A bit of promotion for a new friend

I have added a new favorite to my link list. The list is short because I am picky, not for lack of candidates.

blacktygrrrr is well spoken and forthcoming. He presents his views well and his arguments are cogent. I recommend him both as a source for political insight as well as for the quality of his writing.

The best part is that he linked to me here. That is an excellent reason to recommend him.

Thanks, Eric

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

Response to a Euroweenie

Read this: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=41994

Here is my response:


Mr. Lockyer,

You said (and these are direct quotes!):


"The Germans occupying Paris could have and maybe DID justify their
evils as not contravening Geneva Accord when they tortured and
annihilated Jews and gays and gypsies not wearing the Swastika? Do you
not see where Boortz and Hannity take you and your great nation with
this philosophy?"


"How can free speech America not denounce and remove such a denigration
biased radio program?"


It seems to me you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. I
mean, comparing Boortz to Nazis as you do. That's OK, though, even if I
disagree with you about Neal Boortz, et al, you certainly do have the
right to express your opinion, however poorly. And I have the right to
point out your pitiful failure at the attempt.

First, you compare Boortz to Nazis. That is denigration. Then you use
some sort of convoluted logic to imply that free speech applies only to
speech which isn't biased in some way. Well, to me, comparing someone
to a Nazi is very biased (it is also an overworked and childish
cliché.) You fail your own test. Miserably.

I must question if English is your native language. Note the lack of a
question mark. I did not ask a question. I stated that I had one. Big
difference. In the first sentence of yours that I quoted, you end the
sentence with a question mark. What is your question there?

If English is your first language, your education in it was sorely
deficient. You often end a declarative statement with a question mark.
I quoted only one example of several. You have an odd way of leaving
out necessary punctuation, or perhaps misplacing it, as you also
include improper or unnecessary punctuation. I suspect that you do use
a modern word processor that automatically corrects your spelling

All in all, I could not discern from your November 5 screed exactly
what your point is. There is a brief guide to improving your writing on
my blog. It isn't very hard to find given normal intelligence and the
use of a modern Internet search engine. I am sure there are other, even
better, writing guides as well, elsewhere.

I do know that as soon as I hear someone (like you!) compare someone
else to the Nazis, that person (you, again!) automatically assumes a
state I call emotional chaff. That is, they are spewing illogical
garbage, useless, and bound for the special waste bin that is reserved
for irrational arguments that appeal only to emotion and cannot bear
scrutiny by a rational person. The use of the tactic of personal attack
is a sure sign that the speaker is incapable of forming a lucid
argument, and thus, must resort to such ad hominem attacks. Otherwise,
you would have nothing to say. You do not even come close to proving
this generalization wrong.

I still don't know what point you were trying (and failing so
miserably) to make with this holier-than-thou screed.

Is it that socialized health care is better than our capitalist
system? I will debate you this idea: I do not trust a Doctor that is
not allowed to set his own fee. You will lose such a debate, too.
(You will not even be capable of sticking to the issue. I know your
kind well.) I am very knowledgeable on this subject and plenty of
research exists to support me. Do you want to try? Are you so sure of
your position in support of socialized medicine? Do you remember
Britain's brain drain? Do you remember why it happened?

Is it that you want to prove your ignorance of the essence of free
speech by maligning the first amendment rights of others while using
those rights yourself? This is a common theme among those who wrongly
consider themselves intellectuals, and those, like you, from almighty
Europe, the folks we had to save in two different world wars who now
thumb their noses at us ugly Americans. When are you going to pay back
the debts you still owe us from the rebuilding of your nations twice;
the missiles that shielded you from aggression for decades that were
paid for by the American taxpayers; our liberty ships, our soldiers and
our weapons? Without us, the whole of Europe, including Britain, would
now be speaking German. And you damn well know it. We may have been
too generous in our zeal to spread freedom, a lesson we have probably
learned. Next time, maybe we'll let you lose. How does that strike
you? You sure as hell aren't thankful now for our sacrifices then.
Remember, we fought against the Nazis. You commit an atrocious,
vicious crime when you accuse us of being what we hate. Please leave
the USA now. We despise you and your sniveling, sanctimonious creed of
moral bankruptcy.

Is it that torture should never be used against anyone, even to save
innocent life? Are you saying that we should allow a helpless child to
die in order to protect the rights of a serial child killer? I think
any sane person would condone torture of a criminal sexual deviant to
save the life of an innocent little girl. I would certainly condone
torture if it could prevent the deaths of thousands. One worthless
life vs many productive ones is a pretty simple equation. Remember
that these sociopaths chose their course, and put themselves into the
situation. We aren't doing it because we enjoy it. We do it because
it is the only sane thing that can be done. Frankly, if there is someone
that enjoys inflicting pain and can do so without suffering further
psychological damage, I will hand them the tools.

Or, is it that you don't know what your point is and are just
regurgitating the garbage that you read yesterday in some third world
propaganda sheet? I too, read them, mostly because I need some humor
in my life. That's how I know whence this garbage originates. But I
don't repeat stupidity and label it knowledge.

Please try to improve your writing skills. And, please refrain from
comparing everyone with whom you disagree to Nazis. The first will make
you understandable. The second may mask your ignorance and
intellectual immaturity, or at least, camouflage it.

Pick one single point and stay with it. You aren't capable of more.
Twisting the issues of health care, terrorism, the UN and its corrupt
(oops, I meant charitable) UNICEF, talk radio, the first amendment, and
torture into a single, confused and confusing, rant shows only that an
undisciplined mind is capable of being heard, it does not show that
it's inane ramblings are worth hearing.

I hope you drive better than you write, since we both live in Florida.

(signed)

conhed

***************

Here is his oh so predictable reply:



Dave


PatrickLockyer@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/5/2007 12:49:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > You said (and these are direct quotes!):
> >
> > total brain snob....barf....
> >
> >
> >

******************
And here is mine:

Another ad hominem argument. I expected no less.

However, I will interpret it my way. Yes, I am smart. And arrogant.
Thank you for the compliments. I'm pleased that you noticed. I hadn't
expected that.

It is so sad that you ate something that disagreed so violently with
you. You have my sympathy. I bet you didn't expect that!

Respectfully.

(signed)

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

On taking my own advice to heart

Well, if you have read this blog, you know what my buttons are: corruption in public officials, people who can't write coherently, and in general, stupidity. I believe that stupidity is a choice that people make when they choose mental laziness over lifelong learning. It's OK to be ignorant, that can be changed, but stupidity is a self-fulfilling self-limitation.

I wrote some advice earlier for those who would post comments on blogs or news articles. Basically I plead for three things: coherence, creativity and cordiality. Of course there will always be those who are incapable of any original thought, and who believe that screaming the same inanities repeatedly somehow makes them a pundit. Sigh.

So, to make my bones, so to speak, I have entered a contest where one is a winner by the simple accomplishment of writing a novel in one month. Quality is not considered a factor. Wordcount is the only criterion. The name of this whacky contest is NaNoWriMo, or National Novel Writing Month at http://www.nanowrimo.org/

I am doing this in order to prove to myself that I have what it takes, but am prepared to finish my novel even if I can't win. By the way, everyone who finishes fifty thousand words in a month is a winner, so, the competition is with one's self, not with other entrants. This is a wonderful opportunity for any budding author to socialize and share the agony of creation with others who have no reason to sabotage one's efforts. In fact, there are a number of forums devoted to sharing the experience with fellow contestants.

I challenge you to try also, if it is too late this year, try next year, but try. My nic on nanowrimo is conhed. I'll be your buddy there if you ask.

Happy Musing!

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

Why do we have the FBI investigating Corruption in Palm Beach County?

The FBI has increased the number of agents involved in corruption investigations in Palm Beach Co. by 6 people. Why is this necessary? Is corruption so rampant that an entire FBI office is overwhelmed? They took the agents out of the Miami office, does this mean that there isn't as much graft in Miami/Dade Co?

The investigations are focusing on land deals. How novel! I bet even Herman Talmadge of Georgia, a well respected honest politician never foresaw that development. (An honest politician is one who, once bought, remains bought.) Hummin (gotta love that south Georgia accent) never met someone that couldn't pay or be bought. The money would go into one coat pocket and come out another. If you had extra, Hummin knew what to do with it. If you were short, he had something for you. He was well loved and respected throughout the state. The Talmadge family made millions on land deals by shrewd manipulation of interstate routing and land "speculation." Much of the family's speculative investments are now extremely valuable properties at interchanges throughout Georgia. This was no coincidence, for those of you who can't read between the lines here. In some cases, the interstate highways were rerouted by miles to make sure that certain holdings were of value. This story is well known and accepted to longtime Georgia residents. There were never any corruption probes. I guess it was because Hummin wasn't so selfish as to forget those who he owed.

But these selfish politicians in Palm Beach County apparently didn't learn that lesson, for they ARE being investigated. Here's hoping that the probe goes so deep as to embarrass the entire power structure of this pathetic fiefdom. Citizens of Palm Beach County have been taken by professional con men under cover of authority and guise of public service.

I've said it before and it bears repetition ad nauseum: The citizens that vote without doing their homework always vote themselves into trouble sooner or later. This can be seen at every level of government and in every branch of government. Just open your eyes. The citizens pay when public safety departments are successfully sued for brutality, when rogue prosecutors put votes before justice, when emergency dispatchers mishandle calls, when trust in government is found to be misplaced in any way. The Feds will come in and break up the party, and your federal taxes do battle with your county taxes in courts that are paid for by your state taxes.

And the taxpayers either don't understand that or they don't care. Fools.

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

I guess I may as well make this a blog about corruption and misconduct

I mean, there's just so much of it to write about. Just in south Florida, there's more than enough.

Nearly every day there is news of another official or policeman caught in wrongdoing. Since the common wisdom is that most crime is unreported and most misconduct is undetected, there must be a tidal wave of corruption in public office and in law enforcement.

People I know talk about their experiences with badged bullies, newspapers report about sheriffs and policemen convicted of felonies. Children die in state custody, and the existence of legal child abuse by the juvenile justice system is exposed, highlighted, then ignored by the courts. Students are tortured by campus police with tasers and politicians are beaten by cops acting under the direction of rival politicians.

Good cops won't talk about bad cops because they fear reprisals and being hung out to dry. Citizens wonder about who to trust when even cops don't trust the cops. Cops shoot each other and get off scot-free. Cops shoot citizens and get off scot-free. Cops shoot themselves and get medals (just kidding!) for valor.

The cops are being taught that anyone questioning their authority is a threat that must be dealt with. When cops do something stupid in public, all they have to do to cover up is arrest someone on obstruction charges. Never mind that there was no investigation to be obstructing. If you flip the finger at a cop who almost ran over you, you spend the night in jail after he assaults you and your wife and he isn't even counseled for reckless driving. If you drove like that, the same cop would write tickets like he was paid by the word.

If you are caught filming cops in a public setting while they are doing something questionable, they assault you and destroy your property.

The cops tell the citizens that it's a very difficult job and there's no way someone who isn't a cop will ever understand. Then they hire a twenty year old, who can't even legally enter a liquor store, give him a badge and a gun and within a few months he's a mass murderer of children. Damn, I thought this was a hard job, how is a kid supposed to do it? How is a twenty year old, who is legally not old enough to drink, able to BE a cop, while, I, in my fifties and pretty smart, am supposedly totally unable to understand what it means to be a cop?

I'm reasonable. I understand that sometimes things happen in an instant and life or death decisions have to be made without time to think. Sometimes a cell phone looks like a gun, I guess. I am willing to listen to both sides and see the evidence. I'll give the cop the benefit of the doubt, if he doesn't have a history of poor judgment, when there's no evidence of intent or negligence.

But there are episodes, some caught on tape, that clearly show policemen out of control, exceeding their authority, brutalizing and intimidating normal people who have done little or nothing wrong. Almost everyone I know has had contact with an officer whose professionalism was not up to standards. I know of a young man, highly educated (2 Master's degrees) who was arrested on charges of assault for tapping an officer on the shoulder to point out a crime in progress. The actual criminal got away with a purse snatching. Clean away. It seems the cop didn't really want the help of a citizen. That's only when they are stuck and need information from the public. Just don't try to get their attention by touching them.

Then there are the Rambos who shoot at harmless snakes and kill children. Nothing but ignorant negligence. Yes, they will stand trial. But aren't they supposed to have good training and judgment? Why should a child be dead and cops on trial for it? Because the cops are out of control with being in control. The mentality that is taught in law enforcement training is lacking common sense and responsibility.

In the post 9-11 frenzy, we lost more of our freedoms. Innocent people have died as a result of policemen fearing everything everyone does.

A schoolgirl was assaulted by a school policeman for the terrible crime of dropping food on the floor, with broken bones as her punishment. The assailant also used a racial slur. If I did the same thing I would be prosecuted for a hate crime. Instead the mother of the victim was also arrested after properly raising hell. She will need a good lawyer to get any justice. Her job is at stake.

We need to clone Johnny Cochran. There aren't enough good lawyers to go around. We also need people to speak up and make it clear that we don't forgive cops because they are above the law. We hold them to the highest standards of conduct according to the law. Recklessness, brutality, and criminal behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. The good cops, and I am sure there are plenty of them, need to be able to blow the whistle on the bad ones without fear of retribution. And when it is necessary, we have to file charges, try, convict and sentence the bad ones to the life behind bars that they deserve. There is no other way to get the message across that the police are the employees, and are accountable to their employers, the taxpayers.

Powered by ScribeFire.

RIP: Martin Lee Anderson

Here is a comment I posted to the Miami Herald after the 7 counselors and a nurse were found not guilty of any charges in the death of a child in their care:

***** Begin *****

I cannot believe that behavior that would (and recently HAS) put a parent in jail was ever legal if done by a state employee to an incarcerated child, that is, a child that cannot legally resist or run away to avoid it. I really don't care whether the "counselors" caused the death. This was child abuse if ever I saw it. I can maybe excuse brutality toward an adult in prison under certain circumstances, but there is no way anyone can ever convince me that institutionalized and proceduralized brutality against a child is either moral or legal.

We call them children because they have not matured. Juvenile justice is separate from adult justice because we don't want to reinforce criminal behavior in children by exposing them to hardened adult criminals who would carelessly brutalize and dominate them.

So we expose them to brutal, domineering, uncaring "counselors" instead? God, that is pathetic.

It is insane to believe that legalizing assault and battery on a child is in any way going to have a positive effect on that child. If those "counselors" believed they were helping those kids, then I have to conclude that the counselors are nothing but savages, whose actions were orchestrated and condoned by a sadistic control freak called DJJ.

I understand that the verdict was correct under the law, this makes the point that the law was insufficient or the charges were not the correct ones, not that those defendants did nothing wrong.

I do hope that everyone responsible for this tragedy and all those who supported the bootcamp idea can sleep at night, knowing that there was NO love shown to Martin Anderson in the last hours of consciousness of his too short life, not even tough love.

Just think, the last words he heard were in the nature of demands for more from his broken body. No one told him it was OK to rest now.

***** End *****

It is absolutely inconceivable to me that these people were so convinced that Anderson was malingering that they failed to recognize clear warning signals of medical distress and continued their abuse well past any point where it was warranted under any rational standard.

I regard this as yet another example of the culture of "Protect and Serve" becoming the culture of "Endanger and Dominate." This belief that officials can do no wrong is myopic and counter-productive. Some day it will be everyone's children that are routinely subjected to institutionalized abuse every day for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of the power of the government over the people.

Folks, our Constitution clearly says that we, the people, are the source of the power that our government wields on our behalf. When that power is misused and abused by the government, we, the people, are ultimately responsible. Every police brutality case, every needless death of an innocent is the direct result of our failure to exercise our personal responsibility to monitor and control our government.

Martin Anderson was a troubled child, no doubt. His parents are not going to win any awards, either. But, if being human and making mistakes is a death penalty crime, then we should all be in a boot camp, being treated abusively as he was, just waiting for the moment that we are pushed past our level of tolerance, to be further abused until death releases us from the torture.

In short, Martin Anderson was murdered by we, the people, by our malingering at the polls and our absorption with meaningless diversions. We are guilty of letting sadists and monsters beguile us with fairy tales of "success" where there exists only failure and guilt. Ours.

The sweet siren song that is indifference can easily be couched in the religious belief that evil manifests a physical existence here on earth. If you hear that call, tread carefully, for it could be your life that is next in jeopardy.

Corrosion of Conformity song 'White Noise':

When They Cracked The Whip, Nothing Was Said

When The Flames Burned, Nothing Was Said

When They Notched The Barrels, Nothing Was Said

When The Bays Opened, Nothing Was Said

When The Dogs Were Set Loose, Nothing Was Said

When The Colors Run Red, Nothing Was Said

When Innocents Cried In The Face Of The Guilty

No One Said Anything

This was likely influenced by Pastor Martin Niemöller, who wrote:

Original

Translation

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

The above quotes are from wikipedia: First they came...

conhed

I am shocked! Cop goes postal, kills 6 young people.

20 year old deputy kills 6 in jealous rage


Just damn. I would never have believed it. Someone saw fit to pin a badge on a 20 year old and issue him a weapon. He couldn't even purchase alcohol legally, at least not in my state, but is mature enough to make life or death decisions in a chaotic situation with no personal involvement?

Certainly he would never let his feelings interfere with his professionalism.

Not only did he do that, but he was not even required to undergo any kind of psychological testing prior to being sworn. Whoever hired him must be proud of their prowess at judging character. They surely placed their judgment above any kind of concern for the six young people in the morgue now that the young officer has used a gun to express his romantic frustrations. At least it wasn't (as far as I can tell) his official police weapon that killed those young victims.

There used to be a TV show called Doogie Howser, about a genius, who at a young age had completed med school and was a practicing doctor. The show never explained the lack of internship versus the young man's age. No need, since it was only fiction, and no real lives were at stake. I wouldn't have placed my critical care needs in his young hands without adult supervision, though. It takes time to gain wisdom.

The same thing applies here. I don't give a rotten rhyme scheme if the young officer had passed training. Training is not real life experience and will never substitute for the wisdom that comes from years of life.

I guess that, in hindsight, everyone will agree that he was too young.

But is that his fault? No.

The people that failed were the ones that hired and equipped him. And the apologists that want to tell us how hard a cop's job is. If the job is so damn hard, why let a kid do it? Or, how hard can it be if a kid can do it?

Doesn't anyone else see that this irresponsibility and resistance to accountability in the Law Enforcement community is systemic and ingrained? They are too much "in charge" to see how foolish their procedures and policies are in the face of people's lives. And they don't care. They will tell you that you don't know anything about it. Don't believe them. You know enough to see the truth. There's no "magic" in policing. Right and wrong aren't mystical concepts.

Every time something like this happens, there is someone who says that he/she couldn't see it coming. That's a cop-out (pun seriously intended) for people who don't want to accept responsibility for poor judgment. This time it's the city attorney, Lindsay Erickson. I bet she doesn't hire a six year old to mow her lawn, but if she did, and the six year old fell under the mower, would she say that she thought the child was mature enough to operate dangerous machinery? Or that she couldn't have foreseen the danger? She apparently thinks the ability to write "good reports" and be "true to his job" are adequate standards for an officer. Ms. Erickson, would you explain what the town's liability for this officer's actions might be if you allowed that he might have been too young? You are transparent, and your CYA attitude is just plain immoral.

Now understand, I'm not saying that Peterson did this under color of authority. I'm not even saying that it wouldn't have happened if he weren't a sheriff's deputy. I am saying that he should not have been a deputy. And that those who made the decisions that allowed him to become one made serious errors in judgment. I don't even want a twenty year old deputy who has passed psychological testing. Twenty years old is too young. Period.

I hope that those who made such awful decisions do NOT sleep well at night, for a LONG time. Maybe, just maybe, this will be a wake up call to the politicians and voters that changes are necessary.

My guess, though, is that they will continue in their jobs, accountability and common sense be damned. They will continue to make decisions based on bad judgment, and more people will die or be hurt as a result. And, ultimately, the voters will be held responsible. Ask the citizens of Durham, North Caroline.

I am really tired of all the death and inhumanity that is the result of the culture of "protect and serve." It's time to call it "endanger and dominate." That's closer to the reality of our police state. And it's just what the voters deserve.

Powered by ScribeFire.

More on writing, and getting read

More uninvited advice:

Learn something about the art and science of writing. Many good writers use a device of their own invention. A device is a kind of trademark style or the use of irony, sarcasm, wit, comedy or even a peculiar insight, often several of these combined, in a unique way. If you aren't terribly creative, it's OK to emulate an author whose work you respect, but be careful, plagiarism can get you into trouble. Use the style, not the substance.

Try to use words that are comfortable in speech. Since most people read at a 10th grade level or less, the use of argot or jargon will frequently leave the reader as clueless at the end as at the beginning. You are writing to make a point , aren't you? If you muddy the water, don't be surprised if no one drinks it.

It's OK to use precise words when precision is important, but avoid the trap of pedantry. No one is impressed with bombastic prose when single syllables will serve.

Learn the difference between active and passive voice and use them appropriately.

Try to anticipate "loaded" words and their effects. Also be aware that assumptions lead to ambiguity.


One really important thing to learn if you want to write well is how to read. Seriously! Get a newspaper and proofread a longer article for grammar and word usage. Then read it again and pick out the facts. Read it again and pick out the writer's opinions. Look at the structure of the article and then at the structure of each paragraph. Use different colored highlighter pens to mark the article up at each step.

Count how many words of more than three syllables the author uses.

Create an outline of the article and note facts and assertions.

Take the lessons learned from each article you analyze and apply them to your own writing. You will likely be surprised at the mistakes made by someone who is paid to write for a living, and being aware of their mistakes will help you avoid making the same ones.


Then take the new knowledge and write the article yourself, using the same facts, but draw your own conclusions. Try to emulate the author's style and structure, but make the article a product of your own perspective. Keep the reading level to the same (number of polysyllabic words) audience.

Now, just for fun, write the same article just as you would expect to see it written for a college professor of English. Use big words. Be pedantic.

Finally, try to write the same article for a 5th grader. Use easy words. Stay away from metaphor, analogy and irony.


Now compare and contrast the different versions. Be realistic about which you prefer and which is most comfortable to write and which is easiest to read.

No one ever said writing is easy. It requires thought and planning to succeed at informing and persuading your audience. If you practice, you will improve. That will increase your comfort level, making your writing more natural and understandable.

Good writing is just like talking to a friend, the only thing is that most people have a LOT more experience talking than writing.

Cheers,

conhed

Why I don't respect most people who comment on news stories

ludicrous - worthy of scorn
ludacris - name of a rap/hip-hop act, also worthy of scorn

I have seen no less than 12 different writers use the name of an unmemorable ghetto thug "musical" act to imply scorn for a viewpoint or action. This in the last week.

These people actually believe they have something to add to lofty discussion, but they can't even use a spell checker.

These offenders are not limited to people who comment on news stories or blogs, though. Many news reporters are incapable of discerning the different meanings of "affect" and "effect." This in the day of online dictionaries and thesauri!
Some people claiming to be teachers are functionally illiterate, unable to comprehend such simple concepts as subject-verb agreement and pluralized versus possessive. It really is no wonder that most of you don't know any better, since your teachers were also ignorant.

So, here are some recommendations for those who would pin their self-respect on their prose:

Please, if you must use a polysyllabic word, first read the definition. This implies that you can spell it correctly first in order to find it in the dictionary. Second, be aware that the effects of misusing a word include, but are not limited to, dismissal of your argument or position, derisive laughter, and teasing or sarcastic replies to your comment implying your ignorance. These comments are often correct. They are probably usually correct!

Use a spell checker and set it to check as you type. If you have a grammar checker, use it as well.

Learn how to divide your writing into paragraphs, where each paragraph introduces a point, supporting facts for that point and a conclusion. A paragraph should contain about three to five sentences. If you need more than seven, then break the paragraph up into pieces.

DO NOT USE CAPITALIZATION EXCLUSIVELY. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING. This will absolutely garner you no support, and is likely to get you put into the "ignore" filter. GUARANTEED! If you don't believe me, fine, my ignore filter probably already contains your handle.

Get and read and understand a list of commonly misused homonyms. Get a style guide and learn how to use a consistent style in your expository writing. Styles change over time, but consistency is more important than fashion.

Take the trouble to actually have something to add to the discussion. Simply repeating old arguments is the surest sign of immaturity and mental laziness. If you cannot add something, then you have nothing to say. Use your right to remain silent. Adding a shrill voice to the cacophony only raises the noise level, and most thinking people are completely unmoved by noise, except to act to tune it out and dismiss it.

If you MUST call a fool a fool, do so without resorting to obscenity and baseless name calling. Cite an example of the offending (i.e. non-factual) language. Explain why it is wrong. Give facts to support your position. Call them a fool and stop. Do not respond to further postings by that author. Put them in your "kill" file. ( This does not mean to take a hit out on them. It means to ignore them.) People will respect your restraint, if not your position.

If you feel the need for profanity, go ahead and use it, but wait a day before actually posting the comment. You will almost certainly find that the next day brings a new perspective. This can save you untold embarrassment. Only ignorant morons use profanity and slurs regularly in discussions. This is why fools are so easy to spot. It is much easier to bandy four letter words than to actually think.


There's a lot more, but I'm tired of ranting about people who can't wait to show their ignorance. I'll revisit this later.

Peace and prosperity,

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

I'm not the only one! (sorry, Melissa)

Air traveler choked to death in police custody at Phoenix airport after being handcuffed, detained

So you think I'm overreacting by accusing the USA of having become a Police State?

Read the above link. When I first read the story this op piece refers to, I thought that there must be more to it. After all, I used to own a pair of handcuffs, and have had my hands cuffed behind my back. There just ain't no way for you to strangle yourself with your hands cuffed behind your back, short of being a professional contortionist, or having both arms broken. One of the reasons that hands are cuffed behind the back is to prevent harm TO SELF or others. Just ask a cop.

Now, after having read the above article, I don't feel so alone in my initial discomfort with the official "explanation" given for this woman's death. A third party's involvement is a LOT more likely than what has been offered as an explanation. Especially since disturbing the peace is not likely to cause life changing punishment. The now DEAD woman had no reason to commit suicide, and I have very serious doubts that she would have been able to overcome the pain needed to dislocate her own joints in order to strangle herself.

Someone is lying, and the only ones talking are with the government goon squads. She can't talk. She is dead.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "Once you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." It is certain that the probability of someone (with authority) killing this woman is much higher than the probability that she killed herself. I think it is impossible for her to have done so.

It wouldn't be the first time that color of authority was used to commit murder, or to escape responsibility for it. But it would be the first recorded example of suicide by handcuff that I've seen.

Update 10/05/2007 00:30

News reports indicate that a private investigator hired by the deceased woman's family has disclosed that there were multiple bruises on her body, some of which showed patterns consistent with the chains on her restraints. He did not expound on the specific locations of the bruises. Some of the bruises were not consistent with the chains, but may have been caused during her arrest. No report of possible sexual abuse. Determination of cause of death is awaiting toxicology tests.

I still want to know how she managed to asphyxiate herself, given that the ability to maintain a choke hold would not persist after unconsciousness.

The original report and subsequent report say that she was "shackled" to a bench. I don't understand how someone can maneuver their hands from behind their back to the front and then strangle themselves while shackled to a bench! Even just handcuffs behind the back are difficult to move to the front, but to do so while chained to a bench is unbelievable.

There has to be more to this.

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

More abuse of power - And you still think it won't happen to you.

60 year old woman arrested, strip searched for questioning powerline surveyors

She wants to talk to surveyors about power lines set to cross her property and gets arrested for disorderly conduct. A deputy says she made threats.

What? Did she threaten to get a lawyer to preserve her property rights? A 60 year old woman is going to make physical threats against a group of men?

She's lucky she wasn't tasered to death, I guess.

This deputy needs a talking to, preferably by his boss, in no uncertain terms.

People DO have a right to question authority and petition the government for redress of grievances. Saying you are considering taking action to preserve your rights must not be allowed to be construed as a threat. I don't know what she said, but it sure looks like more police state shenanigans, doesn't it?

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

People and Positions -Politics!

No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.

Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)

Corollary- Sometimes, you take a position on an issue that you know will be consistent with the position of people you don't generally respect.

Such is my position on Police Brutality. It seems that most people who express condemnation of the impending police state are "liberals" or "progressives." I get this impression from reading commentary on news stories and blogs.

So, how does that make the Conservative Hedonist feel? Pretty good, actually. It means that my beliefs in personal freedom are shared by them, if not my beliefs about personal responsibility for one's actions. No doubt there are times when I view those to the left of me with disdain. This is usually because they are saying stupid things or engaging in ad hominem arguments that serve no constructive purpose.

It does not mean that they are bad people, only that I find some of their ideas repugnant and childish. I dismiss them, but I do not disrespect them, neither do I disrespect a child with imperfect understanding. There is always a chance to grow and learn more. I, too, began as an idealistic young person, but I grew up to understand the need for rational debate and gained the willingness to listen and learn.

I have no interest in power over other people. It's hard enough to run my own life. I only want to be able to pursue my own interests without interference from those who believe they have the moral right to "correct" my behavior, behavior that is completely non-threatening to them, but does not conform to their view of the world.

The powers-that-be now seek to use the police to force conformance with "moral" codes that are not supported by the Constitution or the lawful statutes; that are, in fact, contrary to the law and the Constitution. This is not a problem of Republicans or Democrats, it is a problem with power hungry politicians who know that their power rests upon their control of the citizenry.

If someone sees this as a left wing view, or being against Republicans, then they are completely missing the point. There will be no such thing as political division when the police state is complete. Whoever becomes the leader will set the views for everyone. Anyone who disagrees will disappear. Read history and look at any tyranny. Dissent is squelched by the POLICE.

It requires only two things for this police state to become real - that power may be used without fear by the police, and that a division exists that places the police at odds with the citizens. Giving the police the ability to intimidate and torture people insures that the second condition becomes true. Making sure that they are not punished for those tactics serves as feedback into a vicious circle of increasing violence against the police and even more violent police actions to suppress the violence.

Once the police are sure that they are the only good guys and that all citizens are criminals, the deed is done. Fait accompli. Freedom has been destroyed. Of course some citizens will resent being labeled as criminal, but their resentment will only last until they are "caught" and "corrected." People who continue to believe that they have rights will disappear as soon as they try to exercise those rights.

This is not to say that the police are bad people either. They are getting paid to do a job according to the law. Most of them do an excellent job considering that the people who write the laws, continually and with malice aforethought, design those laws to ensure the rift between the police and those they are sworn to "serve and protect." One cannot blame the police for being told to use illegal force to protect themselves while enforcing laws that are unconstitutional. They are victims, too. Ones that should know better, nonetheless.

This isn't about being a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican, atheist or Christian. It is about having the choice, or not having the choice. It is about right or wrong. You choose. Freedom or slavery.

But choose soon. Or lose the opportunity.

Remember that power hungry people can make your family starve, take your children away, rape your wife or husband, manipulate your financial well-being, and make you beg to lick their hand for a stale slice of bread while thanking them for letting you live another day.

As for me, when that day comes (not IF!), suicide by police won't even be a problem. They will be more than happy to accommodate. It will be their job. And they will be good at it. Then they will go home to their families, happy and safe. But not free. And that will be their fault.

And ours.

conhed

A change of tone

I have written about much that is wrong in the world and our nation. Probably not as much as many other bloggers, but it's time to write about some things that are good and right, at least for me.

Good things abound. Most of my life was pretty darned good. I had a few loving relationships, there were some that I called friends over the years, and I still have friends that I had loving relationships with for a while. I've met some good and decent human beings of all colors, faiths and gender.

While there are those I disagree with, I count very few on a list of those I would wish harm upon, and I don't know any of them personally. Those that I would wish harm upon are already incarcerated for the same reasons I would wish them harm. They are lucky to be in jail, I guess. I wouldn't want to be one of my enemies.

There are some I despise for their apathy or stupidity. Luckily, they are not aware of my despite, mostly because they don't have any inclination or ability to actually get involved in any cerebral activity like reading or writing. They don't consider themselves deep thinkers (rightly so, amazingly!), so even if they were to read me, they wouldn't realize that it is them I am talking about. I count that as a blessing.

So what is good?

A smile from a stranger.

A kind word or deed, unanticipated and unexpected, sometimes undeserved.

Children asking questions, trying hard to grow up.

People doing the right thing for the right reason.

Honesty and integrity in public officials (Yes, it does exist!)

Police officers who are dedicated and underpaid, who have been smeared by the actions of a bad few, putting their lives on the line for people who don't appreciate them (Yes there are good cops, most of them are, but they need to be vigilant and protect themselves by NOT protecting the bad ones) or understand the difficulties inherent in being entrusted with the use of force.

Music that doesn't condemn people or condone violence (Beach Boys, The Beatles, Bach, Beethoven, you get the idea) or preach a political sermon. If I want politics, I'll talk to a politician.

Movies that entertain without embarrassing parents when their children watch.

Consenting adults engaged in whatever it is that they consent to. There's no need for me to pass judgment if they both (all) agree, as long as that activity doesn't hurt someone else and doesn't involve children. (I'm not interested in your moral judgment of them, either, and shame on you for thinking that you are that important to me.)

Freedom.

Kittens and puppies.

Butterflies.

Daisies.

Roses.

Whales.

Mountains and beaches.

A sweet, kind, grown woman; a bottle of wine; and moonlight on a beach.

Having the self confidence to bare soul and body to strangers without shame.

Having the knowledge and wisdom to not regret having done something stupid, and to not repeat it. And using it to learn and teach.

The ability to recognize an error you made, apologize, move forward and make amends if needed.

The ability to be graceful and humble when proven correct. You might be wrong the next time.

Agreeing to disagree when there is no way to come to an agreement. Someone will be proven correct in the course of time. Patience will be your friend more than shrilly repeating your position, and people will respect your restraint even when they disagree with you.

Someone who lets you, with your two items, jump ahead of them, and their cartload, at the checkout. Manners and courtesy grease this sand clogged machine called society.

The ability to recognize rude behavior and return the favor. It is invigorating to watch someone with wit demolish a rude person. It is also quite appropriate to tell someone to go to hell if they abuse your good nature, but be careful not to abuse other people's good nature in doing so.

Art and architecture that are original and actually evoke an emotional response in the viewer, to the viewers benefit. Most of what passes as art is junk, meaningless, ordinary or just plain ugly.

Candy, cake, pie, ice cream and toothache-inducing sweet iced tea.

Computers, blogs and well reasoned and written commentary.



What are your favorite good things?

conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Florida based US prosecutor arrested.

This guy, John David Roy Atchison, an assistant US attorney, allegedly flew 2000 miles with a rape kit to have sex with a five year old girl. A sting operation allegedly enticed him.

Some people commenting on the news stories are screaming entrapment, that there wasn't even a real little girl, or that he could have changed his mind before the actual rape.

Let me see if I understand this - he packed a rape kit, boarded an airplane, and flew 2000 miles just to change his mind?

Isn't it a crime to travel interstate for the purpose of committing a felony?

Isn't conspiring to commit a crime also a crime?

If there was no conspiracy, why did he get on the airplane? ESP?

Next, isn't someone with enough education to be a US Attorney smart enough to know better than to commit federal crimes accidentally?

The news reports contained excerpts of the chat room conversations where he said he had done this before, in order to assure the phony mother that "no harm" would come to the child. The actual quotes:

"I'm always gentle and loving; not to worry; no damage ever; no rough stuff ever ever,"

"I've done it plenty,"

This guy was active in many child oriented activities. He has children of his own. And, as usual, those who know him say stupid things about how they thought he was an upstanding citizen, and they can't believe it's true. One even said that there must be an explanation for Atchison's actions, but he wasn't sure what it might be. How about this one: "Atchison is a pedophile"? It fits the facts.

His family will suffer greatly. I wonder how many innocent children he has already abused, if any, and I bet I'm not the only one wondering. Surely his wife has horrifying thoughts about her children and her husband. Poor woman. I can understand it, because I have felt the pain of having a pedophile father, who never molested his own children, just other people's. His brothers were my abusers. I suppose they left their own children alone, too. I suppose, too, that I might be somewhat biased about this subject.

Some comments were aimed at the likelihood of Atchison becoming Bubba's girlyboy in prison. Sorry, won't happen. Because of his status as a prosecutor, he will never be put in general population. Heck, he just might get off with a slap on the wrist.

After all, he's just another in a long, long list of people with power who chose to do something against the law, knowing that their position would protect them from what the rest of us would suffer had we done the same thing. Perhaps we should start agitating for NO SEGREGATION for police and other government officials who are convicted. It would be more incentive for them to act within the law, don't you think? I mean, if it's cruel and unusual for them to be exposed to "real" criminals, what about you and me?

Are you ready to concede that there are double standards for the haves and the have-nots? Why would you support this? The only possible reason for someone to do so would be because they are a have, and are confident that the system will protect them in their indiscretions.

I'm running out of ways to express my contempt for those who abuse children, power and authority. And for those who are too apathetic or stupid to stand up and demand justice for all.

But, I shall struggle on, wearied and worn, trying to get across the point that we are all responsible morally for the actions of those that exercise power, when the exercise of that power is unreasonably harmful to one or many. It is our duty to correct these errors and to punish those who abuse our trust. It is the right thing to do.

conhed

Another one for the files on government abuse of power

It appears that the availability of a microphone to the public for the purpose of asking questions of a candidate is subject to whether or not those questions "disturb the peace." This is so contrary to the idea of a free and open political debate as to beg the question "Do we already live in a police state?"

The firebrands among our founding fathers must be turning about 4500 rpm in their graves. Our country was founded on the principles of free political speech and the writers of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights would be shamed to see the video of Andrew Meyer being subjected to police interference with his right to speak at a public forum.

The young man was informed of a time limit on his use of the microphone and the mic was turned off when he exceeded the time limit. Fine. He should have sat down and allowed things to continue and let people make up their own minds about what transpired.

But the government, represented by those who are sworn to serve and protect, decided that a little physical pain was called for by his actions. After the young man was subdued, these armed and badged animals decided to use a taser on him, and according to the video, he was not struggling or resisting at that time. It was clearly an attempt to inflict punishment for his actions, not an attempt to gain control of a suspect. This is a violation of due process, outside the use of force guidelines, and an absolutely obvious attempt at intimidation of those who would speak freely.

I wonder if our great nation would ever have been founded if, for example, Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, two very eloquent and passionate speakers, if we can judge by their words as recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and in other documents, had been subjected to this same standard. I doubt it.


While John Kerry is not a candidate that I support, he was trying to answer the questions, and had the police not decided that they were better equipped to deal with political debate than Mr, Kerry, an accomplished politician, I believe it likely that Mr. Kerry would have been able to handle the situation without violence. This is what should have happened. Mr Kerry expressed much the same opinion himself after learning of the arrest and tasering of Mr. Meyer.

Instead, we now have the specter of the police managing political debate according to their ideas of what is appropriate behavior in a public forum, not specific actions or threats, but which questions can be asked, and how long one can speak. You can be arrested and charged with a crime for participating in political activity at a political event! You don't have to make a threat or cause harm, you just have to refuse to be quiet! At an event designated as a question and answer forum! God save us. The police want you to know that your safety depends on you being a good little citizen and not opening your mouth after they tell you to be quiet. Never mind the Bill of Rights, or our history as a nation founded on civil disobedience. Of course the young man was disruptive, that is the heritage of our country. (Just ask King George III.) He has every right to prove himself a fool, and he did a pretty good job of it. But being foolish is not a crime, and it shouldn't be. And it sure as hell isn't something that gives the police the right to administer electric shocks in order to stop him.

In part of the video, after he was under arrest, a female officer can be heard telling him he was under arrest for "inciting to riot."

WHAT!!!!!!

I would dearly love to hear her rationale for that statement. That is absurd. If he was inciting a riot, isn't she insulting the intelligence of every person present by assuming that he was able to persuade them to act as a mob? Now, this isn't about an action he took, it is about the content of his statements, for only the content can "incite a riot." But isn't content that is not libelous or dangerous protected by the constitution? What was dangerous about his questions?

This frightens me. It should frighten you. Say goodbye to our freedom. It is now time for the police to run things. And they have badges and guns and tasers, and the ability to use them indiscriminately, and you have no right to expect to be secure in your person and possessions when you choose to be heard in the political arena.

Damn, people, wake up. It is the fate of your children we are talking about.

Epitaph - King Crimson:

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow Ill be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow Ill be crying.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow Ill be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow Ill be crying.


conhed

Powered by ScribeFire.

Outcomes

Nifong is disbarred, fired and jailed for one day. Not enough. He should have everything he owns taken away and given to his victims. Leave his family destitute. Make it hurt. This is the only way to discourage this type of behavior by arrogant public officials. Knowing the likely outcome if they are caught is to have their family suffer as much as them will keep them honest.

Durham, North Carolina is likely to be slapped with a huge liability judgment for the actions of Nifong, the police department, and the city government. The citizens will pay. They need to learn that the vote comes with responsibility. That responsibility is to choose with care who runs things. Their actions will cost you money if you do not.

Ken Jenne is no longer Sheriff in Broward County, Florida. He is to plead guilty to mail fraud and tax evasion charges, in order to avoid more serious charges (money laundering). He, too, needs to have the punishment hurt till he screams. Does anyone think that he was able to faithfully perform the duties of the office of sheriff and protect the citizens WHILE BEING A CRIMINAL HIMSELF? He is known to have associated with known felons, which is a crime for a sworn police officer. How can he possibly explain this? Does it make you feel safe thinking that a sheriff is a crook? He is a long time mover and shaker in Florida politics - who of his many political contacts are also dirty? How many times was justice perverted by those who had something on Jenne? His crimes were not committed without other people being involved, and anyone involved would have had a strong blackmail ability over Jenne. Think about it.

I know that there are more examples of this type of behavior on the part of government officials, employees and elected public servants, but the point is simple. We MUST take back the power that has been usurped by those who claim to act in the public interest.

Your country, family and life are at stake. It may already be too late.

Power, and the abuse of it.

Okay folks, wake up.

You may be complacent with the state of affairs when it comes to crime. If so, you are helping cause the abuses of power that are happening with alarming frequency. Police brutality, eminent domain, families torn apart by idiotic government workers who are charged with PROTECTING them, and many others exist because of your apathy. All of these situations are caused by the poorly chosen and poorly executed powers that you have ceded to the government in the hopes of finding security. There is no security when the police crash through your door and kill you for trying to protect your home, all because a search warrant was granted based on bad information given by an informant who is high on drugs. It has happened. It can happen to you.

Don't take my word for it. Use the search facilities of the internet to read about these issues. You will be frightened at the sheer number of times innocent people have been harmed or killed for no legal reason - by people who are supposed to follow the law. YOU REALLY WILL!

Don't say you didn't know, when it happens to you or your loved ones. The information is there in black and white. Ask the Duke lacrosse players, Amadou Diallo, Abbate's 110 lb female victim or even some officers who have been victimized by bad cops. Ask Elian Gonzalez and all the children that CANNOT BE FOUND in Florida's child "protective" system. Ask homeowners who have been stripped of their family homes for "development" - just a way to increase tax revenues. Ask people who have seen a fifty dollar tax bill become hundreds then thousands of dollars, because the IRS didn't have their address correct. Ask people who have lost their property because of the tax burden on land that was once undesirable, but became useful due to encroachment of suburbs, and the taxes on this unused land became onerous.

You say, these people were unlucky, this doesn't happen very often. WRONG. It happens a lot. It can and will happen to you and people you know. It probably already has, but you don't recognize it for what it is, abuse of power by the government, because you don't love freedom as much as you love security. It is sad that so many of you just want to work, drink beer and watch your football games - and you pay no attention to what the politicians are doing to you - and you don't care, as long as it doesn't take away the beer or the football.

It is stunning that Michael Vick is a bigger story than the process of choosing our next president. I bet most of you can't even name 6 of the candidates for that office. I am dead certain that most of you can't name more than 4 of the parties that will have candidates - and there are more than four. You probably think that health care is a big issue, but you can't name three countries that have a well run system and explain why they work. You don't even know the names of your representatives - and you think they work for you. Stupid. And ignorant. You are giving away the most precious of our rights and freedoms because you are lazy. Not physically lazy - mentally lazy. It's too much trouble, it's too confusing, it takes too much time - I hear all of these excuses and it makes me sick. You wimps, you lazy insufferable idiots.

This is why I have no children. I can't trust my fellow citizens to make intelligent choices about things that will affect them for the duration of their own lives, much less protect my offspring. Instead, the arguments are Bud vs. Miller, Cowboys or Vikings. How pathetic.

Go ahead and laugh at me. Go ahead and call me a kook. Just don't let me hear you say you didn't know, when it happens to you. I will laugh at you and call you a kook, and I will be right.

Power, Government and Religion

Ok, I've thought a little more about it and I want to state unequivocally that my desires are for private enterprise to come up with approaches and solutions to our problems, one of which is the never ending struggle by our government and institutionalized religion to take and hold power over us.

Many people moan about pork barrel projects funded by tax dollars, but this is only the face of the beast. The problem is in the assumption that Uncle $am has ANY right to spend money on anything other than protecting the rights of individuals, the citizens from whom the power is derived. All other uses of tax money constitute nothing but the exercise of the power that has been stolen from those individuals. Sooner or later it will no longer be just an exercise.

When you have entrenched propaganda machines like public schools teaching young people that government knows best, it is very hard to make them understand the real principles of self-reliance and freedom from coercion. It's easier to let the government make decisions, even though the government demonstrably does nothing well.

If you stop to think you will realize that the wars on drugs, terrorism, poverty, discrimination and ad nauseum all have one thing in common - some group has to give up some rights in order for some perceived injustice to be corrected by our benevolent, protective, well meaning but power hungry government. This will only stop when all have given up all rights.

If you don't like people using drugs recreationally, don't associate with those people. If you don't know who they are, in other words, if you cannot tell who is or is not using, why do you care? If it is so bad that they hurt others, then their violations of other people's rights will give society the right to deal with it in the legal system, which exists to preserve individual rights and to punish those who violate them. Some worthless movie stars snorting cocaine are likely only dangerous to themselves. Let them self destruct. This will improve society.

The same goes for poverty, if you don't like it, create a job for someone that doesn't have one. Or teach people how to improve themselves. Otherwise, shut up. I don't care that you feel their pain.

For terrorism, simply stop interfering with the freedom of people to choose their own way of life. If they choose to live in slavery under despots, that is their business. If they choose to change, it is their responsibility to effect that change. You cannot force freedom on anyone. They have to want it.

Perceived discrimination is the biggest joke of all time. Do you spend all of your time worrying about what other people think about you and how they treat you? Perhaps you need a change of attitude in order to change what they think, instead of telling them that they must accept you because, or in spite of your color, religion, orientation or whatever. There are ALWAYS going to be people who don't like you. Get over it. The best revenge is living well. Put your efforts to that instead of trying to make everyone see what a wonderful person you are. We really don't think about you at all.

Do this so that the government doesn't have the reason to continue to erode our freedom.

A great way to live well is to open your mind and look for the facts. Quit the wishful thinking and figure out what is real and factual, then act on it. If you choose to believe something on faith, that's OK, just be prepared to accept that others are not going to accept your word on it. They will want facts, and faith isn't based on facts. Don't try to argue ethical arguments based on faith. Ethics can only be based in reality, the reality is that the sum total of improvements made by individuals in self interest, is the state of society. When individuals do not improve themselves, society is doomed. Religion is never an improvement on the state of society, only a way for those professing humility to exercise power over those who choose to believe their brand of mysticism. To put it another way, religion has always been used to present people with a moral dilemma, to act according to their nature and be damned, or to act against their nature and be "saved." It is the nature of man to be human, but religion would have you believe that this is evil, and that their particular code of behavior is the only way to be acceptable to your fellow man and to God. I say that God didn't make every animal except man to act according to its nature, leaving man in an impossible situation. It is very powerful to tell a child that a certain behavior will result in their everlasting damnation. It is a great evil to tell them that pleasure or rational self interest will do so. Yet religion often does.

No matter your place in the grand scheme of things, your characteristics, or personality, you can be a force for positive change. All you have to do is quit whining, stop the self destructive worrying about what others think, and start living your own life and taking responsibility for your own happiness. Don't try to please me, or worry what I think. I'm not signing your paycheck, and I'm not condemning you. I just don't care. My life is full enough without all that.

I'm just doing my tiny bit to improve things for all of you. The least you can do is get out of the way.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I Meta Meta

No, it isn't a fraternity or sorority.

It is a level of abstraction, a way of putting a description of information into the information, or on top of it. In other words, information about information. You can think of meta data as the column headings in a spreadsheet or a corporate financial statement. In that case, the meta data labels the data in the column below the label.

For a time sequenced group of spreadsheets or financial statements, there is also the date, which in a sense is meta-meta data, data about the group of spreadsheets or statements.

OK, I know we all understand what it is and how it works, and those who write html code, xml, css and other data descriptive things use it all the time. An html tag is meta data.

So is a card catalog in the library, or a building code.

Describing data is important in cosmological and philosophical senses as well. I touched on this in a previous blog, but it's important to say it again: In any closed system, there is not enough space to describe that system. Self reference or recursion is well known to computer geeks like me to require careful management to avoid running out of resources due to circular references, or too deeply nesting the recursion.

If we were able to use every atom in the universe as a storage medium, there wouldn't be enough of them to describe the system we had built, much less describe the universe. In other words, there are simply some things we can NEVER know.

One easily seen example of this is weather modeling. The most powerful computers ever built can't reliably model our planet's weather pattern for any extended period. There are too many variables, and some are linked in poorly understood ways with others. We have to build models that are incomplete because we don't yet understand all the interactions, but if we understood all the interactions, we wouldn't have a model, we would have a weather system. A perfect description is the object described. I have read fantasy fiction where knowing something's true name gave you power over it, and it's the same for objects. The only way to perfectly describe something is to point at the thing you are describing.

So maybe instead of trying to pile descriptions on top of descriptions of data, maybe we need to use the idea of "de-metaing" the data, or reducing the amount of data required to describe something as well as minimizing what is needed to tell us what the data means. Sort of a .zip or .arc compression. A function in mathematics can describe a complex set of relationships, so we only need the function and the ability to analyze it to understand all those relationships. We don't have to store all the data about them because the function does that for us.

It's time to start looking for ways to normalize all the data that we have generated. A primary record and a secure, guaranteed backup is all that is needed for any single piece of data. Repetition is wasteful when the storage resources are finite. Of course, this only applies to factual data. This will leave more room for the infinite ways in which we can use these facts for discourse and theory.

An example: Google "GNP 2000". There are more than two million hits. Most of the information is redundant, and that's only the copies on the world wide web. There are plenty of hardcopy references that may not even be listed once. Sure, many of those hits are analyses (and some are irrelevant) but the same basic information exists in each analysis. It's nice to have a book in your hands, but at some point in our future, that is going to be a huge waste of resources. Books don't have a very high information density compared to solid state (computer) memory, which is itself wasteful of resources when compared to technologies that store data on molecules, atoms or even photons.

Also, there is the issue of errors. Today, an correcting an error in data that is used in many different analyses takes a certain amount of time to propagate. During the propagation period, there exists a decreasing number (with respect to time) of references to the invalid data, which in turn may be cited and used in decision making. Those decisions are then necessarily flawed, and may cause damage to the very system being analyzed when implemented.

Of course, certain data are proprietary, as are many of the algorithms used for analysis. If a stockbroker uses incomplete or erroneous data, or demonstrably flawed analysis, to make recommendations for buy/sell/hold decisions, that can affect many investors. It is very important that corrections are made in the shortest possible time, and those recommendations should change in as close to real time as possible. This benefits the broker as well as investors. This is still an argument for a new approach to information storage, the difference being only in the possession of the data, not it's structure or usage.

Once we have perfected the science of storing facts, then we approach the thornier issue of what to do about all of the crazy people saying insane things just to hear themselves talking. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Latent Lunatic

Lies lucidly, leaving little, losing less, laughing both with and at the ones who think themselves the guardians of truth, for only he holds the keys to unlimited imagination. Limits are for fools who believe that the narrowness of their minds is a shield against that which is unknown, but the truly unlimited mind needs no shield, for it is the source of those unknowns, the fount of terrors, the realization of the reality of fantasy.

Who can say that the perception of the unexpected is false? Is there one who has never observed something that no one else saw? Who is right, the viewer or the denier?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" which is, of course, just a restatement of Occam's Razor with a bit of a twist.

Those who have read earlier posts will recognize my theme here. There are plenty of adages and fables regarding truth and the impossibility of certainty when it comes to belief. What is a fact, and what is merely wishful thinking? History is full of examples of "facts" which were "disproved" later by science. The scare quotes are intended to demonstrate that these never were facts to be disproved, merely wishful thinking or maybe political correctness that needed debunking. There was never anything to prove, one way or the other. They were merely convenient beliefs, existing because someone, or some group, gained something by espousing them as truth. See religion, all brands and all times: and practically every 'ism that you can find.

No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.

Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)

How true. How about this: No matter what the argument, or your side in it, there are always unpleasant implications of your position.

Is that true? Is it possible to have a belief or opinion, where the facts are incomplete, that doesn't have a negative component?

Facts are facts. They have no agenda and don't discriminate. They simply ARE, stark and unchanging regardless of what we might believe or wish.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have opinions, only that we must recognize the difference between hope and fact. And that having an opinion contrary to fact is a sure sign of lunacy.

Is that a fact?

Centric

Egocentric. Ethnocentric. Theocentric. Culturecentric.

All are based on being centered (or based) on a specific place from which to view things. Even thinking outside the box centers on the box. Being outside implies somewhere on the inside as a reference point.

One can have a 360 degree view from anyplace, but the universe isn't a circle. It's more like a globe. Having that 360 degree view only means that you can see everything on the equator, but nothing north or south. Or maybe a circle containing two points on the equator and both poles. Either way it's a two dimensional view of a three dimensional object. What's worse, it's only the surface being examined, anything not on the surface is outside our scope. And it's true that even the concepts of equator, poles and surfaces have some centricity.

Things get really complicated when time becomes involved, because the surface and the things not on the surface keep interacting, but we can't see anything but the minuscule slice where our viewpoint intersects the surface, causes and effects not on that intersection seem to be magic or perhaps divine. What we think of as the surface is really a frothing fluid that won't keep still long enough to be analyzed.


It's kind of like the dark matter in the universe. We can't explain how the universe works without allowing that there are some things we just can't see or measure. But we keep on theorizing about how it works, using the idea of something we can't see but must be there to balance the equations.

We know that, mathematically, a closed system cannot contain enough information to describe itself. Yet we manage to design computers that do a marvelous job of manipulating more information than any single human could possibly comprehend in a lifetime, and do it in a way that allows said human to both understand and use that information to the benefit of all. And it all happens in much less than a human lifetime. And when there's a problem with the computer it can often tell us that something is wrong with it, what it is, who to call, what part to bring, and how long it will take to fix it.

We even have holograms, 3D representations of solid objects, that can be viewed from any perspective, and in perspective.
My point is that it isn't the object, it's the viewer. As humans, we seem to be limited to a single reference point at any given moment, and we need to learn to be less dimensionally limited.

We need to learn how to see things from all possible points at the same time. Or maybe to see all possible times from the same point.

Some good words to think about: grok, karma, parallelization, synchronicity, interconnectedness, synergy, normalization

Powered by ScribeFire.

Blogs and Comments and Opinions, Oh my!

I spend a lot of time seeking out and reading provocative blogs. Sometimes, rarely, I actually post a comment, when I feel like I might enjoy stirring the pot a little. It's fun watching people make fools of themselves, but most of the time I keep in mind the adage "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and dispel all doubt."

It seems that there are a lot of folks dispelling that doubt. No doubt I, too, dispel it more than I like. Certainly there are many hot button issues that have a lot of folks saying the same old things over and over again, but never adding clarity or new data. Repeating the same old arguments to the same old enemies, whose minds are just as closed as they always were, is the same old waste of time, but a lot of it is happening in a lot of places, with the same old results. None.

I think that Robert Heinlein had it right when he said something to the effect that we all know one horse is faster than another, but which one? Who's right?

He also said that "Sure, the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town, and you can't win if you don't play."

Of course, there's no rule that says you can't make up your own rules, only a rule that you can't force others to play by your rules. It takes a salesman or a diplomat to make that happen. Or a government with it's monopoly on force.

The same is true about opinions. Anyone can have any opinion or none on any given subject, and within laws or dictates applicable to them, express it, but the market of ideas is free to choose from all available opinions, and over the course of time, the market will choose the one that fits best. It might not be a solution, but it will prevail until a better fit is found for whatever the issue might be. Or until the issue is dead. A bad approach to a problem will be exposed for it's lack of sense.

I guess what annoys me most is the insistence of some commentators on repeating arguments that have already been made several times, often in nearly the same words. Do these people even read the prior comments before they repeat the (insert label, orientation, religion, etc) standard text? Don't they understand that only idiots become convinced by repetition? The rest of us just ignore the redundancy. Their name/handle is filed away under "pay no attention to this moron."

I believe that some people type just to see the words on the screen/web page/blog, not because they actually have anything to add to a discussion. "Forty seven of us think that 2yhdfg55 is an idiot, but 29 of us contend that he is a genius" is an astoundingly meaningless assertion, but one sees this kind of statement start a conflagration that boggles the mind for it's insane animosity and the sheer volume of commentary.

This is nothing compared to what happens when someone says something truly creative.

Certainly there are some people who have the knowledge, poise and wisdom to add clarity, fact and passion to any discussion, but they are being drowned out by fools, busy dispelling doubt; unarmed contestants in a war of wits.

Wouldn't it be better if all the bloggers could just set up polls for the merely opinionated, and leave the comments to those with fresh ideas?

Ain't the internet great? At least I have a lot of reading material. Even us blind pigs do find acorns sometimes.

And that's MY opinion.

Powered by ScribeFire.

And still we wait... for ???

Broward County in south Florida has a Sheriff named Ken Jenne. He is under federal investigation, basically for dishonesty (misuse of funds or something of that nature, it doesn't really matter why) and I hear some official quoted as saying that this investigation is about him personally, not as sheriff.

Excuse me, but isn't he the Sheriff 24/7? If he is dishonest, doesn't that absolutely reflect on the office of sheriff, no matter what the crime? How can some moron believe that a sheriff be dishonest personally, but not as sheriff? There are plenty of indications that this sheriff has been less than forthright in the execution of his office. Don't take my word for it, Google the name and the office - "sheriff broward county jenne" and read about this "public servant."

Public menace is more like it.

Character doesn't get turned on and off at the Sheriff's office door. If this guy is guilty of poor judgment then he should be removed for incompetence. It's too bad that it is so hard to remove elected officials, especially a powerful sheriff, when dishonesty is evident. If he is guilty of any crime of moral turpitude then he should be locked up, best alongside those he and his cronies likely framed.

Manipulating crime statistics, associating with (and VOUCHING FOR) known felons, and financial shenanigans are not the desired traits for a county's highest ranking law enforcement official.

We need characters WITH character in public office, not crooks.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Religion, Rights, Abortion, Capital Punishment

I think it is sadly funny how so many people confuse their beliefs with the purpose of the law. The law exists for only one reason: to protect the individual from crime by other individuals, groups or government.

Many people regard legal abortion and/or capital punishment as state sanctioned murder. This viewpoint can be supported by religious or non-religious moral beliefs. So, here is the problem: Some people do not share those religious or moral beliefs.

So, given the Constitution, How do we resolve this? Everyone has the same rights, and no one can force another to accept a moral code. There is an old maxim that the best government is the least government. A corollary would be that the best law is the simplest that proscribes the intended behavior without resorting to exceptions and loopholes.

There are people that say abortion is wrong except in the cases of rape or incest. There are also people that say that certain capital crimes should be exempt from the death penalty.

Let me be blunt. If something is wrong in any case, it is wrong in all cases. If there exists a situation where the act is not wrong then it can never be considered wrong. We all have the same rights and duties. One person cannot commit an act that is considered a crime unless all persons committing the same act are criminals. Discrimination is not allowed. The only way to operate outside these black and white boundaries is to introduce a gray area where moral or religious judgments supersede the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights under the law.

I cannot say if abortion is moral. On the one hand, from a religious viewpoint, I can be sure that I won't go to hell because someone had an abortion. On the other, I cannot say that my lack of complicity absolves me from the moral implications based on my belief that all life is precious. I simply cannot see that my morality, or yours, can be the basis for a law regarding abortion. It is an awful dilemma.

I can say that if we do have laws regarding abortion, then they need to be clear and unambiguous, and apply to ALL pregnancies regardless of cause. No fetus has more or less rights than any other.

The same goes for capital punishment. If the crime of first degree murder deserves capital punishment in any case, then it should apply in all cases, otherwise no murderer should be executed. Else, the person being executed has NOT received equal protection under the law. Note that there are homicides that are not first degree murder and we have the ability to prosecute persons for less than "murder one."

Just my $.02 worth.

He's a good boy, he wouldn't do something like that!

There are limits to my suffering of fools. Having lived for more than a half century, and having witnessed the downfall of the United States of America from the positive 50's to the gangsta/thug depression of the early 21st century, it occurs to me that this decline seems to correlate to the acceptance of the child rearing theories of Benjamin Spock:

Don't spank your child, give them a timeout. Self image is more important to a child than ability or knowledge. Don't punish criminals, give them compassionate correction. Be politically correct, don't hurt someone's feelings by pointing out the OBVIOUS fact that that person can't grasp reality. Wishful thinking is just as valid as rigorous scientific method.


WHAT THE ....!

For thousands of years, human beings reared their children without benefit of timeouts, and sparing the rod wasn't an option, for children or criminals. I probably shouldn't have to say this, but violent crime against innocent victims by individual criminals was very low up through the early 20th century. Why? Because the punishments fit the crimes. People who stole horses were hanged. Quickly. I won't go into detail about the treatment of rapists and murderers, but I will say that the state rarely had to pay for their incarceration. Repeat offenders were generally those who hadn't been caught yet. The punishment was inflicted quickly, often without benefit of trials and lawyers. Of course, there were innocent people who died at the hands of vigilantes, but the real criminals knew what was waiting when they were caught. There was little incentive for a life of crime, since that life was sure to be cut abruptly short.

Now we have instituted the ideas that one is a victim of circumstance when one commits a crime. Sages say that poverty causes crime. HUH!!! It is only the last 200 years that any significant portion of humanity has lived above a hunter-gatherer-farmer existence. Until then there was little real individual on individual crime when everyone was in abject poverty. One didn't steal another's food, because the other people would recognize the threat and eliminate it. They understood that to stand by meant that they could be next.

So, in the comfort of my own home, I am assaulted by the images on TV of what appears to be a 350 pound, welfare supported, gangsta-breeding, uneducated, unintelligible parody of a human being, whose remarks, when translated into English, about one of her many fatherless little thugs, are to the effect of " He's a good boy, he wouldn't do something like that."

This in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he DID in fact do it.

This is the benefit of the denial of reality brand of raising children. He can't be held responsible because he was denied the "right" to have what he wanted, and his "self-image" required that he have it, at the expense of another person's life.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Cheap self-images don't come free. The little thug is probably a hero to his gang now, meanwhile, a hardworking store clerk can no longer provide for his family. His children will never get a hug from him again. His wife sleeps alone. But the little thug's self-image is intact.

I am incensed. Bring back the vigilantes. Hang the horse thieves. Make crime cost the criminal MORE than it costs the victim. Make self-image depend on being a valuable and productive member of society.

Spank the child. Thousands of years of child-rearing success versus a half-century of self-image supporting failure is what I see.

I don't condone child abuse. One should not burn a child to teach what "hot" is, but, until a child has experienced a burn, it will NOT fully understand "hot." The same can be said for self-image. Until a child experiences the pride of real accomplishment, it will not have any kind of valid self-image, regardless of his heritage or culture.

Criminal behavior reinforced by a victim mentality can have only unacceptable results.

And, no, I don't buy Political Correctness. If you don't like what I say, prove me wrong scientifically. I bet I have more science, statistics and facts on my side. Do your homework beforehand. You are welcome to your opinion, and if you disagree, by all means start your own blog and post your opinions. Don't respond to me here with ad hominem attacks or vituperation, unless you are prepared to be used as an example to make my points afterward. Just remember that if you are unable to write coherent sentences structured into meaningful paragraphs with at least passing familiarity with grammar and syntax, I will laugh at you while pointing out your stupidity.

Enough ranting for now, I await the inevitable attacks calling me all sorts of names. I hope for a little creativity, though. Nazi and racist are really overworked pejoratives.

The Federal Government's "War on Drugs"

Why is it that an adult citizen, presumably sane and rational, is not allowed by the government the right to make a determination about their own medications whether medicinal or recreational, when the government, in it's infinite wisdom, can dictate that a child must take ritalin, a strong hallucinogenic? This, even in spite of the parent's wishes to the contrary.

How is it that a government employee at any level, with any specialized knowledge whatsoever, or none, knows better than that child's loving parents what is right for that child? And, how is it that they can determine a medical condition based on nothing but behavior?

The government has an abysmal record in dealing with drugs of all types. Consider "Reefer Madness" - a government sponsored propaganda piece that has been completely debunked. Ask any pharmaceutical company executive about the insane FDA approval process. How long did it take to get the "morning after" pill approved after it was in common use in Europe? Look at Prohibition and the resulting crime. The jails are full of non-violent drug users, while billions of untaxed dollars flow to South America, the Orient and the Middle East and certainly some if not most of that money supports people who are dedicated to killing Americans. The drug lords get rich while we destroy an entire class of citizens. This is sheer madness.

Or is it? Perhaps those in power DO understand what they are doing. The greater the citizens' freedoms, the less power for the government.

Think of all the policemen, attorneys, judges, doctors, prison guards and support personnel that would be out of a job if the "war on drugs" came to an end.

And think of all the children that would be free of ritalin if the government were held to the same standards as the rest of us.

With the recent attention given to heinous crimes being committed by policemen, I think I would rather live next door to a pothead than a cop.

Something has to give. We can't afford this any longer. The economic toll is horrendous and the human toll staggeringly inhumane.

Oh, never mind. It's time for my shots.