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.