Smarter Than Thou!

CRIME (OFTEN) DOES PAY

   SEAN Hannity is the host of a TV Fox News talk show, and he hosts a syndicated call-in radio show.  He is generally considered to be Conservative.  I do not listen to him often.  I noticed an odd reaction he seems to evoke. Even his more vehement opponents do not seem to get mad at him.  I think that this is because most people see his essential silliness. 

    Recently he commented on the Anthony Weiner case.  In case you have forgotten, this Congressman behaved in a silly and disgraceful way, and then resigned under pressure.  His actions were the subject of a lot of news.  Sean had a comment.  It is the kind that is often said in cases like this one.  He wondered aloud why people like Weiner did not “learn from the msitakes of others.”  By this he meant that the best course of action, when caught doing something wrong, was to admit, and to confess.  He and many others have often said, “The cover up is (always) worse than the crime.”

    I freely admit that a number of public figures have, apparently, increased the degree of their trouble by evasion and denial.  However, Sean’s general rule is one that can not be established.  To know if this were a better approach one would have to know how often a “hiding the truth” method is successful. 

    Are we to believe that EVERY public figure is incapable of hiding what he does wrong?  Is everyone exposed?  Has no one gotten away with crimes, scandals, etc?  Assuming that they have---and this is certainly the case---then the cover up often does not make things worse.  The cover up prevents the need for any additional action.  The cover up works. 

    To advance what he does advance Sean would need to know what he can not know.  He would need to know how often deception deceives.  Yet he pronounces as if he had the facts.  Maybe this is why he offends no one.  He is not to be taken seriously. 

    You are invited to visit the following blog:   Wilde & Twain

The rumor of the real death of Mark Twain was as exaggerated as the first two.  

 

IT'S CRUEL TO BE KIND

   THERE was a recent headline in a NY newspaper.  It read something like this:  “Cuff kid sues police.”  I did not need to read the story, as I know many of them already.  It happens on an irregular, but frequent, basis.  Some young kid gets in trouble, maybe at school, maybe shoplifting, maybe on the school bus.  The police are called and the kid is taken into custody.  And the police handcuff him.  This is the core of the TV broadcast. 

    Your first reaction is that this is ridiculous.  Your second reaction is the same.  The child is always under 12 years old, small, and often a girl, for otherwise there would be no story.  The normal American viewer thinks, or says,  “What kind of police officer is it who can not handle a 50 pound girl?”  Sometimes the story has video, and often the child criminal does not resist being handcuffed.  So this use of “excessive” force, or excessive use of force, leads to general disgust with the police and their procedures, and maybe a lawsuit. 

    This is a very good example of how to misrepresent a news story without actual open deception.  I have had a lot of experience with police, and know about these things.  Consider what would happen if the police officer had acted like some old time “friendly cop on the beat.”  He escorts, without physical contact, the child towards the police car.  The child now panics and runs off… into the street and is hit by a car.  Or the child decides that (s)he is not getting into the car, and attacks the police officer.  The officer needs to do something, and will probably injure the child in defense.  Suppose that the child willingly gets into the car, but then removes his seat belt, and is injured in an accident.  What if he bolts from the car at a red light?  What if he tries to grab the wheel, and/or attacks the driver?  These things could, and do, happen.  What if the officer sits next to her and holds her?  This could be an approximate incident of improper contact.  Hands may move, unintentionally, when a car moves.  Lawsuits would be filed by outraged parents. 

    Keep in mind that the ONLY reason why the police are involved is that the child has already shown himself to be a trouble maker.  He may be violent, or close to it.  She may be unstable and hysterical.  He may be mentally disturbed.  If the child is handcuffed behind his back, then he can be handled in a way that, as much as possible, ensures his own safety, as well as that of the officers, and anyone and everyone else.  No one, not even a child, can be handcuffed against his will.  That is, this can not then be done without using some overwhelming physical force or pain compliance.  The image of an adult police officer "handling" a child to cuff him looks terrible, but is necessary, prudent and proper.  

    My point is this.  Any police officer knows these factors.  Any reporter could demonstrate them, as background to any of these children in custody stories.  Once a police officer is officially involved he has to behave in certain ways---again, for maximum safety, for himself and others!  Yet the tone of these stories is that the police are sadistic brutes or incompetent fools, or both.  

    In this case, as with many others, half the story, or “just the facts,” are pretty much the same as a lie.  Keep this in mind as you watch and listen to the Mass Media.  It is a good rule to reason all the way to a final conclusion before you determine a conclusion. 

You are invited to visit my  other blog:  Wildeandtwain.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

 

"IN THE FIRST PLACE..."

    I thought that I might point out a potential defect with a current court case.  It is more than a defect in this case, as it is a defect with the legal system.  I refer to the Anthony murder trial in Florida.  In case you forgot, the mother killed her young daughter, apparently because her existence was an impediment to the mother’s rather active social life.  The evidence is all circumstantial.  This means that it will be incriminating towards her, if certain circumstances and contexts are proven as true.  The state has called an expert who has devised some kind of test to detect the chemical gases left behind by dead bodies. 

    In one of the news broadcasts a commentator pointed out a potential weakness to this part of the case.  The test has not (yet) been accepted as legally valid.  The US legal system has an established principle of established principle.  This means that a court is bound by decisions made in other court cases.  This seems sort of reasonable, namely that the two sides should be familiar, in advance, with the rules.  Of course, at the same time, it is utterly unreasonable.  You see why, do you not?

    Consider this.  At one time fingerprints were not considered a valid way to establish identity.  And blood types were not considered facts.  And DNA differences were purely a matter of theory.  As there had to be a time when these things were not allowed, there also had to be a first time that a court ruled that such things were allowed as evidence.  So, somewhere, some court declared that it was not going to stand by precedent.  And some defense lawyer said:  “You can’t change the rules after the game starts.”

    But, of course, this is exactly what happens.  Some guy, with no credentials (except what he claims for himself) comes along and says, “I know something others do not.”  In this murder case the test will probably be accepted, and be a basis for appeal, later.  I simply hope that some higher court ignores the rules, and lets the evidence stand.  To summarize and to clarify:  the American legal system is bound to obey the rules, except when it does not. 

    I brought up this simply to strip away the nonsense that the USA is a nation of laws and not of men.  The country, like all others, ignores principles when things really matter.  In order to prosecute people rules have to be broken, i.e. legal injustice often is the mother of real justice.  It simply would be less hypocritical if we acknowledged it.  Bu then the USA was founded upon hypocrisy, so this is highly unlikely.  

 

HOMO MARRIAGE'S CANCEROUS GROWTH

   AS I recall it, it began like this.  Former Governor Huckabee (Finn) was on some TV interview and/or call-in show.  The question of homosexual marriage came up.  He is generally considered, by the Mass Media, to be conservative.  As that term means almost nothing these days, he probably is.  Official conservative theory wants less government activity.  So he was “confronted” with the following question.  “How can you, as a person who wants less government, advocate the intrusion of government into what should be an essentially private matter?   That is, the government has to get involved to pass laws to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other.” Huckabee became confused.  I have yet to hear anyone, including Huckabee, defend the “anti” position correctly.  That is, I refer to anyone other than me.    

    The first point is that marriage is, among other things, a legal contract.  Divorce is a legal decision, made by a court.  The word “legal,” of necessity, means decided by law.   That is it is the business of government.  There is an immense amount of family law that deals with these “private”(sic) relationships among husband, wife, children, grandmothers, cousins, etc.  That is, the government is ALREADY very heavily involved in these matters.  They are not private.  The laws deal with property rights and powers over minors.  And other laws already deal with “private” sexual matters, making some illegal even when consensual. 

   Unless one is advocating that the state have NO control of such contractual matters, then any thing---I repeat anything!---to do with marriage will of necessity be a matter of legislation and court decisions, and, sometimes, imprisonment.  Currently, this area of government control is not (yet) effective in the area of same gender unions.  Those who advocate that such unions be given the same legal status as legal marriages are the ones who are asking for a massive government expansion.  Conservatives are consistent in their opposition.

    Currently, although not it is not automatic, the courts have a strong prejudice to give mothers custody of children.  This is a reflection of cultural values.  The presumption simplifies things.  If single gender unions were to be legally ended, the custody of children (that is, those unfortunate enough to be placed in such perverted environments) would require entirely different criteria.  The decisions might well be based upon which partner could prove himself to be more effeminate.  This might make court sessions more interesting, but they would, necessarily, become more complex.  More background evidence (and background investigators) would be needed.  Exceptionally detailed laws would be demanded, with complex and new court decisions, and appeals, and reversals, and re-writing laws.   Once again, a more inclusive definition of marriage would radically EXPAND the role of family law and government.

    Let me add a postscript.  The homo advocates ask that they be given “equal rights,” equal to the not unnatural people.  As no one has the right to marry someone of the same gender, no right is currently being denied anyone.  And, regardless of what is said, no one has the right to marry someone he loves.  If this were true then people could sue in court, to enforce the right, when rejected by a beloved.  I certainly would have wanted to file complaints in that court.  I am in favor of any law that forces others to love me.

  You may wish to read a blog offered by my good friends Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain.  Please visit "Wilde's Wit and Mark's Remarks" Thanks. 

 

GIVING PAKISTAN CREDIT (CARDS)

   MY last few installments have dealt with issue of Pakistan, and how the USA should deal with that country.  There is a growing inclination towards terminating aid to the country, because it is not as strong an ally as some would want.  This was are the George Bush principle, namely other countries are either “with us or against us.”  I offer my own analysis on the question. 

    An alliance, no matter how weak it seems, should be maintained.  A really long time ago a Chinese military writer, Sun Tzu, wrote a book called “The Art of War.”  The book remains popular today.  One of the principles was the importance of deception.  “When you are far, convince the enemy that you are near…” etc.  Another example was “When you are strong, convince the enemy that you are weak.”  An officially weak ally can be quite misleading to the enemy.  He (the enemy) should be confused as to how to act towards this ally.  Should he attack it?  If so then he may well cause it, in reaction, to make the weak alliance stronger.  Should he leave it alone, as he may expect the alliance to fall apart on its own?  This may give the ally an opportunity to function in relative peace, helping the alliance at little cost. 

    A divided enemy is easier to defeat.  If the terrorists can not decide their own policy towards Pakistan, then they may become paralyzed, at least to a degree, by strategic indecision.  For these reasons alone, the alliance, and the aid, should continue. 

   There is another factor.  The USA is not overwhelmingly popular in that part of the world.  Terrorist propaganda often attacks allies as slavish American puppets.  The more independent an ally appears, the less resistance can be expected from the local tribesman.  Even if the ally, because of the aid received, seems to be only a hired mercenary, the arrangement may well be considered manly and honorable, rather than simply as servant and master. 

   The hiring of allies is how a rich and soft nation should rationally wage war.  That is, it should bleed dollars rather than American lives.  The US should pay to poor to die for the interests of the rich(er).  

    It is, of course, possible that the current administration is aware of these factors, and is playing the great game in a way that Sun Tzu would approve.  But this is probably only a coincidence.  It is difficult to attribute wisdom, planning or patriotism to the current resident of the White House.  What is really important is that they are doing things in a way to please me.