Ben Stein's Gone

In an attempt to put up a conservative of interest, I put up a link to Ben Stein's pages. I've removed it.

My trouble stems from an interview on a Christian TV network that covered, in part, the so-called movie Expelled. (Go to April 21 and find Ben.) I was going to let him get away with that one before I heard about the interview. At one point in the interview, Ben Stein says

When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [a scientist interviewed in the "movie"], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed. ... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

This isn't about politics, it's about a complete lack of connection to reality. Minimally, I expect everyone but politicians to have one. If he were kidding about this, I would be amused... as long as everyone knew it was a joke. I can't see how this is a joke, and my sense of humor is as obtuse as the come.

I'll put Ben back up as a person of interest when he runs for a public office that deserves this crap.

Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Obama

Barak Obama pointed out that the debates are about trivia rather than real issues. Ed Rendell said the same thing while stumping for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton offered a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Obama has declined, at least for this month. I have some thoughts on this.

Obama said he would rather talk to voters. A debate, especially one where you and your opponent set the rules, can be talking to voters, in my opinion. What I'm not sure about is whether Americans really have enough civil knowledge to understand what they would hear. Think about it. All this trivia and garbage that's been "debated" is something people really do watch. I doubt that the average person realizes there is a problem and is watching with a never-ending hope of finding something of substance. If they have noticed a problem they've either shut down or done something like contribute to a rather whimsical and barely read political blog.

One side of me would be happy to watch such a debate no matter what the level of apathy the general public has. I always remind myself, though, that old style debate simply brings back old style misguided decision making. We complain now about how candidates now need to look good on TV and such rather than having substance. In 1858 a candidate needed to debate well. Nothing against Mr. Lincoln, who I am glad was elected, but debate ability does not define substance and capability no matter how much our romantic sides would like to think otherwise. I know very intelligent people who are introverted and whose best thoughts come only after long periods of thinking. They look like bad leaders, their low confidence from bad experiences makes them feel like bad leaders, and yet they go on to do wonderful things of you throw the job on them anyway and encourage them.

On top of that, I don't think that Americans, regardless of their understanding of government, can evaluate debate. Go back to my friends. They "lose" debate after debate with colleagues and friends who end up making far worse decisions. Too many people in our culture think that the last word wins. In my experience the last word just as often shows the fool who won't shut up.

So I'm conflicted. Old news.

A Few Bits

I think that anyone with more than a third of a brain and who has paid any attention to the presidential campaigns will appreciate this wonderful little piece titled Wake me in October.

In other news, Ron Paul received something like 30 percent of the Republican votes in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. When I was up there the Friday before the election, there were radio ads brought to us by [name of citizen] and people on the street who really thought that Paul would win the Republican nomination and go on the be the next President. Barak Obama should get his head of of Hyde Park and carefully consider whether people like this can even be bitter. I, for one, know that I trust them with guns.

The New York Times (Late Edition) last Wednesday had a one page photo spread of Pennsylvania polling places. The largest picture? Danielsville, PA. I liked the dead animal heads on the walls.

Mike Gravel

When I have more time I'll actually post about what Mike Gravel stands for and what his issues are. If you're curious, you can go to www.gravel2008.us, but I suggest just that you youtube Mike Gravel and debates to see the good stuff.

On to my message. I wrote in Mike Gravel in the PA primaries yesterday, thus avoiding the guilt of voting for one of the two lesser of two evil candidates who love war, despite their recent apparent change of heart. Anyway, hope everyone else feels as good about their vote as I do mine. :D

Law - in the hands of "the people"

Vigilantism.



They very word conjours up images of torch toting riotous mobs with pitchforks out for the latest hoodlum to have casued a disturbance in the local town. Kind of a bum rap if you ask me - so I write the following with these premises in mind;


1) Law enforcement agencies and departments are finite - they cant always be where we (the general public) think they should be when we need them most.


2) Camera surveialnce systems dont always see everything - only what they're pointed at, not to mention the insane ammount of subjective review and analysis by human operators at some point.

Here's the premise plain and simple. Vilgilantism is a necessary function of law and order and by very fact, ordained and supported by the law itself. I present the following as evidence.



Thank You to Wikipedia for the following:


"Etymology - The term vigilante is Spanish for "watchman" or "watcher," ultimately from Latin "vigilans"- the present participle of "vigilare" (to watch). It was introduced into English from the Southwestern United States. Vigilantism is generally frowned upon by official agencies, especially when it gives way to criminal behavior on the part of the vigilante.

Vigilante behavior - An impetus of vigilant behavior must exist to facilitate a subjective definition of vigilantism.
"Vigilante justice" is sometimes spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is insufficient or nonexistent to the crime. Some people see their governments as ineffective in enforcing the law; thus, such individuals fulfill the like-minded wishes of the community. In other instances, a person may choose a role of vigilante as a result of personal experience as opposed to a social demand. Most significantly, some vigilantes specifically target authoritarian entities such as government.
Persons seen as escaping from the law, or "above the law" are sometimes the targets of vigilantism. It may target persons or organizations involved in illegal activities in general or it may be aimed against a specific group or type of activity, e.g. police corruption. Other times, governmental corruption is the prime target of vigilante freedom fighters."

In Pennsylvania the crimes code does allow for "citizen's arrest" - in short it allows persons of the general public to apprehend and detain persons who have committed crimes (although this specifically applies to Felony offences).

Without a measure of public - read private activism - involvement, the law enforcement agencies in existance would not be able to address all criminal issues. It is widely known that priority is given to cases which are of a felony degree, followed by misdemeanor, and lastly summary offences. Often the lack of understanding by the public yeilds frustration at "the system" for crimes that appear to go unpunished. "Where is a cop when you need him!!?"

But I suggest that the very law we become disenfranchised with, has given each person the very authority to act - within reason. For those who observe a crime, report it. For those who have cameras - record it. But do NOT do NOTHING. In some instances civilians who opperate annonymously may be able to provide information that otherwise would be tied up by legislative or judicial constraints. Said information is technically called "good samaritan" effort or clause and does not require the same type of burden of proof that is needed by officers.

The kind of vigilantism that I am advocating is simply providing information to lawenforcement that otherwise they might not necessarily discover on their own. I AM NOT advocating the Judge, Jury, and Executioner mentality by any stretch of the imagination. So with that said, when you see somthing that "just isn't right", do the right thing and report it - take action. The pettiest of crimes affects us all.

Peace Thru Superior Fire Power!

Pennsylvania Primary

Even the Canadians are interested.

So, does anyone want to help me figure out what to do at the voting machine after I take my fresh and shiny Democratic voter registration card to the polling place next Tuesday?

Mike Gravel @ Muhlenberg

Mike Gravel is going to be at Muhlenberg tonight. Guess who's going to see it. Yep, that's it...me!

So far, I've seen Nader and Madeleine Albright (supporting Hillary). With seeing Gravel, I feel I only need to see Ron Paul now to see all of the real straight talking candidates. I know people who speak the truth and say how they really feel can't get elected but can't we still try to elect them? Come on, people, support someone worth supporting. Obama and Hillary give the appearance of being as different as Bush and Gore. Yes, we now know they're completely different, but before the election, we hadn't a clue. I'm just ranting now...I'm sick of lameass candidates who don't truly inspire anyone. People claim that Obama inspires people, though I have yet to meet one. I meet people who like that he inspires people, but no one who's actually inspired by his telling us that the system is messed up, telling us what is wrong with it, telling us what NOT to do and then stopping with that giving no clue as to what he's actually going to do...other than, of course, how he greatly he and Hillary differ on health care and talking to foreign governments. Eh....vote for someone of substance, that's all I ask. Someone who has the balls to say something real and MEAN it. ::sigh:: politics.

McCain Goes Veeping

Well, he had to do it eventually, so I don't see why it's news. I did pick up a cute little bit near the end, though.

Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."

My comments are

1) True, but that last part is about apathy and the paralleling lack of education more than cynicism.

2) What Americans obviously need to do is care less about coffee. They should care more about supporting the Patriot Act, winning a war where the definition of "win" has not been defined, and begging for tax cuts to keep the deficit up.

3) Do we have any non-designer coffees running for president? All I see are spoiled career politicians. Where's the political equivalent of tall glass of sweet tea with a slice of lemon?