Your Chances Are Increasing

by Steve K.

Idiotic Saying #477: “If you have a gun in your home, your chances of being hurt or killed with a gun are greatly increased.”

This is a frequent utterance of liberals who are against gun ownership; the self-appointed experts who’ve never owned a gun themselves.

Here is what is disingenuous about that whole argument: these people are the same ones who favor “freedom of choice” in other life and death circumstances such as abortion and assisted suicide. They insist “Only God can judge me!”. I’m not sure what god liberals are invoking here, but it seems this god lifts the restriction on judging when it comes to how the rest of us choose to go out – whether we go out cowering in fear or go out fighting back. Whatever happened to “My body – my choice!”?

If the argument that guns should be banned because the presence of a gun in the home leads to increased incidents of injury and death then consistency demands that we carry this logic over to other areas as well:

  • Driving a car greatly increases your chances of being hurt or killed in it. More Americans are injured or killed by auto accidents than by guns. 
  • Operating a chainsaw greatly increases your risk of being injured or killed by it. You are most likely to be hurt by your own chainsaw. Unless, of course,  you’re a hapless victim of a chainsaw massacre, but this is easily solved by wily legislatures setting aside “chainsaw free” zones to reduce chainsaw violence. With signs posted in conspicuous locations you can now breath a sigh of relief.*
  • Riding a bicycle greatly increases the odds of you falling off of it.
  • Deboning a chicken with a kitchen knife increases your odds of suffering a cut.  “Save the liver!”snl-the-best-of-dan-ackroyd-20051019003350665-000
  • Your chances of loosing teeth increase exponentially by playing in the National Hockey League.
  • Hunting with Dick Cheney raises the odds of you having to pick bird shot out of your face.
  • Chances that you will “Whip it!” increase after listening to Devo.
  • Your chances of dying from death are 100%**
  • Posting a comment on Facebook or Twitter increases the odds of offending some hyper-sensitive soul.

Engaging in these activities (or life in general) clearly raises the odds of injury or death. We must therefore ban everything even remotely dangerous. And isn’t reducing all danger the motivating force behind the oddly selective focus on the dangers of firearm ownership to the exclusion of all other hazards?

Being liberal greatly increases your chances of saying something stupid.

* Not applicable to Texas residents.

** Not applicable to Enoch.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Consistency Please?

What America Needs More Of

by Steve K

It’s all sorted out now. We’ve had time to express our thoughts in the public arena leading up to election day. Time will reveal which side will get to say “See? I told you so!” to the other side.

I’m thankful for the opportunity I was afforded to be an assistant at the polls during early voting and a judge on election day in a heavily democratic area of Bladen County NC (where I was a good boy and kept my personal political opinions to myself and worked impartially for everyone who came in. My sole purpose in being there was vigilance against voter fraud).

I’ve learned some things as well as had some things I already knew reinforced. I was a witness to a spectacle that is disturbing for it’s widespread influence and the deadening of the individual mind and for it’s (often willful) ignorance, and for it’s blind allegiance to party or superficial similarities that are only skin-deep.

I was prepared for the things I would witness; I was not quite prepared for the sheer quantity.

So many individuals came in to vote not knowing if they were registered to vote or not; not knowing their address; and in some cases not even knowing how to spell their name. They came in to vote with a pre-filled sample ballot given to them by people outside the polling station.

There were candidates for several offices on the state and local level, too, but many of these voters seemed agitated that their ballots were cluttered with choices for offices other than President. Many said “I don’t know who these people are” and “Do I have to fill out all these?” even though their cheat-sheets already had them picked.

Even with all the candidates already marked on the ballot for them, so many of these low-information voters still needed help filling in bubbles on a simple paper ballot. This is like handing a cheat-sheet to a student who never bothered studying for a quiz and having that student say “Will you sit next to me and write my answers for me even though you gave me the answers?” This ranks as one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever witnessed. I’ve seen grown men being brought in by their aging mothers who filled out their voter registration forms for them. These forms ask you only for personal information which every person ought to know about themselves. I could have filled one out in the 2nd grade.

It amazes me how so many American voters are willing to surrender their minds and votes to let someone else make their choices for them. For most of these voters I see no evidence that they possess even a basic knowledge of the issues or that they even care. If they knew or cared then what they would be saying is that this country needs more of what we’ve had these last four years:

  • What this country needs is more government because we just can’t get enough government in our lives.
  • What we need is more debt because $16,000,000,000,000 just isn’t enough. My grandchildren’s share is $50,000 each, and each taxpayer’s share is $140,000, but that’s just not enough. We want more – way more!
  • What we need is to put the shackles of debt on our grandchildren by spending their money on ourselves today so we can have free abortions and condoms and call it a “women’s health” issue.
  • We need to further erode our religious liberties and surrender them to muslims and atheists.
  • We need a president who will do more bowing and apologizing to America’s enemies.
  • We need the president to play more golf while the government goes another four years without passing any budget whatsoever, let alone a balanced budget.
  • We need a president who will appear on more talk shows while more our embassies are attacked, more of our ambassadors are murdered, and more of our consulates burn. We also need him to blame more YouTube videos while trying to cover up the fact that he ignored repeated calls for help.
  • We need another term because four years of making excuses and blaming Bush simply isn’t enough.
  • We need a more porous border so more illegals can be granted amnesty and become registered democrats.
  • We need more voter fraud and more resistance to laws that would put a stop to it.
  • We need more tax cheats in high offices.
  • We need more politicians and their supporters stealing from the treasury.
  • We need more of our money confiscated to refill this depleted treasury.
  • We need a president who will appoint more czars who’s appointment bypasses congressional approval because we just don’t have enough czars but we have too many checks and balances.
  • What we need is more ignorance of history and more apathy.
  • We need to have our heads examined; but first, we need to pull our heads out of our asses.

Make no mistake. There will be more of all this. Again, time will reveal which side will get to say “I told you so.”

And it won’t take long at all.

In the meantime I’m going to have fun and enjoy living life as I quietly and diligently go about preparing for the outcome that history has shown time and again has fallen on a people who have already traveled the path we’re going down. And many will still insist “We need more of this!”

Leave a comment

Filed under Unbridled Ignorance

Wow! Who Knew There Were So Many Things That Don’t Matter?

By Steve K

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I’m just wound up too tight. Maybe I obsess over things that I think matter but really don’t. In a strange way I envy those who can wave a dismissing hand at the things happening around us and to us. Oh, to be able to go through life so care-free, so unaware. If ignorance is bliss, then willful ignorance is willful bliss.

“Willfully ignorant”; isn’t that another word for “dumb on purpose”? Either way, you have to admire anyone who can manufacture their own state of blissful ignorance. After all, reality is so often unpleasant to face. Dwell on it too long and it can be downright depressing, so the secret to happiness for some people is to ignore reality and pretend it doesn’t exist. That’s much easier than admitting you made a mistake or that your judgement is faulty.

I’m fascinated by how an entire constituency is made up of such people. There seems to be no other explanation for such a phenomenon, and there are people in government who are aware of this and know how to capitalize on it. In fact, their very existence actually depends on voters being willfully ignorant dumb on purpose.

Are there any examples of this? I’m glad you asked! Yes, there are so many examples that it’s truly mind-boggling. So much so that I would love to live out the rest of my days pretending that such people don’t exist, but I’m not able to be that detached from reality. Let’s look at a few examples of what so many Americans are in denial of:

  • “It doesn’t matter to me that gas prices more than doubled since Obama took office, or that he’s blocked oil production in the Gulf for U.S. companies resulting in thousands of laid-off workers while sending billions of our tax dollars to Brazil so they can drill in the Gulf, or that Obama said that under his plan energy prices “will necessarily skyrocket”.
  • “I don’t know or care that our elected representatives over-spent us into debt to the tune of more than $16 trillion dollars, or that every taxpayer’s share is $140,000. It’s time for my favorite program, ‘So you think you can dance with a 5th grade chef?'”
  • “It doesn’t worry me at all that our Senate Majority Leader wants deficit spending for Cowboy Poetry. Some things are just to vital to our national interest to slash them from the budget.”
  • “I’m not at all concerned that our president is skipping national security meetings and refusing to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister while the Middle East is running amok. He has more important things to do like attend a fundraiser with rappers for his reelection campaign, and appearing on David Letterman and The View. Who’s Benjamin Netanyahu? Is he someone important, like Letterman, or Whoopie, or Jay-Z?”
  • “So what if the president condemned Mitt Romney BEFORE he condemned the attacks on Americans in Libya and Egypt. He’s in Campaign Mode, so what did you expect?”
  • “Why should it matter to me that the Marines guarding our embassy in Egypt were not permitted to have ammunition in their rifles, or that the president pledged that billions in foreign aid will continue to flow to these countries in spite of these attacks? I’m more concerned with getting my next tattoo.”
  • “So what if rogue countries have absolutely no fear of our President?”
  • “I’m not the least bit concerned that billions of our tax dollars are going to failing auto companies so that they can produce cars that no one wants, or that they cost more to produce that what they cost to buy. I need you to subsidize my new hybrid for me. Thanks!”
  • “Don’t trouble me with details over the government takeover of the health-care industry. Who’s got time to read all 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act?
  • “Do I find it hypocritical that the man who promised us the ‘most transparent administration ever’ held health-care negotiations behind closed doors after making a campaign promise to televise it on C-SPAN? Not at all. Why would you even ask such a silly question?”
  • “I appreciate the former House Speaker for looking us squarely in the eye and telling us “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s IN the bill”. You have to admire that kind of candor. Few people would have the stones to try to pull that off.”
  • “I was not aware that Obama has been golfing 104 times since 2009. I wonder what his handicap is? I bet he’s pretty good after all that practice.” Image
  • “Why should I care that the first family takes a lot of expensive vacations overseas with a huge entourage? It’s not like I’m paying for it all. Someone else pays for all that, right?”
  • “No, I don’t find the timing of the news of Osama bin Laden’s death coming within 24 hours of Obama releasing a copy of his birth certificate the least bit suspicious. And don’t all copies of birth certificates have PDF layers and other irregularities? Well, mine didn’t, but still….”
  • “I don’t care that Obama refuses to release his records to the public, like his academic, medical, travel, passport, social security, or selective service records. I only care about who makes it to the next round on American Idol”
  • “The Obama Administration refuses to release documents for the investigation into Fast & Furious? Isn’t that a movie? Why would anyone have documents on a movie? Wasn’t Vin Diesel in that? Maybe he’s at the center of the investigation. I’ll have to watch the movie again and see.”
  • “So what if a U.S. Border agent was killed, along with hundreds of Mexicans. It wasn’t anybody I know.”
  • “12 million squatters in this country illegally? No effective border security, or deportation plan? The Obama administration suing Arizona to prevent them from trying to get the situation under control? Obama giving amnesty to millions of illegals right before election time so they will register to vote? What’s your point in even bringing all this up? Why are you such a racist?”
  • “So what if Obama thinks there’s 57 states?”
  • “So what if he reads ‘corpsman’ and pronounces it ‘corpes-man’?”
  • “So what if he can’t figure out the complexities of negotiating a tricky gate while holding an umbrella? I trust this man with my health-care, my money, my freedom, and my personal safety. He’s the smartest man ever.”
  •   Image
  • “So what if he thinks Austrian is a language?”
  • “So what if he spent his formative years growing up in a third-world country that is predominantly Muslim?”
  • “It doesn’t interest me in the least that he wrote in Dreams From My Father ‘ To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors…’. or ‘it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names’.”
  • “Why should I be concerned that Obama was mentored by Frank Marshal Davis, an avowed communist?”
  • “Why do you make such a big deal about the people Obama has surrounded himself with, like Bill Ayers? Doesn’t everyone have that one friend who’s an unrepentant 60’s radical and domestic terrorist?”
  • “So what if he went to a church pastored by a crazy hate-filled racist preacher? I’m more interested in what crazy outfits Lady GaGa wears.”
  • “The President appointed a communications director who is an admirer of Chairman Mao? Who’s Chairman Mao?”
  • “The President appointed a Green Jobs czar who is a communist, who believes 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government? What’s a czar?”
  • “The President’s ‘Diversity Officer’ at the FCC is an admirer of Hugo Chavez, wants our government to take over all communications like they did in Venezuela, and said that whites who hold high positions should surrender those positions because of their skin color and sexual orientation and be replaced with minorities and gays which has nothing to do with qualifications? I don’t see anything wrong with that.”
  • “The President’s Regulatory czar wants to ‘reformulate’ our First Amendment, give animals the right to sue humans, wants government recognition of marriage to be discontinued? What’s a czar again?”
  • “The President’s Safe Schools czar is a homosexual and an advocate of pedophilia? I guess it’s o.k. as long as they use condoms. Speaking of which, I want free birth-control!”
  • “The President appointed a Supreme Court justice who said ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion  than a white male’? I don’t see that as an issue. I trust her judgement. She is a wise Latina, after all.”
  • “The President’s nominee for U.S. Court of Appeals is an advocate of reparations for slavery? Does that mean that Obama would have to pay himself since he’s mixed race?”
  • “The President’s Science czar advocates forced sterilizations and forced abortions to save the planet? I just don’t see what that has to do with anything.”
  • “The President’s recess-appointed head of Medicare and Medicaid wants to ration health care? Why should that bother me?”
  • “Socialism has been a historically proven failure everywhere it’s been implemented? So what? When are we going to allow gay marriage?”
  • “I’m not seeing where the President’s  ‘You didn’t build that’ remark in any way means he disdains independent-minded entrepreneurs.”
  • “How is the fact that the President never held a job in the private sector of any relevance to whether he’s qualified to run the country? So what if he lacks experience? He sounds good when he’s reading a teleprompter.”

I’ll ask again – who knew there were so many things that don’t matter?

3 Comments

Filed under Unbridled Ignorance

Convoluted Logic

By Steve K.

While patrolling the interwebs I stumbled upon this short article about a doctor who doesn’t want parents to know the gender of their baby until after 30 weeks into the pregnancy:

“Keep baby’s sex a secret to prevent gender-based abortions, doc says”

(http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/16/10168064-keep-babys-sex-secret-to-prevent-gender-based-abortions-doc-says)

Dr. Rajendra Kale, a Canadian doctor originally from India, is concerned that parents who learn the gender of their baby early will use that to determine whether to have an abortion. (“Abortion” being a more clinical and less offensive word used in place of more realistic but less comfortable terms like “destroying the baby in the mother’s womb”)

(I’ll say right up front to those women who have had an abortion, especially those who have come to regret it, I’m not here to bash or rain down condemnation or sit in judgement and cast stones at anyone for past mistakes. I am expressing myself from a pro-life position as someone who used to be pro-abortion as a young man)

Dr. Kale says “The practice of “sex selection,” or the aborting of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, is an issue in several Asian countries, and may also be done by some immigrants in Canada and the United States.” Also, according to the article, “Two large organizations of doctors — the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — agree that sex selection is unethical.” Imagine that!

Let’s see if I have this straight: abortion in general is ethical, but gender-based abortions are “unethical”? Based on what? I’d very much like to hear them explain the meaning and origin of ethics and whether or not they believe ethics are objective, absolute, and universal – or if they think they’re subjective. If ethics are subjective then these people have to justify imposing their definition of ethics on everyone else. If ethics are objective then it has a source outside of an individual or a group of individuals. Ethics also assume that individuals have intrinsic worth. This is what makes the question of when life begins inescapably tied to the whole issue. People who think as these people do paint themselves into a corner when they say that certain abortions are “unethical”, because by even raising the objection they are unconsciously assuming that babies are persons with intrinsic value. The issues of ethics and morality can only be raised by a person about a person. If babies are not persons, then what is their objection based on? What if every baby were destroyed in the womb – a 100% abortion rate, and none of them was the result of gender-bias, would they say it’s ethical?

Of all the demographic statistics surrounding abortion, Kale selectively concerns herself with this one. Kale doesn’t seem to have a problem with baby girls being destroyed as long as their gender remains unknown. Why does this matter to her? One can’t help but wonder if she would display as much concern if the stats were reversed; what if more boys were destroyed because parents wanted daughters, would she complain as loudly? If left to blind chance and parents choose to destroy a baby of unknown gender, and during the process the gender is revealed to be a girl when it’s too late to change the decision, this would appear to be ethically acceptable to Dr. Kale. Is this really about numbers? If an equal number of boys were destroyed due to gender selection, would she have any basis for objecting to such decisions? Is she ok with girls being destroyed as long as they don’t total more than 50%? How about factors other than gender? Is she opposed to parents deciding to destroy a baby if it’s discovered that he is genetically predisposed to homosexuality? What about hair or eye color, or if the baby would be left-handed?

Doesn’t “Pro-Choice” mean, according to its advocates, that parents should have the right to choose? How odd that a doctor who is not opposed to abortion in general would impose a restriction on parent’s choices. If it was up to her, would she force a mother to give birth to her baby girl so as to even-out the numbers?  Unless this is her goal, then to what end or for what purpose is she demanding parents remain in the dark for 30 weeks? She’s opposed to destroying girls before 30 weeks but not after? Is she against late-term abortions? If so, is she against them in general, or just for girls? If this is not intended to influence the parent’s decision in favor of life, then what’s the point? Isn’t abortion still allowed past 30 weeks?

By 28 weeks, she has lungs that are capable of breathing air, although medical help may be needed. She can open and close her eyes, suck her thumb, cry and respond to sound. She has an 88% chance of survival with appropriate high risk newborn care.

30 weeks is an arbitrary number anyway. What difference does it really make? Pro-Life argues that since life begins at conception then destroying a child is wrong no matter when it’s done during the pregnancy. Pro-Abortion argues that since they do not think life begins, or at least life doesn’t matter, until birth, then destroying a child is ok no matter when it’s done, right up to and including partial birth. But others believe that it’s ok to a certain point in the child’s development, but after that it is wrong and should not be done. So Dr. Kale believes it’s wrong to kill a girl for reasons of gender when she is less developed, but it’s ok to kill her for the same reason after she’s more developed at 30 weeks? What’s so magical and enchanting about the 30th week that turns what was once unethical into something ethical? What magic wand makes this happen?

It’s odd that a pro-abortionist, a person who believes that a child in the womb has no value or any right to life, now places conditional and temporary value in unborn babies – as long as they are not males or older than 30 weeks. It would seem that this new found value vaporizes once the ratio of destroyed female babies is exactly even with destroyed male babies.

What makes Dr. Kale think that when people are free to choose to destroy babies that somehow the proportion of abortions should fall neatly along demographic lines? How realistic is this expectation? And she needs to justify why numbers matter in the first place as well as justify why it would be ethical to impose measures that would result in an artificial and human-made outcome just so she can say “There – everything’s even now!”

So now we see the result of people exercising their freedom to choose: gender, racial, religious, and economic inequality – a disparity in abortions. And yet Dr. Kale would like to selectively regulate abortion; that is, she wants to be the one to choose who should live or die instead of leaving it up to the mother. But, again, if babies are not human beings, why should such inequality matter? G.K. Chesterton made this observation about the nature of human equality: “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.”

That which gives real and objective meaning to concepts like ethics is also that which makes killing the innocent in the womb (in the absence of exigent circumstances) objectively unethical.

1 Comment

Filed under Consistency Please?

Occupy Wall Street, Class-Envy, Coveting Thy Neighbor’s GPA.

By Steve K.

OWS protesters like to hold up signs telling us they’re “the 99%”, upset that the “1%” hold an “unfair” percentage of the wealth. Too many of these naive individuals are blaming capitalsim and want it forcebly abolished and replaced with socialism. Nothing wrong with that, except

-it assumes that they are somehow entitled to other people’s possessions.

-it ignores history. Socialism doesn’t work – period. Ask the people of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Contrast North & South Korea.

-it has misplaced faith in human nature. They believe that what makes capitalism a bad system is that it corrupts people when in fact it’s people that  corrupt  systems. Their solution is to do away with one system and place another system in the hands of corrupt people. They’re willingly ignorant of  the fact that  socialist  governments are corrupt. What makes these airheads think that socialism will make everyone honest and willing to put other’s  interests ahead of their  own?

-Oh, and most importantly, people who believe such nonsense are stupid hippies.

To see the absurdity of OWS, let’s look at their chief complaint from another perspective. Here’s an average distribution of acedemic grades:

A…..top 7%

B…..next 24%

C…..middle 38%

D…..next 24%

F…..bottom 7%

Now ask one of these people if they think it’s fair that the top 7% of the students should have all the A’s. Isn’t it greedy & selfish that so few have A’s when there are others who have F’s? Isn’t this an oppressive system that exploits those making lower grades? Ask them how they would feel if their grades were “redistributed” more equitably among the rest of the students. Would the A and B students be willing to give some of their points to the D and F students? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everybody got a C? Wouldn’t it be more “fair”? Of course, it wouldn’t be so wonderful or fair for the students who worked so hard to earn their A’s and B’s, but hey, at least we’re all equal now. So on the next test, the top students have no incentive to study hard. Why should they? No matter how hard they work, their grades will be taken from them and redistributed in the name of academic “justice”. And those who scored low before also have no incentive to try their best because they’re guaranteed a C. But since there’s no more A’s or B’s to redistribute, the new high grade is C, making D the new average. Isn’t socialism great? Wouldn’t it make you feel all warm & fuzzy inside knowing this is how your doctor passed medical school?

So they want a more “equitable” distribution of wealth. I wonder if one of them can tell us just exactly how much more equitable it has to be before they’ll be satisfied and go home to occupy a shower. What’s the number? Unless it’s absolute equality where no one has even a single dollar more than the next person, then any number they come up with will be arbitrary.

If redistribution of wealth is the goal, then should we restrict it to the U.S.? Why not include the whole world? Don’t they deserve some redistribution as well? Let’s run the numbers: If everyone put all their money and assets in a huge pile, and if it were redistributed equally among every person on Earth, each person’s share would be $11,000. Watch the deer-in-the-headlights look in the hippie’s eyes as they try in stunned silence to comprehend the inadequacy of this amount to cover basic costs, like rent, food, clothes, electricity, car, fuel, insurance, phone, paying back student loans, etc. let alone extras like money for partying, weed, and travelling to protests with other ignorant hippies. If they still think they’re in the “99%”, let them tell that to people living in Bangladesh or Haiti who would kill to have the standard of living enjoyed by this whiny dependency-minded mob.

The most obvious irony is also the funniest, that these people who hate corporations and capitalism gather to demonstrate, having arrived there in vehicles made by one of the Big 3 auto giants that run on gasoline purchased from Exxon-Mobile, and they take pictures and tweet about it on their personal electronic devices that they purchased from evil corporations run by greedy capitalists like Steve Jobs.

Another observation about OWS’s decrying of the disparity between the rich and the poor in capitalist vs. socialist societies: Suppose we have a class where the average grade is D and the top grade is C. There’s only one teacher that’s been made available to the students. Now let’s introduce competition in the form of another teacher so that students have a choice. Now the average grade is C with the top grade being A.  Notice the gap between the average grade and the top grade has widened, but notice also that ALL scores went up. Now imagine there are a few whiny sourpusses who refuse to appreciate that everyone’s academic standard has been raised, focusing only on the disparity between the top and bottom grades. This is the mindset of the average OWS zombie, so green they are with class-envy (no pun intended).

Now Michael Moore says the Occupy Wall Street movement has inspired him to make yet another movie. Yeah, I can’t keep a straight face either every time this hypocrite rails against capitalism all the while making a fortune from the idiots who pay to see his films – films made with non-union labor to boot. Who else thinks it’s unfair that this 1-percenter is among those who possess a disproportionate amount of the world’s body fat? Let’s demand a more equitable distribution of his lunch. Moore can certainly benefit from a redistribution of intelligence.

Separated at birth.

If these people hate capitalism and love socialism so much, why don’t they move to that utopia called North Korea?

I could go on, but that’s enough for now. I’m hungry. I’m going to eat food cooked on the G.E. stove we bought from Lowes.

Damn corporations! (and the Americans they employ!)

The brightly lit civilized area is South Korea (evil capitalists) The dark area is North Korea (bastion of social & economic justice,progress, and equality) I didn't know Utopia was so dark.


Leave a comment

Filed under Liberessive Shenanigans

The Nature Of Evidence

By Steve K

Young, unmarried woman has baby. Young woman would rather party than take some responsibility. Young woman relieves herself of the inconvenience by disposing of her child. Young woman is now free to enjoy the local nightlife and. ironically, further engage in reproductive activity. She doesn’t see fit to notify anyone that her toddler is missing for 30 days. When the police are called, young woman lies, and lies, and lies. After an investigation there is sufficient evidence to charge the young woman. (“sufficient” means “enough” for those of you in Orlando who might be jurors one day). The case goes to trial; a jury is seated; the evidence is exhibited; the case goes to the jury; jury finds the young woman innocent of everything except lying. Young woman goes free.

Concerned mother desperately searching for her daughter

The young woman, unless you’ve been living under a rock. is Casey Anthony. But I’m pretty tired of hearing that name, so I’m going to call her Guiltsey Anthony. Yes, I know the jury said otherwise, but the jury is stupid. We all know Guiltsey is guilty, just like we all know O.J. did it; and the O.J. trial proved that juries can be brain-dead.

Concerned mother recruits friends & neighbors to aid in the search for the missing toddler

This was a jury of grazing sheep, with no real leadership, no independent thought, no critical thinking, no ability to look simultaneously at details as well as the big picture, incapable or just plain too lazy to put the pieces together and see the case, as a whole, form before their eyes. We’ve all watched Wheel Of Fortune and seen contestants correctly solving incomplete puzzles. We’ve even solved them ourselves and shouted the answer at the TV, so we know it can be done. Inference can be used to process circumstantial evidence (anyone remember Scott Peterson?), but somehow either the prosecution failed to define for the jury what all constitutes evidence, and explain to them the different kinds of evidence, or the defense was successful at falsely limiting the definitions, or both, leaving this jury expecting Vanna to leave no letter left unturned for them so they wouldn’t have to think. “Washingtom, Washingtoe? Washingtor? This is hard! We’re stumped without that last letter. We give up. Not guitly!”

The search continues into the night. Beverages are provided to the volunteers.

I’m hearing and reading a lot of people saying “there just wasn’t enough evidence to convict”. There is a serious lack of understanding of the nature of evidence and what kinds of evidence can be used. Some people won’t be convinced unless they can see a video of Guiltsey clearly doing the deed, or if a group of eyewitnesses testify that they saw her do it, as if a person planning on killing her child just can’t wait until there’s no one around. Physical evidence (which includes forensic) is but one kind of evidence, and there’s been an over-reliance on the empirical to the near exclusion of the logical. We use logic to make inferences. If A is more than B, and B is more than C, then A is more than C. Even though we might need to empirically determine what constitutes A,B,&C, we infer by reason that A is more than C even if A and C cannot be directly compared to each other. It wouldn’t make sense for someone to say “We just can’t determine whether or not A is greater than C because we can’t directly compare one to the other”. A person making such a statement is expressing doubt, but it’s not reasonable doubt. Somehow this jury had it in its collective head that they cannot make a determination of guilt unless the case is free from all doubt. You can show these people two of something, and then show them three of something, but they won’t put two & three together. They won’t believe it’s five unless you show them five, because using logic to add two & three is just hard. It makes their head hurt.

It seems like the jury looked at one piece of evidence, decided that it didn’t prove guilt beyond all doubt, then looked at the next piece of evidence and decided the same thing; going over all the evidence one piece at a time and rejecting it because no one piece by itself hit a home run in their minds. They failed to see how all the evidence came together and combine into a totality of circumstances. It’s like not seeing the forest because of the trees. What were they looking for, a sign over the body with an arrow pointing down saying “Mom did this”?

With schools & universities replacing education with indoctrination, we have told students what to think instead of how to think. We’ve even strayed so far from logic and reason that some people can’t even grasp the notion that there are such things as absolutes and universal truth, without which logic and reason are meaningless. It’s no wonder, sadly, that this is the outcome.

This is how lazy these individuals are: there were seven (7 for those in Orlando) charges against Guiltsey. They deliberated for only 9+ hours on all seven charges. My wife has spent more time than that going shopping. Less than ten hours for seven charges, and we’re supposed to believe that the jury gave this thoughtful and careful consideration? It’s as if this jury went to the deliberation room and said “Ok, we’ve been sequestered for six weeks, we’re tired, let’s wrap this up so we can all go home!” I can deal with Guiltsey being acquitted of Capital Murder, but how do they acquit her for Aggravated Manslaughter? Here is the Bill of Indictment:

  • “And the Grand Jurors of the County of Orange, duly called, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County of Orange, upon their oaths do present that CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, between the 15th day of June, 2008 and the 16th day of July, 2008, in said County and State, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida statutes 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and mental health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing cause the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.” (elements that apply here are in bold yellow type for those of you in Orlando)

It’s going to be a real challenge trying to convince me that Guiltsey wasn’t culpably negligent at the least. So they convicted her of lying. Why? Lying about what? What did Guiltsey have to lie about?

Concerned mom taking a much-needed break from all that searching

What the jurors don’t understand is everything isn’t C.S.I. They are allowed to use deductive reasoning and common sense. This is why you can convict on circumstantial evidence. This matters because Scott Peterson sits on Death Row for the murder of his wife Laci and their unborn son, convicted on far less physical evidence and with the cause of their deaths never determined. Scott could be a free man, if only his jury was as intellectually lazy as the jury who let Guiltsey get away with murder.

6 Comments

Filed under Unbridled Ignorance