Eugene Volokh has an interesting question here that I want to respond to.
I'd rather see my kids playing cops and robbers instead of prostitutes and johns, and my parents preferred that as well. I grew up in a household where violence was almost completely uncensored (saw the Shining when I was 6) but sexual content almost always was (they even fastforwarded through the Castle Anthrax scene in Quest for the Holy Grail until I was 14). My mother explained to me thusly:
We don't mind you watching violence, because we don't think you are going to become curious about trying it. We mind you watching sex, because we think you're too young to have it, and we think watching it will make you curious to try it.
So my parents had me pegged 100%. They were right. Watching Nightmare on Elm Street 3 produced no urge to make my own human marionette, but the first porn I ever saw certainly sparked my interest in that.
Thursday, May 30, 2002
Was reading Instapundit earlier, and he linked to this post by Ian about how the police in england are just giving warnings for use of weed so they can concentrate on real criminals instead.
The concept may be debateable, but I took exception to one of the points Ian made: "This is a middle-class agenda driven by the fact that investment bankers don't want precious little Tarquin, with his First in Eng Lit, to get a police record because he started puffing away at Eton or Cambridge. As with assaults on the family, education and the legal system generally, it's the working class that suffers..."
I can't agree with that. I think that protective legislating is: patronizing, bigoted, contra-survival, and rude. Drugs should remain illegal because the lower classes can't be trusted to use them responsibly? What about the fact that US drug laws, and our current legal system are most likely to screw the lower classes? I can afford a bigshot lawyer if I get in trouble. I sure as hell would hate to have to go to court with a public defender though.
So the middle classes don't want drug laws around because they realize that it effectively screws up someone's life by making criminal a rather harmless activity. You can try and make that sound elitist, but its not like we're campaigning to make drugs legal for anyone with an annual income over 50k. We just realize that drug laws hurt people, no matter how much or how little money you make.
The concept may be debateable, but I took exception to one of the points Ian made: "This is a middle-class agenda driven by the fact that investment bankers don't want precious little Tarquin, with his First in Eng Lit, to get a police record because he started puffing away at Eton or Cambridge. As with assaults on the family, education and the legal system generally, it's the working class that suffers..."
I can't agree with that. I think that protective legislating is: patronizing, bigoted, contra-survival, and rude. Drugs should remain illegal because the lower classes can't be trusted to use them responsibly? What about the fact that US drug laws, and our current legal system are most likely to screw the lower classes? I can afford a bigshot lawyer if I get in trouble. I sure as hell would hate to have to go to court with a public defender though.
So the middle classes don't want drug laws around because they realize that it effectively screws up someone's life by making criminal a rather harmless activity. You can try and make that sound elitist, but its not like we're campaigning to make drugs legal for anyone with an annual income over 50k. We just realize that drug laws hurt people, no matter how much or how little money you make.
Welcome Back, J Edgar Hoover...
I'm terrified.
Really. There's a reason we've got thousands of wackos across the US who believe that the FBI or the CIA are spying on them (chances are, if they really are wackos, they're right), and now Bush decides to expand the FBIs surveillance powers beyond standard probable cause? I don't have any problem with moving approval for investigations further down the chain of command, if the FBI is anywhere near as inefficient as the CIA, then any reduction in the number of folks in the approval process has to be a good thing. These are agencies that can require, at a minimum that five people review and approve the wording on the most routine of memos. So even writing back to the field to say "yes" can be a maddening and time-consuming experience.
Allowing agents to troll for probable cause though (monitor libraries, check public databases) scares me. Just like any time they want to restrict our freedoms they use the worn out old "its for the children line", now they use the war on terrorism to justify any expansion of federal power they can possibly tack it onto. I mean, seriously... the "Farm Security Act"?
And they may be saying now that its only going to be used to catch the terrorists... uh huh. RICO was only written to catch mobsters. The ADA was originally written to keep companies from refusing to hire folks in wheel chairs when they're in desk jobs. The government is like a camel. Give them an inch, they'll take a damn mile. So terrorism now, but don't be surprised if next they're requiring book resellers to provide them with the names and addresses of anyone who checked out "Philosophy in the Bedroom". Perverts, potheads, moonshiners, democrats (while the republicans are in office) and republicans (while the democrats are in office)... we should all be screaming our heads off and threatening to sue over this one.
I'm terrified.
Really. There's a reason we've got thousands of wackos across the US who believe that the FBI or the CIA are spying on them (chances are, if they really are wackos, they're right), and now Bush decides to expand the FBIs surveillance powers beyond standard probable cause? I don't have any problem with moving approval for investigations further down the chain of command, if the FBI is anywhere near as inefficient as the CIA, then any reduction in the number of folks in the approval process has to be a good thing. These are agencies that can require, at a minimum that five people review and approve the wording on the most routine of memos. So even writing back to the field to say "yes" can be a maddening and time-consuming experience.
Allowing agents to troll for probable cause though (monitor libraries, check public databases) scares me. Just like any time they want to restrict our freedoms they use the worn out old "its for the children line", now they use the war on terrorism to justify any expansion of federal power they can possibly tack it onto. I mean, seriously... the "Farm Security Act"?
And they may be saying now that its only going to be used to catch the terrorists... uh huh. RICO was only written to catch mobsters. The ADA was originally written to keep companies from refusing to hire folks in wheel chairs when they're in desk jobs. The government is like a camel. Give them an inch, they'll take a damn mile. So terrorism now, but don't be surprised if next they're requiring book resellers to provide them with the names and addresses of anyone who checked out "Philosophy in the Bedroom". Perverts, potheads, moonshiners, democrats (while the republicans are in office) and republicans (while the democrats are in office)... we should all be screaming our heads off and threatening to sue over this one.
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Let's hear it for simplistic beliefs!
Despite my vocabulary (or in spite of it) I happen to love simple words and explanations. The complexity of the english language does not mean that the world itself has to be that complex. There are still some things in life that have lovely, obvious, simple answers.
Why was the US attacked? Because there are evil muslims out there who hate us and want to kill us. Do we really need to address the 'root causes'? Do we really need to figure out why we 'deserved' it? Since there is nothing that justifies the mass murder of innocent civilians, asking us to determine the 'root causes' of terrorism is like asking a battered woman what she did to ask for the beating.
Why did Klebold and Harris shoot up their school? Because they were crazy! Simple, easy answer. Any person who intentionally kills another person when not defending their lives or the lives of others is crazy. This is why I have no respect for the insanity defense. I already think that folks on trial for murder are crazy. So what? We shoot rabid dogs. We should jail or execute rabid people.
Despite my vocabulary (or in spite of it) I happen to love simple words and explanations. The complexity of the english language does not mean that the world itself has to be that complex. There are still some things in life that have lovely, obvious, simple answers.
Why was the US attacked? Because there are evil muslims out there who hate us and want to kill us. Do we really need to address the 'root causes'? Do we really need to figure out why we 'deserved' it? Since there is nothing that justifies the mass murder of innocent civilians, asking us to determine the 'root causes' of terrorism is like asking a battered woman what she did to ask for the beating.
Why did Klebold and Harris shoot up their school? Because they were crazy! Simple, easy answer. Any person who intentionally kills another person when not defending their lives or the lives of others is crazy. This is why I have no respect for the insanity defense. I already think that folks on trial for murder are crazy. So what? We shoot rabid dogs. We should jail or execute rabid people.
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
And back in the spotlight again... School Cleared in Teacher-Sex Case (washingtonpost.com)
I find it absolutely inconceivable that any woman would find a 12 year old boy sexually appealing. I also am appalled that this boy's mother would sue the school district for responsibility in the situation, when she and her son both pleaded for mercy on Letourneau's behalf. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Letourneau didn't do anything that bad in one breath and scream at the school for not protecting your child in the other.
I find it absolutely inconceivable that any woman would find a 12 year old boy sexually appealing. I also am appalled that this boy's mother would sue the school district for responsibility in the situation, when she and her son both pleaded for mercy on Letourneau's behalf. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Letourneau didn't do anything that bad in one breath and scream at the school for not protecting your child in the other.
Friday, May 17, 2002
So one of the thousands of threats that are reported to the White House each year contained some general information that indicated islamic terrorists might try hijacking a plane... with all the furor over "what Bush knew" about September 11th, I keep thinking of one incident shortly after his election. Remember what happened when folks at the white house made the mistake of using the term 'recession'? The media and the disloyal opposition jumped all over them, saying how irresponsible it was, and how he was just trying to manipulate the public to pass his huge tax cut.
So.... how, exactly, would the media and punditry have responded had Bush told the press "I've received some general threats regarding Osama bin Laden that specifically mention possible airplane hijackings." My bet it would be something like this:
"Bush is needlessly trying to scare the American public in order to justify increases in our already bloated military budget"
"Bush is fostering hatred against Islamic people. This is terrifically insensitive of him..."
"Considering the current state of our economy, the last thing the airline industry needs is this sort of fearmongering from a president who is only looking to score political points."
And I dare anyone over the age of 15 to claim that they had no idea Osama bin Laden hated the United States and was planning on conducting terrorist attacks against us.
So.... how, exactly, would the media and punditry have responded had Bush told the press "I've received some general threats regarding Osama bin Laden that specifically mention possible airplane hijackings." My bet it would be something like this:
"Bush is needlessly trying to scare the American public in order to justify increases in our already bloated military budget"
"Bush is fostering hatred against Islamic people. This is terrifically insensitive of him..."
"Considering the current state of our economy, the last thing the airline industry needs is this sort of fearmongering from a president who is only looking to score political points."
And I dare anyone over the age of 15 to claim that they had no idea Osama bin Laden hated the United States and was planning on conducting terrorist attacks against us.
Now that I think of it some more, some of the reasons for this were laid out in excellent detail (although not directly pointing fingers at the dems) by Lynne Cheney, in her book "Telling the Truth". We've moved to a philosophical base that no longer accepts the concept of 'fact' and instead believes that everything is relative. Sorry, not to be insensitive, but stupid is stupid is stupid . I don't care if you really believe in it, that's not going to keep me from laughing at it if I think its dumb. This goes for religion, politics, and virtually anything else someone feels like talking to me about. If I think your idea is dumb, I'm not going to pretend to give it validity, just because you really care about it.
To put it another way, little Johnny might sincerely believe that 4 plus 4 equals 10. How is it kind of me, or helpful to him, to not point out his obvious error?
To put it another way, little Johnny might sincerely believe that 4 plus 4 equals 10. How is it kind of me, or helpful to him, to not point out his obvious error?
I could have been a liberal...
... well, strike that. I could have liked liberals, and maybe even supported some liberal policies, if it weren't for the breathtaking dishonesty I see in a lot of liberal politics. The Bellesiles controversy is a perfect example. Here we have an academic who publishes what is supposed to be a factual book, exploring gun ownership prior to the civil war. Gun control advocates all praised the book on both its research and its theme. Gun rights advocates, of course, criticized it heavily. The difference?
The gun rights advocates had facts on their side. Bellesiles' book was full of fradulent research and twisted facts. He claimed to use records in Vermont and California that simply did not exist. In every tally of probate records his book cited, no other researcher was able to reproduce his numbers, and they all slanted towards his theory: that guns, prior to the civil war, were not widely owned, and therefore, the second amendment was really about a collective right to bear arms. So when the story broke, what happened? Did his former supporters chastise him for his lack of honesty? No. Instead they rushed to his defense with comments like "its not the numbers that are important here... the concepts explored in the book are what's really important."
What? I wish I could have used that as a defense when I missed questions on my math tests. I would think it is really really obvious that: Bellesiles attempted to prove his theory using the numbers. Therefore, if his numbers are false, his theory remains unproven. Especially in this case, where he is claiming to state historical fact.
... well, strike that. I could have liked liberals, and maybe even supported some liberal policies, if it weren't for the breathtaking dishonesty I see in a lot of liberal politics. The Bellesiles controversy is a perfect example. Here we have an academic who publishes what is supposed to be a factual book, exploring gun ownership prior to the civil war. Gun control advocates all praised the book on both its research and its theme. Gun rights advocates, of course, criticized it heavily. The difference?
The gun rights advocates had facts on their side. Bellesiles' book was full of fradulent research and twisted facts. He claimed to use records in Vermont and California that simply did not exist. In every tally of probate records his book cited, no other researcher was able to reproduce his numbers, and they all slanted towards his theory: that guns, prior to the civil war, were not widely owned, and therefore, the second amendment was really about a collective right to bear arms. So when the story broke, what happened? Did his former supporters chastise him for his lack of honesty? No. Instead they rushed to his defense with comments like "its not the numbers that are important here... the concepts explored in the book are what's really important."
What? I wish I could have used that as a defense when I missed questions on my math tests. I would think it is really really obvious that: Bellesiles attempted to prove his theory using the numbers. Therefore, if his numbers are false, his theory remains unproven. Especially in this case, where he is claiming to state historical fact.