Saturday, June 28, 2008


I thought I stepped in something but it turns out I was smelling this instead:

‘(Washington, DC, June 6, 2008) – New figures showing that US incarceration rates are climbing even higher, with racial minorities greatly overrepresented in prisons and jails, highlight the need to adopt alternative criminal justice policies, Human Rights Watch said today.’

‘The new statistics also show large racial disparities, with black males incarcerated at a per capita rate six times that of white males’

Alternative criminal justice policies? Huh?

What’s the alternative to incarcerating criminals? Not incarcerating criminals? Who thinks that’s a better plan than we’ve got now? Here’s an idea: if you think not prosecuting criminals is better than prosecuting criminals take a deep breath and hold it as long as you can; then I’ll help you hold it a while longer. Moron.

You can NOT I repeat NOT start telling Law Enforcement Officers they have a racial quota for catching bad guys. WHY? HERE’S WHY, YOU NUTJOB: First - exactly how is someone supposed to instruct the police to pick up more green people and less purple people without some freakin’ HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION screaming racism? YOU CAN’T. CAN NOT. CAN’T BE DONE. Second – it’s morally wrong to target anyone due to their ethnic group. You target them when they break the law. THAT’S WHY.

Are there more purple people in jail than green people? Maybe so. Were the criminal charges against them fabricated because the justice system is racist? HELL NO. Should we let them out because we have a racial imbalance? You can’t seriously expect anyone to fall for that tripe. They are crooks and they should be behind bars and I stopped giving a rat’s ass about their rights the second they violated someone else’s. Human rights organizations seem to want us to look at stats before we arrest a crook. Do we let a baby-rapist walk if we already have 3 this month from that ethnic group? HELL NO. Do we need to arrest more green people for blue collar crimes and more purple people for white collar crimes? Probably, but not because they are green or purple; we need to arrest them because they broke the damn law. Are there criminals out there walking free? Yes there are, but again, they are not criminals because of their race, but because they BROKE THE LAW. There are more criminals than the LEO’s can catch. The police are spread pretty freakin’ thin and a few rotten apples aside, are doing the best they can. Considering crooks are playing outside the rules it’s no surprise the Coppers are falling behind in some spots.

It occurs to me that I started taking out the trash when its full of chicken bones and other juicy leftovers instead of leaving it overnight; and my dogs stopped getting in the trash. Perhaps it’s time someone took their spare time and looked into the reason people commit crimes and tried to fix it somehow. Maybe if we stopped shipping food overseas and fed the hungry here in the USA, fewer people would steal in order to feed their families. Maybe if we stopped taxing the working class to death, fewer people would take up tax exempt professions like illegal drugs. Maybe if more people were allowed their constitutional rights to self protection there would be fewer easy victims for criminals to prey upon.

Pause for more oxygen and less blood pressure
Breathe Breathe Breathe
Ok I’m back

‘This represents an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 US residents,the highest such rate in the world. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s incarceration rate is 152 per 100,000 residents; the rate in Canada is 108; and in France it is 91. ‘

This is an idiotic stat. What is the number of LEO’s (handy acronym I picked up off the TV) per 100,000 residents? Maybe French police overworked even more than US police. Maybe the Brits have problems handling evidence and critters (a LawDog term I like) are walking because the defense attorneys are better than the prosecutors. Maybe they just don’t have as many idiotic BS laws to break as we do on this side of the pond. Maybe Canadian criminals flee across the border. You know what though ? THEY ARE STILL ALL CRIMINALS.

Here’s a thought: maybe, just maybe, the penalties for breaking the law here are too weak and as a result don’t act as a deterrent to lawbreakers. Maybe people here break the law during football season so they can have free cable TV.

I think we the people should do more to help the situation; instead of sitting on our collective butts and bitchin’ about all the stuff the LEO’s do wrong. Here’s a tip: the police don’t make the law. Politicians make the law. We the people elect the politicians. So in essence, we make the law. Remember that the next time you think some law is stupid or cumbersome. YOU MADE IT HAPPEN. YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF. Either by voting for the imbecile who enacted it, or by not voting for someone who opposed it.

I don’t know how many counties nationwide have similar programs, but for those of you in AZ with the volunteer bug:

Monday, June 23, 2008

RIP George Carlin

George Carlin 1937-2008

another great entertainer passes.

i was never able to see him in person but i will spend some time remembering all the laughter and good times shared with friends while watching him on tv.

he will be missed.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

spirit of tolerance

I was dinking around the internet today and stumbled across a site for quotations.

It’s a lazy day here today so I was sifting through a few of the more familiar names in an effort to kick start my brain when I found this tidbit:

Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. Albert Einstein

Laws alone can not…..

Here is the law:
The Bill of Rights -- Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where is the spirit of tolerance?

It seems more often than not people use their freedom of speech to tell other people their opinion doesn’t matter. Frankly this is a waste of time, but you have the freedom to waste as much time as you want. That’s one of the luxuries we have as U.S. citizens.

Never forget the fact EVERY citizen has the SAME right to speak. (If I had the power I would amend the law to say every LAW ABIDING citizen, but that’s another discussion.) George Genius has the same rights as Mike Moron. The SAME. Mike’s opinion might be less accurate, less intuitive, less pertinent, (or more) than George’s. These factors are totally irrelevant to the right to voice said opinion. Each has the right to speak. Being stupid or smart is an individual choice left up to the speaker.

It seems more and more people think being offended by what another says or does entitles them to something other than being offended. (Here we exempt
libel and slander from today’s discussion as those are personal attacks and not general comments.)

Here are a few tips for all you offended people:

1- If you don’t like what’s on TV, change the channel until you do. There is no law in this country that forces you to watch TV programs with content you find objectionable. If you are so offended you lose the ability to work the clicker go find something else to do with your time.

2- If you don’t like a slogan or poster in someone’s place of business, don’t read it or don’t go there again. They have the right to post information they like without getting your approval. EVER. Just as you have the right to not do business with them. I’m sure someone will say what about public places? Ok. If Mike or George has the right to post info on a public wall then so do you. Go right ahead and put up whatever you want. Just don’t cover up theirs as this constitutes a violation of their freedoms.

3- If you don’t like how someone is dressed, too bad.

4- If you don’t like what people do on their own property, too bad.

I could go on, but by now even you offended people should see the pattern.

If you don’t like it, fine. You have the right to not like whatever you choose. Your not liking it, in no way constitutes me being required to stop. You see, MY LIKING IS JUST AS VALID AS YOUR NOT LIKING.

If I want to put a flag out on my lawn I’m gonna. If said flag happens to offend you; stay off my lawn. Incidentally my big fuzzy dog gets offended when people walk on the grass where he poops. I’ll let you discuss that with him if you want. If you persist and need further persuasion to let me have my freedom, you should remember: on my dirt I can carry anything I want, loaded, in a holster, in plain view, on my hip.

If you are late for your arrival at your next destination; I am in no way required to drive above the speed limit to accommodate your poor planning. No amount of noise from your vehicle’s horn is capable of convincing me I need to break the law.

If you walk within 6 feet of me while I am walking my dog and I have not given you permission to pet him you have invaded his/our personal space and you get what you deserve.

If you walk up and stand in my campfire and get burnt, that’s on you. It’s not my fault you don’t look where you step.

At no point did I say “you should not do” any of the above (although that would be my recommendation). You have the freedom to step in dog poop, honk your car horn, attempt to pet a werewolf, test my aim or walk through fire if you choose.

In summary: you have the right to speak. You speaking should in no way restrict MY right to speak. While you are out exercising your right to free speech, never forget to be tolerant of mine.

We should also remember the wording of the first amendment. It reads “Congress shall make no law …” not ‘the people have rights’. The Bill of Rights is not merely a list of our freedoms; it is a list of freedoms the FEDERAL government is expressly not allowed to violate. It is not ‘giving the people permission’ it is ‘restricting the federal government’s power’.

from The Preamble to The Bill of Rights:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Essentially meaning: a number of states will only adopt the constitution if the federal government is limited in this fashion from infringing these rights of the people.

The fact we continue to elect politicians who seem to think offended people have more rights and we keep letting them draft more and more legislation to limit our freedoms offends me.