Recently, a group of cops were fired/suspended for dumping a quadriplegic out of his wheelchair in a jail holding area. When an officer ordered the suspect to stand up, he quite correctly informed them that he couldn't since he was paralizyed from the waist down...so the officer upended the wheelchair and dumped him on the floor, later explaining that she(!) didn't believe he was really paralyzed. Another officer elsewhere is suspended and possibly about to be fired for grossly overstepping his authority with a couple of kids and their skateboards. Yet another in a different city is being investigated for "taking down" a non-resisting woman so hard that she broke several bones in her face on the concrete.
In all these cases and a myriad more, the cops' reaction is embarassment...that they got caught. Outrage...that someone actually complained, and anger that people are actually paying attention to the complaint. And stonewalling...determined refusal to discuss an incident that is "under investigation".
I caught a comment the other day that expressed a dismayed inquiry as to how we ever got to this point, where "our" cops are obviously so out of control that the rights and privileges of citizenship in America are now not just ignored, but openly disavowed by those whose job, supposedly, is to "keep the peace" and set an example of civilized conduct for the rest of us.
It's really quite simple, and inevitable, and will not stop until the cops themselves are disbanded and their organizations completely rebuilt. Don't hold your breath waiting for that!
What we're looking at is a rather striking example of Jerry Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. To wit: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. (Jerry Pournelle at "Chaos Manor")
And you were wondering why "police procedure" so frequently seems to allow, if not compel, activities that would seem to be illegal on their face? Like slamming 86-year-old ladies to the ground for handcuffing in such a manner as to dislocate shoulder joints? The claim later, of course, is that since procedure was followed, no wrongdoing by anyone in uniform ocurred.
To the rest of us, it seems obvious that when a stereotypical "little old lady", weighing about as much as a large teddy bear and just about as strong, winds up having her shoulder dislocated in the process of getting her handcuffed so that she can't attack and seriously injure a six foot, 230 pound policeman, somebody has committed a serious "wrongdoing". That's because we simply don't have the correct viewpoint.
To the organization (the police department), whatever is good for the organization is good, period. Whatever is bad for the organization is bad, period. A "little old lady", or a child or a cripple or an obviously injured person looks like an obvious "non-threat". A significant number of police officers, however, have wound up getting hurt or, in a few cases, actually killed by those who looked "non-threatening", and that was "bad"...so we'll make a rule that we just cuff 'em all, using whatever force and technique we think necessary so as to avoid having anything like that happen to "one of us"...ever...and that is "good".
Of course there are "good" cops out there, the ones that seem to be operating according to the "old rules" and are convinced that they are part of the "thin blue line" that protects the majority of us from the goblins, including the goblins in uniform. Unfortunately, their days are numbered. In the good old days, police officers used to be recruited and tested for judgement, and strongly encouraged to develop superior judgement. Those days are gone. You see, there is this thing called "the book". If an officer fails to follow "the book", he may lay the organization open to an expensive lawsuit. This is "bad". To avoid this, all officers must be trained, indoctrinated, propagandized, educated and fully brainwashed into following "the book" at all times, without question. As long as the bureaucrats can claim that "the book" was followed, then it's obvious to all but the benighted amateurs (who don't count anyway) that nothing wrong, or illegal, or "inappropriate", or in any way less than righteously professional, happened. "Judgement", anywhere from superior to execrable, went with the bathwater. It's not so much discounted as it is actively unwelcome in the halls of law enforcement.
Can't quite get enough of that good military gear to play with due to nasty budget concerns? Get a rule made that allows the police to arrest things (like large amounts of money, flashy cars, cool boats, conveniently placed houses, etc.) rather than people, and fix it so that the people who own them have to prove the things were not guilty of any connection with illegal activity to get them back...or the police keep the things. Word has it that there are now whole police departments operating "off" their city budget by virtue of the sheer volume of "earnings" they manage to acquire from this lovely legal concept known as "asset forfeiture". Back in the day we amateur civilians used to call it "theft under color of authority", but what did we know?
The idea that the cops work for us is outmoded...and currently incorrect. They now work for themselves, thanks to the "iron bureaucrats" who've taken over the shop.
If you really want to get fired up on this, check out The War On Guns blog. David Codrea runs an almost daily list of excesses that are reported in the news from around the country. It'll give you a new definition of "Protect and Serve" fer sher!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Global Warming?
There are a few issues that have to be addressed by the global warming crowd if they wish to be taken seriously by us "deniers".
1. Just as the only necessary answer to any of Al Sharpton's tirades is a quiet, chuckling, "Tawana Brawley", it would seem that the first answer to any claim of human-caused global warming has to be, "Mt. Pinatubo".
Mt. Pinatubo is a volcano in the Phillipines that underwent a major eruption in 1993. Fortunately, that area is home to a university that specializes in degrees in vulcanology and the area is virtually saturated with sensors designed to collect exactly the kinds of data necessary to properly analyze major, minor and picayune volcanic activity. As a result, Mt. Pinatubo stands as the most detailed study of a major volcanic eruption in the 20th century.
Startling results were achieved. Of primary interest is the atmospheric pollution aspect of the eruption. Mt. Pinatubo generated a range of pollutants across the entire spectrum of pollution, from the toxic gases (Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, etc.), thru the "greenhouse" gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.), to the particulates (Carbon soot, volcanic ash, etc.). Indeed, according to numbers that have been thoroughly vetted a number of times, Pinatubo spewed as much of this stuff as mankind has generated from all sources worldwide since approximately 1740. No, that is not a misprint. Pinatubo tossed as much crap into the air in one two-week burst as Man has in the last 250 years!
This would seem to render the entire scheme of "carbon credits" and "CO2 emissions reductions" rather moot, given our continued survival after the eruption without any detectable inconveniences. It also pretty well puts paid to the CAFE standards imposed on auto manufacturers as anything other than an open scheme to control production without regard to customers needs and desires, period.
2. The latest evidence from deep ice cores suggests very strongly that CO2 and methane levels don't produce warming conditions (as a consequence of the "greenhouse effect"), but rather follow such events by 1,000 to 1,500 years.
Again, we are led to question the efficacy of controlling mankinds generation of CO2 and/or methane to "cure" global warming.
3. Given that Man generates only about 2% of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, even if we were to diminish our greenhouse gas production to zero, global warming would not be affected by any significant amount. What efforts are we making towards reducing that other 98% so as to save our grandchildren and all life on Earth? Or does anybody care? Doesn't it seem that the environmentalists are far more concerned with controlling, restricting and limiting business and manufacturing than actually affecting the environment?
4. How does the global warming crowd explain why 2007 is going down as the coldest year in recorded history since 1934, and the absence of any further warming on a global scale since 1998?
This takes the entire concept of "curing" global warming and tosses into a cocked hat. Now we have to worry about "global cooling" again! Remember when the big emergency of the 1970's was the coming ice age? Now we're getting evidence that that crisis du jour might be the real one to worry about...again!!
Referring again to the point of this blog, the global warming crowd seem to be the ones insisting that everyone do things their way...at the point of a gun if necessary. The "deniers" seem to be much more lenient in their treatment of the environmental habits of others, and are the ones I would prefer for neighbors.
1. Just as the only necessary answer to any of Al Sharpton's tirades is a quiet, chuckling, "Tawana Brawley", it would seem that the first answer to any claim of human-caused global warming has to be, "Mt. Pinatubo".
Mt. Pinatubo is a volcano in the Phillipines that underwent a major eruption in 1993. Fortunately, that area is home to a university that specializes in degrees in vulcanology and the area is virtually saturated with sensors designed to collect exactly the kinds of data necessary to properly analyze major, minor and picayune volcanic activity. As a result, Mt. Pinatubo stands as the most detailed study of a major volcanic eruption in the 20th century.
Startling results were achieved. Of primary interest is the atmospheric pollution aspect of the eruption. Mt. Pinatubo generated a range of pollutants across the entire spectrum of pollution, from the toxic gases (Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, etc.), thru the "greenhouse" gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, etc.), to the particulates (Carbon soot, volcanic ash, etc.). Indeed, according to numbers that have been thoroughly vetted a number of times, Pinatubo spewed as much of this stuff as mankind has generated from all sources worldwide since approximately 1740. No, that is not a misprint. Pinatubo tossed as much crap into the air in one two-week burst as Man has in the last 250 years!
This would seem to render the entire scheme of "carbon credits" and "CO2 emissions reductions" rather moot, given our continued survival after the eruption without any detectable inconveniences. It also pretty well puts paid to the CAFE standards imposed on auto manufacturers as anything other than an open scheme to control production without regard to customers needs and desires, period.
2. The latest evidence from deep ice cores suggests very strongly that CO2 and methane levels don't produce warming conditions (as a consequence of the "greenhouse effect"), but rather follow such events by 1,000 to 1,500 years.
Again, we are led to question the efficacy of controlling mankinds generation of CO2 and/or methane to "cure" global warming.
3. Given that Man generates only about 2% of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, even if we were to diminish our greenhouse gas production to zero, global warming would not be affected by any significant amount. What efforts are we making towards reducing that other 98% so as to save our grandchildren and all life on Earth? Or does anybody care? Doesn't it seem that the environmentalists are far more concerned with controlling, restricting and limiting business and manufacturing than actually affecting the environment?
4. How does the global warming crowd explain why 2007 is going down as the coldest year in recorded history since 1934, and the absence of any further warming on a global scale since 1998?
This takes the entire concept of "curing" global warming and tosses into a cocked hat. Now we have to worry about "global cooling" again! Remember when the big emergency of the 1970's was the coming ice age? Now we're getting evidence that that crisis du jour might be the real one to worry about...again!!
Referring again to the point of this blog, the global warming crowd seem to be the ones insisting that everyone do things their way...at the point of a gun if necessary. The "deniers" seem to be much more lenient in their treatment of the environmental habits of others, and are the ones I would prefer for neighbors.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Guns vs. Drugs
The similarities between the pro-gun people and the pro-drug people have always amused and infuriated me, especially as neither side seems to recognize them in the midst of their mutual antagonism. Gun people hate druggies, and vice versa, and they never seem to see that they're fighting for the same thing.
The main argument of the anti-gun and anti-drug people is that the average American simply can't handle his guns (or his drugs) without supervision, restriction and constant positive control.
The gun people have no problem demonizing the drug people, but argue that the average American has certainly proved over the years that he is indeed mature enough, responsible enough and careful enough to avoid becoming any sort of danger to the community at large. "80 million gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday!" For the most part, they seem to have a rather cogent point.
The drug people have no trouble demonizing gun owners, but argue that the average American is indeed mature enough, careful enough and responsible enough to avoid becoming a danger or a risk to the people around them. Given the tremendous number of undiscovered people in the country who are consuming illegal drugs on a weekly basis without going psychotic, running their cars into living rooms or swimming pools or removing their spleens with fingernail scissors, they would seem to have an equally cogent point.
Either the average American really is a responsible, mature, self-disciplined character who can be trusted to run his own affairs without endangering the neighborhood, and can therefore be trusted with his guns or his drugs...or he's not. If not, then we need to give up the guns and the drugs and submit to the control of those who know better than we do how our lives should be run. It's for our own good...
The main argument of the anti-gun and anti-drug people is that the average American simply can't handle his guns (or his drugs) without supervision, restriction and constant positive control.
The gun people have no problem demonizing the drug people, but argue that the average American has certainly proved over the years that he is indeed mature enough, responsible enough and careful enough to avoid becoming any sort of danger to the community at large. "80 million gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday!" For the most part, they seem to have a rather cogent point.
The drug people have no trouble demonizing gun owners, but argue that the average American is indeed mature enough, careful enough and responsible enough to avoid becoming a danger or a risk to the people around them. Given the tremendous number of undiscovered people in the country who are consuming illegal drugs on a weekly basis without going psychotic, running their cars into living rooms or swimming pools or removing their spleens with fingernail scissors, they would seem to have an equally cogent point.
Either the average American really is a responsible, mature, self-disciplined character who can be trusted to run his own affairs without endangering the neighborhood, and can therefore be trusted with his guns or his drugs...or he's not. If not, then we need to give up the guns and the drugs and submit to the control of those who know better than we do how our lives should be run. It's for our own good...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Opposites examined.
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...
Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".
On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)
Alcohol
I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."
I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.
There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.
The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.
Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.
And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.
Tobacco
Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.
Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.
"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.
Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)
Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.
Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!
Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.
Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?
Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...
Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".
On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)
Alcohol
I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."
I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.
There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.
The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.
Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.
And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.
Tobacco
Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.
Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.
"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.
Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)
Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.
Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!
Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.
Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Divisions, divisions...
For the last several years I've noticed that, as a society, we seem to be growing more and more polarized in several different areas. Gun control, abortion, education, silly-seeming lawsuits, tobacco, alcohol, health care, size of government, immigration, religion, even driving habits. They all seem to be bugging us, sometimes to the point of violence, and rather than moving towards any sort of consensus we're moving further and further apart, frequently to the point of demonizing those who don't agree with our own positions. Worse, I don't see much chance for any reversal of this trend anytime in the near future.
I believe it has to do with power, the power to compel others to behave in certain ways or face dire, possibly life altering consequences...and the reactions of those so compelled.
For example: Seatbelt use in cars and motorcycle helmets. We all "know" that using your seatbelt is just "the intelligent thing to do". Gods know we've been hearing about it for a couple of generations now, and the newsies are always quick to point out how some poor jerk who got nailed on the road wasn't wearing his seatbelt. The implication is always that the idiot would have been just fine if he'd only had
sense enough to buckle up. Ditto for bike riders and helmets.
Does nobody know about the studies showing that seatbelts actually enhance damage and risk of death in certain types of impacts? (Granted, there are few such studies...because nobody has any interest in flouting the powers-that-be by funding them.) Has nobody ever examined the arguments of many very experienced riders about the dangers of helmet use in many common riding scenarios? Does anybody care? After all, some "expert" somewhere has determined that seatbelts and helmets are "smart", and those who refuse to use them are "not smart", and that's the end of it. No room for argument, and no tolerance for other points of view, and we'll just make sure everybody acts "smart" by encoding the expert's view as law. "Do it our way or we'll give you a ticket". We went that route with the universal use of airbags, making it an official crime to mess with the factory installation in any way...until, decades later, it was noted that airbags were fairly reliable in killing certain types of people whenever they went off, regardless of their probable utility in general. Now, finally, you get some kind of choice for passenger airbags in the newer cars. If you're 78 years old, suffering from serious osteoporosis and still behind the wheel of a late model Cadillac however, you don't want to be hitting anything at all. The driver's airbag popping out of the steering wheel shaft is going to trigger your obituary regardless of who's fault the accident is.
The point here is that, in far too many cases, an avoidable risk is forced on an individual by the powers-that-be in complete disregard of any objection that individual may have. Conversely, risks that may be just fine with the person willing to assume them are forbidden because the powers aren't willing to allow them. "If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden."
What a crock!!
What is the result of this sort of nonsense for the general public? Those whose views are made law, and those who agree with them, feel righteously vindicated and attempt to increase their influence by making "their" laws more strict and passing more of them. Those who disagree feel victimised and, in many cases, do their best to avoid discovery while ignoring the laws they disagree with. Respect for "the Law" in general is diminished, and contempt for those who pass and/or enforce these laws runs rampant.
It's imortant to note that we've been here before...and it wasn't pretty. Once before, our society was seriously rent by laws of this nature, carried to the point where those who disagreed felt that their backs were against the wall and they had no choice but to resist outside of the legal system because they had no hope of obtaining any relief within it. The resulting brouhaha lasted for years and cost more lives than any other catastrophe in our history to date. It was called "The Civil War".
I am appalled and frightened by our current disagreements and the vehemence and venom with which both sides feel compelled to respond to each other. I see far too many similarities and congruencies with the historical record circa 1855. I truly fear that my children and grandchildren are going to have to go thru another such catastrophe...and this one will be worse, by far, than what happened in our past.
It was Erwin Rommel I believe who said, "The American soldier is the most frightening man on the battlefield...because he learns so quickly!!" Recently, in Viet Nam, we proved that all over again. We took boys from the cornfields of Kansas, the barrios of Los Angeles, the bayous of Lousianna and the mountains of Kentucky and sent them to a jungle the like of which simply doesn't exist on this continent. A large majority of them handily survived their first six months there...at which time they were quite able to out-jungle their opponents who'd been born there.
The top soldiers, the ones responsible for that actual strategies and tactics we fight wars with, have also displayed a remarkable ability to learn. In Iraq, we took on what was called the best and most capable army in the area...and took only three weeks(?) to break it utterly with a truly startling lack of "collateral damage" and mortality to non-fighting civilians. In WWII we used a bigger hammer than the Axis powers were able to wield. In Iraq we used a scalpel with even greater effect.
If our divisions and disagreements continue to polarize us with greater and greater affect, what is going to happen when we pit this super soldier against himself in his own home?
Make no mistake, that is what we're headed for. Too many people are feeling too victimised, forced, ignored, put upon and backed against a wall for the situation to gain any sort of stability. Those with the power to compel are more and more determined that everyone will do things their way, and those who are being compelled in directions they don't want to go are becoming more and more determined not to go in those directions. In the absence of some source of relief on both sides, this will inevitably lead to the worst sort of confrontation with no impulse to relent on either side. We've seen where that leads, and it ain't pretty.
I believe it has to do with power, the power to compel others to behave in certain ways or face dire, possibly life altering consequences...and the reactions of those so compelled.
For example: Seatbelt use in cars and motorcycle helmets. We all "know" that using your seatbelt is just "the intelligent thing to do". Gods know we've been hearing about it for a couple of generations now, and the newsies are always quick to point out how some poor jerk who got nailed on the road wasn't wearing his seatbelt. The implication is always that the idiot would have been just fine if he'd only had
sense enough to buckle up. Ditto for bike riders and helmets.
Does nobody know about the studies showing that seatbelts actually enhance damage and risk of death in certain types of impacts? (Granted, there are few such studies...because nobody has any interest in flouting the powers-that-be by funding them.) Has nobody ever examined the arguments of many very experienced riders about the dangers of helmet use in many common riding scenarios? Does anybody care? After all, some "expert" somewhere has determined that seatbelts and helmets are "smart", and those who refuse to use them are "not smart", and that's the end of it. No room for argument, and no tolerance for other points of view, and we'll just make sure everybody acts "smart" by encoding the expert's view as law. "Do it our way or we'll give you a ticket". We went that route with the universal use of airbags, making it an official crime to mess with the factory installation in any way...until, decades later, it was noted that airbags were fairly reliable in killing certain types of people whenever they went off, regardless of their probable utility in general. Now, finally, you get some kind of choice for passenger airbags in the newer cars. If you're 78 years old, suffering from serious osteoporosis and still behind the wheel of a late model Cadillac however, you don't want to be hitting anything at all. The driver's airbag popping out of the steering wheel shaft is going to trigger your obituary regardless of who's fault the accident is.
The point here is that, in far too many cases, an avoidable risk is forced on an individual by the powers-that-be in complete disregard of any objection that individual may have. Conversely, risks that may be just fine with the person willing to assume them are forbidden because the powers aren't willing to allow them. "If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden."
What a crock!!
What is the result of this sort of nonsense for the general public? Those whose views are made law, and those who agree with them, feel righteously vindicated and attempt to increase their influence by making "their" laws more strict and passing more of them. Those who disagree feel victimised and, in many cases, do their best to avoid discovery while ignoring the laws they disagree with. Respect for "the Law" in general is diminished, and contempt for those who pass and/or enforce these laws runs rampant.
It's imortant to note that we've been here before...and it wasn't pretty. Once before, our society was seriously rent by laws of this nature, carried to the point where those who disagreed felt that their backs were against the wall and they had no choice but to resist outside of the legal system because they had no hope of obtaining any relief within it. The resulting brouhaha lasted for years and cost more lives than any other catastrophe in our history to date. It was called "The Civil War".
I am appalled and frightened by our current disagreements and the vehemence and venom with which both sides feel compelled to respond to each other. I see far too many similarities and congruencies with the historical record circa 1855. I truly fear that my children and grandchildren are going to have to go thru another such catastrophe...and this one will be worse, by far, than what happened in our past.
It was Erwin Rommel I believe who said, "The American soldier is the most frightening man on the battlefield...because he learns so quickly!!" Recently, in Viet Nam, we proved that all over again. We took boys from the cornfields of Kansas, the barrios of Los Angeles, the bayous of Lousianna and the mountains of Kentucky and sent them to a jungle the like of which simply doesn't exist on this continent. A large majority of them handily survived their first six months there...at which time they were quite able to out-jungle their opponents who'd been born there.
The top soldiers, the ones responsible for that actual strategies and tactics we fight wars with, have also displayed a remarkable ability to learn. In Iraq, we took on what was called the best and most capable army in the area...and took only three weeks(?) to break it utterly with a truly startling lack of "collateral damage" and mortality to non-fighting civilians. In WWII we used a bigger hammer than the Axis powers were able to wield. In Iraq we used a scalpel with even greater effect.
If our divisions and disagreements continue to polarize us with greater and greater affect, what is going to happen when we pit this super soldier against himself in his own home?
Make no mistake, that is what we're headed for. Too many people are feeling too victimised, forced, ignored, put upon and backed against a wall for the situation to gain any sort of stability. Those with the power to compel are more and more determined that everyone will do things their way, and those who are being compelled in directions they don't want to go are becoming more and more determined not to go in those directions. In the absence of some source of relief on both sides, this will inevitably lead to the worst sort of confrontation with no impulse to relent on either side. We've seen where that leads, and it ain't pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)