Modern Day Crusade
America needs to wake up and smell the coffee. So many on the left accuse President Bush of going on a crusade, an effort to liberate Christendom from the Muslim hordes. Does it not strike any of these people that we're fighting a defensive war - one that has been fomenting since 1979? The Islamic Fundamentalists (not the run-of-the-mill, peace loving Muslims) are looking to destroy everything we hold dear. They are obsessed with destroying the infidel - that's you and me, friend.
So, here it is in black and white, in terms a leftist holds dear:
They don't want women able to vote. Come to think of it, they don't want men able to vote, either. They want the priestly class to have all the say. You know, because that worked out so well for civilizations in Sumeria, Babylonia, ancient Egypt, Rome, all of Europe throughout the middle ages, and Afghanistan.
They want to eliminate most of our art. It's a sin in Muslim culture to make a picture of a person - it's raising a false idol, and in some states, can get you killed. So much for your plans to go to art college.
They're all about capital punishment. You talk back to a judge, while on trial for adultery, you die. Slowly. Publicly.
The 8th Amendment means nothing to them. Being murdered by stoning is nothing unusual there - if you're unfortunate enough to get caught using drugs, drinking, or having premarital sex.
They are VERY MUCH against abortion. Of course, since they'll execute you for having premarital sex, you won't get far enough in your term after your drunken one night stand to worry about needing an abortion. Just a burial plot. Oh, that's right - if you're executed that way, they bury you in an unmarked grave.
You can't do drugs, drink, or have premarital sex. Those are execution worthy offenses.
You can't decide where you want to go to school. If you're female, you can't even go to school.
These are the people who have a stated goal of making Earth one single Islamic nation. They want to eliminate your rights, because it erodes their power. They want to eliminate your education, becuase it keeps them stronger that way. They want to destroy every aspect of your way of life, every freedom you take for granted.
And the left wants to invite them in to do it.
USA today blared out a front page cover story, "Death Toll in Iraq Reaches 2000". Let's not forget the 3,000 American men and women who were murdered four years ago today for the simple crime of going to work.
There's a new crusade, all right. And it's against us. Will we stop them before it's too late? Or will we watch in horror as our new Islamic overlords use our Constitution as toilet paper?
Lo-jacking my kids
Let me tell you, and I know this goes against the grain for a freedom-loving libertarian, but I like this idea. I want my kids lo-jacked. I want everyone lo-jacked.
Now, I don't want any real-time data stored. Screw that. I don't want anyone to know where I've been. However, what I would like to see:
- Where my kids are. If one of them gets kidnapped, God forbid, we'll be able to pinpoint the kidnapper immediately. Hopefully, the FBI's HRT will off the kidnapper and return the kid safe and sound. Failing that, a safe kid and a jailed kidnapper will do.
- Who was within 50 feet of another person when that person died. It's not too hard to have the implant chips note the cessation of function, and send out a signal to the wi-fi towers that said person has died. At that point, it takes a snapshot of everyone around, and the police get to question those people. Instead of wasting thousands of man-hours on knocking on people's doors, we have leads instantly.
Now, of course, people will say, "Well, folks with criminal intent won't get the implant." Fine. They don't have to be able to purchase things anymore, either. Your RFID can be linked to your bank account, and you use it to make withdrawals. (Of course, you'll also have to swipe a smart card, or perform some other PIN number of biometric scan, depending on how cheap the technology can be made.) When you get paid, it gets wired into your bank account. When you buy something, the RFID deducts the amount from your account. Simple as pie. Someone wants to steal your wallet? Great. They get some pictures of your kids. Your ID and your cash are safe. The way I see it, that's one less thing for my wife to lose. (Now, if I could just key the locks in our house to open when she walks by, I wouldn't have to get her new sets of keys on a weekly basis.)
Others say, "Hey! That sounds suspiciously like the mark of the beast." Yeah, well, such is life. If the only way to civilize people is to physically make it impossible to commit crimes, then, hey, I'm all for it.
The only valid point is, "Who's going to pay for this?" Well, this is where we run into some difficulty. However, there's some easy fixes.
- The RFIDs can transmit to nearby cellular towers. There is bandwidth to spare on there, so that's not a problem. The instantaneous update (when someone croaks) can be transmitted to servers at the FBI, to be doled out to the appropriate police department. (I don't mind paying SOME tax for cops.) Since there won't be NEARLY as much time wasted during crime investigations, that will clear up lots of cash for paying for that.
- Retailers eventually embraced bar codes and Visa cards, they'll get used to this, too. Especially when cash goes totally away.
- Who wouldn't chip in $100 at their child's birth to ensure that they can never be successfully kidnapped or mugged, and if, God forbid, someone decides to kill them, that someone can be found post-haste.
It's not like these things are expensive, either. When I got my dog from Lost Dog Rescue http://www.lostdogrescue.org/, they implanted one in him. (I guess it's to find me if I dognap my own dog.)
The cost savings in crime fighting alone make it worthwhile. (Especially a good idea for US workers in the middle east. That way, we can find the kidnappers/beheaders before they get around to killing our guys.)
Just my $0.02.
The Destruction of Black America, Part 1
Me: You're culturally disadvantaged. You should be in easier classes, and graded more leniently.
Him/Her: [after beating the shit out of me for about 20 minutes] I disagree. It wounds me that you think that the color of my skin affects my ability to learn and assimilate information. Furthermore, it is an even more egregious slight that you feel that standards should be lowered for me.
Now, any normal, rational person should be able to follow that logic pretty well. Tell a black person that they are born to be inferior to you, and you will get a justified ass-kicking. You'd get both sides of the aisle doing it to you, as well - Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson would both take time out of their busy schedules to come and beat you about the head and neck.
Yet, these same people, for reasons that have never been clear to me, vote in Democrats consistently. And what is the basis of the Democrat's education platform?
- Lower the standards for black people. Allow them to get lower scores on standardized tests, and still get college admission. Give them preferential status when enrolling in schools, even when they get low grades.
- Change the curriculum of all students, so that those who can't cut it won't feel bad about themselves.
Now, if I were a black person, hearing these tenets, what would I think they mean?
- The Democrats don't think I'm smart enough to make it into and through school on my own merit.
- No matter how well I do, I will never know if I achieved my grades and standing because of my efforts or my skin color. My every achievement will be tainted by the lack of faith that has been displayed in me.
The left is destroying the self-worth of black students from the beginning of their education to the end of their lives. To make it worse, by dumbing down the curriculum, the ones who want to make it are kept even more oppressed, because they are never exposed to the subjects that will help them excel in the world. Because they are refused a proper education, under the guise of "leaving no child behind", they are forced more and more into poverty and despair.
The left works to keep the black Americans down. They don't want to compete with blacks for jobs, school, money, housing, or resources. They pretend to be generous, by trying to give them gifts, but they give them the worst of everything, and tell them that it's for their own good. To the shame of Black America, too many of them believe it.
On Drug Dealers
Before you say to yourself, "Oh, good, another drug addled hippie, writing about legalizing drugs so he won't get busted", allow me to submit to you my credentials.
- In college, yes, I used my share of drugs. Yours, too.
- I haven't touched any drugs in over 10 years.
- I have two small children, so, to set a good example, I don't drink, either.
- I have nothing to gain, personally, from taking either side on the issue, only America does.
Now, on with the show.
America needs to legalize drugs.
There, I've said it. Now you can all say whatever it is you think, just as long as you read this the rest of the way through, think about it, and decide then. First, let's look at some of what keeping
drugs illegal has done:
- There are currently 1.2 million people in U.S. jails for non-violent drug offenses. (That's trafficking and possession to you and me, folks.) Almost $24 billion will go to keeping them in jail each year. That means every man, woman and child in this country will pay $88 this year to house drug offenders. That's a whole week of minimum wage work (for a large chunk of the country, an entire week's pay), just to house people whose major crime was trying to destroy themselves. [Source: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice]
- Since there's danger and excitement in dealing drugs, it attracts money. Drug gang leaders earn between $50,000 and $130,000 on their misdeeds annually. (For reference, Habib down at the Kwik-e-mart, who sold you the pack of smokes that will eventually kill you, makes about $14,500 per year.) [Source: Soros.org]
- Now, because earnings are so high, these people are willing to fight bloody, murderous gang wars to keep their turf. You don't see 7-11 and Convenient employees taking AK 47's to each other to settle their differences.
Of course, with that much money floating around, it's clearly in some people's best interest to keep drugs illegal. Let's enumerate a few of those folks, shall we?
- Drug dealers. Obviously, the main beneficiaries of illegal drugs are those who profit off of the very nature of dealing in illegal substances. Just as the bootleggers of prohibition (Al Capone, Joseph Kennedy) made their fortunes running booze, today's drug cartel honchos amass millions of dollars. By making drugs legal, the laws of supply and demand would break these people. (Or, turn them into Enron like executives.)
- The DEA. 9,629 people suck down a whopping $1.8B annually. Now, I'm all for putting government employees out of their cushy jobs and into the real workforce, where
they'd have to learn to get by on merit, but these guys are at the top of my list. Their whole goal in life is to keep drug prices shored up, so drug dealers can continue making a profit. That's the type of corporate bailout that I can't stand to see.
- The FBI. The drug control portion of the FBI's budget is $817 M.
- The CIA and NSA. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. They raise money by selling drugs just like every other government does. Hell, man, their annual budget wouldn't even cover
the cost of putting their spy sattelites up, much less paying people to look at the data.
- Local police forces. While the feds spend a total of $20B annually on tracking down drug
offenders, the combined totals spent by the states equals that.
If you're keeping tabs, we're up to $66B so far - or $245 per American. Still seems like a small amount. However, we're now up to two and a half weeks of minimum wage annually. That means, if taxes were 100% of your paycheck until your tax bill was paid, the first 19 days of
the year would be spent paying for tracking down and punishing people who want
to get high.
(You'll notice that I bring up minimum wage a lot. That's because most of the people who want drugs to remain illegal use the excuse that drugs hurt the poor. I'm trying to demonstrate that the poor are more badly screwed by the government than by their neighboorhood drug dealers. )
How would legalization help?
Good question. Forget about the $66B wasted by the feds annually. (Well, of course, it all adds up, and the more waste we eliminate, the more we can put into productive wealth creation, thus
helping ease the burden on the poor, but that's another post, for another day.) Let's talk about immediate benefits.
- Drug sales could be taxed to high heaven. We do it with cigarettes. When I quit smoking 5
years ago, I did it because it was costing me $4 / pack. I smoked a pack a day. For $120 / month, I could get a second car, or DSL, or, well, whatever I wanted. Roughly half of that cost is taxes. Now, with all that tax money coming in from the drugs, there is money that could be spent on rehabilitation centers. (For the record. I'm opposed to income taxes, I
think they're total bullshit. But I have no qualms with taxing individual goods and services, and using that money wisely. The way I see it, if drugs weren't legal and taxed, that tax money wouldn't be coming in, so why not use it for drug education and rehab?)
- There would be no more turf wars.
Let me tell you a little story. I live in Washington, DC. Not in the best neighborhood of DC, either, and DC isn't exactly Idyllville, USA. There's three drug dealers who sit across the street from my house, dealing all day, every day. When I first moved in, I asked the cops, "Why don't you arrest them?" Their response?
“Those guys have been dealing there for the last 20 years. They’re peaceful and quiet.
If we arrested them, there’d be a power vacuum, and the gangs would start shooting each other for that piece of real estate. Instead of a lot of out of state traffic on your street, you’d see machine guns. Which do you prefer?”
- Thousands of federal employees would have to get real jobs. Since the government was
never intended to be a jobs program, this is an excellent thing. Billions of dollars would be freed up from the budget, to be spent on worthwhile things, like tax cuts.
- Terrorists would have to seek other forms of funding.
- People could say that there is one less thing in their lives that the government is deciding for them.
- People who are determined to destroy themselves on drugs get to check out of the gene
pool earlier, leading to stronger breeding pairs.
If there weren’t a demand, there’d be no more supply. If the demand weren’t high enough to make it worth the risks of selling dope, then there would be no drug dealers. The demand isn’t going anywhere. The only way to stem the tide of crime is to make drugs legal. So a few people who place no value on their lives and brains die of overdoses, so what? They were going to do that anyway. This way, they at least get refinery pure stuff, instead of a hot load of heroin and rat poison. Ending prohibition hurt the mob. Legalizing drugs will hurt the gangs. America will be stronger with legal drugs than without. The wasted resources alone could launch thousands of small businesses, and essentially end unemployment.
Just my $0.02, I could be wrong.
But probably not.
Punishment doesnt work?
Well, if you ever want to rape children, the place to go is Burlington, VT. That is where a “judge” handed out a sixty day sentence to a man who repeatedly raped a seven year old girl because, “I don’t believe that punishment works.”
Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005Of course he believes in rehabilitation. It has worked so well before in so many cases. That’s why there are no repeat child molesters. There’s always my plan, however. Rope. Tree. Molester. Some assembly required. That he’d even consider giving a child molester less than life in prison is unconscionable, giving out a sixty day sentence should be grounds for being disbarred, thrown off the bench, and then forced to watch his loved ones violated.
There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven. The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.
But it keeps going.
Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.
But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.
"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.
Anger doesn’t solve anything. Nope, don’t be angry at the man who REPEATEDLY FUCKED A SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL. That’s not going to solve anything, you’re right. However, calmly and dispassionately slicing his throat, and letting him bleed to death in the courtroom, in my humble opinion, will.
The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment.
"Punishment is a valid purpose," Chittenden Deputy Prosecutor Nicole Andreson argued to Judge Edward Cashman.
"The state recognizes that the court may not agree or subscribe to that method of sentencing but the state does. The state thinks that it is a very important factor for the court to consider," Andreson added.
But Judge Cashman explained that he is more concerned that Hulett receive sex offender treatment as rehabilitation. But under Department of Corrections classification, Hulett is considered a low-risk for re-offense so he does not qualify for in-prison treatment.So the judge sentenced him to just 60 days in prison and then Hulett must complete sex treatment when he gets out or face a possible life sentence.
Oooh! Oooh! I have an idea for sex offender treatment. Skin them alive. Let the fuckers die in as much agony as humanly possible. Find ways to keep them alive while they are being tortured, so that the pain can last longer. This guy raped the girl over the course of three years? Great. We’ll torture him for three years, and then execute him. And you know what? He’d still be getting off light. Imagine what’s in store for this little girl:
- Probable drug addiction, as she struggles to cope with the world.
- A history of abusive relationships. Frequently, abused children have feelings of worthlessness that they play out for the rest of their lives.
- A lifetime of psychotherapy, probably at the expense of the state. It won’t do any good, since these scars will be too deep ever to heal.
Well, it does keep the child rapists in prison and away from children, but, hey, that’s not a convenient bonus. Here’s a thought, judge dickwad – execute the fuckers, and you’ll see exactly zero percent recidivism. None. You can’t beat that.
Judge Cashman also also revealed that he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench 25 years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.
"I discovered it accomplishes nothing of value;it doesn't make anything
better;it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed
on anger,"Cashman explained to the people in the court.
All I know is that if she kills him when he gets out, I hope I’m on her jury. Not guilty. No way, no how, and I’ll keep the jury there as long as need be. Not guilty.
The sentence outraged the victim's family who asked not to be identified.
"I don't like it," the victim's mother,in tears, told Channel 3. "He should pay for what he did to my baby and stop it here. She's not even home with me and he can be home for all this time, and do what he did in my house," she added.
Hulett -- who had been out on bail-- was taken away to start his sentence immediately.
And you wonder why I think we need to start killing judges.
Sorry I've been gone