionate, coddling type. Speaking of which, I can't see this Democratic member of the House as the compassionate, coddling type either -- especially since he thinks so highly of moderates in his party.
It takes a real smug A-class jerk to call his colleagues 'brain dead' in public just because they don't agree with him (and especially a day after his party's liberal standard bearer passed on due to cancer of the brain).
Classy.
Lastly, you know you must have done something right in life when the sitting president of the United States, all of the remaining living former presidents (4 in total), and half of the United States Congress plans on attending your funeral. It also says something when during your procession from your home to your brother's memorial library, where you are to lie in repose, people actually pull off the side of the highway, get out of their cars, and stand silently, crying, and waving as you ride by for the last time.
I'd be surprised if we ever see anything like this again in Massachsuetts for a long time. I may not have agreed with you on anything Ted, but God-speed.
I've spoken to some Europeans who rave about their health care systems and how they are so wonderful, how America's health system has its own problems, etc. Many claim that the horror stories told of in the article above don't happen. Really?
If a private insurer treated people like England's national system, then people would simply purchase insurance from another company that treats them with dignity. One cannot do this, however, if the government puts the private sector out of business.
No matter how often my liberal friends try and convince me otherwise, I just can't envision Nancy Pelosi as the compassionate, coddling type. Speaking of which, I can't see this Democratic member of the House as the compassionate, coddling type either -- especially since he thinks so highly of moderates in his party.
It takes a real smug A-class jerk to call his colleagues 'brain dead' in public just because they don't agree with him (and especially a day after his party's liberal standard bearer passed on due to cancer of the brain).
Classy.
Lastly, you know you must have done something right in life when the sitting president of the United States, all of the remaining living former presidents (4 in total), and half of the United States Congress plans on attending your funeral. It also says something when during your procession from your home to your brother's memorial library, where you are to lie in repose, people actually pull off the side of the highway, get out of their cars, and stand silently, crying, and waving as you ride by for the last time.
I'd be surprised if we ever see anything like this again in Massachsuetts for a long time. I may not have agreed with you on anything Ted, but God-speed.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Unassisted Triple Play
As if you had any doubts, yes, it was against the Mets.
An unassisted triple play has only occurred 15 times in MLB history, and has only happened twice to end a game. In other words, you're likely to never see it again in your lifetime.
An unassisted triple play has only occurred 15 times in MLB history, and has only happened twice to end a game. In other words, you're likely to never see it again in your lifetime.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Exercising Your Constitutional Rights "Crazy"
Apparently, exercising your constitutional rights (particularly, protesting while carrying a rifle near the president) is now "crazy" according to some people (ie, those who work at anti-gun rights organizations).
Says Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
My opinion is counter-intuitive, though. I'd submit that perhaps political rallies would become less likely to produce hot tempers and violence if everyone were carrying loaded weapons. Think about it: we'd be less likely to insult, chide, berate, yell, or otherwise disparage those who disagree with us in an unprofessional way, lest we piss them off to the point where cooler-heads don't prevail. And considering everyone else will be carrying as well, it's likely that as soon as one person pulls out their weapon, that person is likely to have everyone elses' weapon pointed right at them. Thus, it would clearly be in the self-interest of everyone to appeal to reason, lest they find themselves on the business end of Smith & Wesson et al.
I believe the gentleman who brought a leg-worn pistol to protest outside of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire town hall meeting with Obama last week said it best when he said of his decision to carry the pistol that:
UPDATE: The man who brought an AR-15 to the Arizona town hall where President Obama met with the folks doesn't fit the ordinary description of your gun-toting, militia organizing, crazy right winger. Usually those types are confined to white dudes with Confederate Battle Flags in the back of their pick-up trucks.
This man happens to be a very well dressed, educated black man. How long until the left wing turns on him? Who knows? But when they do, I'm sure he'll be pleased he has the means to defend himself if need be.
Says Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
"[...P]eople should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.Now I understand people's concerns. Political situations, especially protests, can get heated sometimes, and many times people lose their tempers. Obviously, the last thing anyone wants (especially gun-rights groups) is some lunatic shooting off his assault rifle like an Iraqi at a wedding parade, high school graduation, etc. If that were to happen, then we'd never hear the end of how we need to ban all guns forever, repeal the Second Amendment, etc. (Because in the infinite wisdom of gun-haters, if you ban people from having guns, then all gun crime will disappear.)
To me, this is craziness. When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone.
[...P]eople who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening."
My opinion is counter-intuitive, though. I'd submit that perhaps political rallies would become less likely to produce hot tempers and violence if everyone were carrying loaded weapons. Think about it: we'd be less likely to insult, chide, berate, yell, or otherwise disparage those who disagree with us in an unprofessional way, lest we piss them off to the point where cooler-heads don't prevail. And considering everyone else will be carrying as well, it's likely that as soon as one person pulls out their weapon, that person is likely to have everyone elses' weapon pointed right at them. Thus, it would clearly be in the self-interest of everyone to appeal to reason, lest they find themselves on the business end of Smith & Wesson et al.
I believe the gentleman who brought a leg-worn pistol to protest outside of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire town hall meeting with Obama last week said it best when he said of his decision to carry the pistol that:
"It's a political statement [...] If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."Well stated.
UPDATE: The man who brought an AR-15 to the Arizona town hall where President Obama met with the folks doesn't fit the ordinary description of your gun-toting, militia organizing, crazy right winger. Usually those types are confined to white dudes with Confederate Battle Flags in the back of their pick-up trucks.
This man happens to be a very well dressed, educated black man. How long until the left wing turns on him? Who knows? But when they do, I'm sure he'll be pleased he has the means to defend himself if need be.
Congressman 'Will Vote Against My District"
The Washington Times is reporting that New York Congressman Eric Massa will 'vote against' the interests of his district, no matter what his constituents believe, if he thinks his vote is in their best interests:
First, I'm wiling to bet Rep. Massa may have just cost himself re-election. Second, I can't help but think that this is more of the same paternal "We know better what's good for you than you do" attitude Congress has toward its constituents. It's infuriating because both parties not only do it, but because the current majority simply can not get it through their thick skulls that the majority of Americans, while voting for the Democrats as a reaction to the 8 years of George Bush's presidency, do not want such a momumental shift in the dynamic of American health care. Americans do not feel the president or the Democrats have made their case of the benefits outweighing the costs, and thus are willing to stick with the status quo for the time being.
The outright contempt that the Democrats are showing for this wholly American outpouring of opinion is the true disappointment of this entire story, and quite frankly is a true failure of leadership on the part of the president and his party.
First, I'm wiling to bet Rep. Massa may have just cost himself re-election. Second, I can't help but think that this is more of the same paternal "We know better what's good for you than you do" attitude Congress has toward its constituents. It's infuriating because both parties not only do it, but because the current majority simply can not get it through their thick skulls that the majority of Americans, while voting for the Democrats as a reaction to the 8 years of George Bush's presidency, do not want such a momumental shift in the dynamic of American health care. Americans do not feel the president or the Democrats have made their case of the benefits outweighing the costs, and thus are willing to stick with the status quo for the time being.
The outright contempt that the Democrats are showing for this wholly American outpouring of opinion is the true disappointment of this entire story, and quite frankly is a true failure of leadership on the part of the president and his party.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Rick Santorum Running For President?
Former George W. Bush advisor Mark McKinnon doesn't think much of a possible run for president by former Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum:
What struck me next was the story McKinnon relates (without a source) as to Santorum's personal, family life:
I don't know if that is true or not. And I am not going to suggest that I know what it is like to be a parent who has just lost a child only several hours after its birth. But even still, if that story is factual, I'd have to say it's not normal -- even for grief stricken parents.
Furthermore, would a hospital even let the parents take the dead baby out of the hospital to home? That strikes me as odd, but here again, I am not an expert on hospital administration, so I don't know.
Odd dead-baby story aside, I too fear the thought of Rick Santorum as president, and if he runs, I will not vote for him and hope he is defeated.
A Rick Santorum presidency would be very, very dangerous for America...Alright, so McKinnon doesn't think much of Santorum's extreme views or his character (as he goes on to describe how Santorum publicly dissed McCain throughout the 2008 campaign, while years before, he had been using McCain to help fundraise for his own reelection. (Your typical political schenannigans.)
Santorum once grouped gay sex with incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and he believes consenting adults have no constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sexual behavior. He is a strong supporter of teaching intelligent design. He is anti-gay, anti-immigrant—supporting the most extreme anti-immigrant legislative proposals though he is the son of an Italian immigrant father—antiabortion, and anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican Party.
Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against Robert Gates to be secretary of Defense because Gates advocated talking to Iran and Syria, which Santorum said would be talking to “radical Islam” and would be a grievous error.
Santorum represents, in my view, much of what is wrong the in the Republican Party. While I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, I am much more concerned with his lack of character.
What struck me next was the story McKinnon relates (without a source) as to Santorum's personal, family life:
I’m a pretty tolerant guy, but beyond his ideology, some of Santorum’s behavior is just a little bizarre. For example, Santorum has six children. In 1996, he had son born prematurely who lived for only two hours. He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as “your brother Gabriel” and slept with the body overnight.Say whaaat?!
I don't know if that is true or not. And I am not going to suggest that I know what it is like to be a parent who has just lost a child only several hours after its birth. But even still, if that story is factual, I'd have to say it's not normal -- even for grief stricken parents.
Furthermore, would a hospital even let the parents take the dead baby out of the hospital to home? That strikes me as odd, but here again, I am not an expert on hospital administration, so I don't know.
Odd dead-baby story aside, I too fear the thought of Rick Santorum as president, and if he runs, I will not vote for him and hope he is defeated.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Your Congressperson & You
Ever wonder what your Congressperson thinks about your concerns regarding the health care reform packages moving through Congress currently? Well, wonder no more:
Bottom line: They don't care what you think. Period. A picture is worth a thousand words right? This should say it all.
UPDATE: If a single-payer or public option health care system is sooo fantastic, why don't liberal members of Congress want it for themselves?
It should go without saying that it should give everyone (including supporters of single-payer/public option) a moment of pause as to whether or not they should support public health care if the people who are literally creating the program don't want it for themselves, and will ensure that they have a different plan for themselves and their families.
My questions is that if it is good enough for ordinary Americans, then why isn't it good enough for the Peoples' Represenatives in Congress?
Bottom line: They don't care what you think. Period. A picture is worth a thousand words right? This should say it all.
UPDATE: If a single-payer or public option health care system is sooo fantastic, why don't liberal members of Congress want it for themselves?
It should go without saying that it should give everyone (including supporters of single-payer/public option) a moment of pause as to whether or not they should support public health care if the people who are literally creating the program don't want it for themselves, and will ensure that they have a different plan for themselves and their families.
My questions is that if it is good enough for ordinary Americans, then why isn't it good enough for the Peoples' Represenatives in Congress?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Paglia on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats & Republicans
And to think, a liberal columnist for Salon Magazine is writing this:
But Camille Paglia is not done. Oh no, she is not. She also has this to say about Obama (whom she admits she voted for and supports still) and his health care plan:
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.Oh how I will forever pay tribute on the day this becomes a reality!
But Camille Paglia is not done. Oh no, she is not. She also has this to say about Obama (whom she admits she voted for and supports still) and his health care plan:
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.Then she goes on to admonish each political party for essentially being incompetent groups of morons hopelessly out of touch and incapable of running the country:
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?I think I may be in-love with Camille Paglia. Thank God for her honesty. At least someone with a megaphone is calling it the way it is these days. What I can't figure out is why both political parties are so hell-bent on destroying this country in their own, special, fucked up little ways. Is it possible that they know not what they do? Maybe that's the best possible way to look at it. The other option is to simply accept that they are doing it on purpose (for some reason) and that there is no way to stop them, short of complete all-out armed rebellion (and I don't know about you all, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen).
What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.
And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.
But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
