Justice Denied?

Or justice not settled. Whichever way you define it, it seems to me that if a kid did start one of the California fires, either one is better than ever claiming "justice well served," and how can it be? How can the punishments most equitable to the pain of the victims of that fire be given to a child? Even a fraction of that punishment might be seen as injustice due to the age and assumed mental capabilities of most children. This is a truly asinine situation. Nothing uncruel can be done to that child and his family and still be a fit punishment for the crime, because if it fits the crime, it must be cruel.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzNKToSBGU9gikCAGXs4-ePFG2FAD8SK5SN80

The circumstances alone reason for some mercy, but, still, it's highly ridiculous.

I swear, anyone who says,"but he's just a kid should," be punched upside the head. We know "he's just a kid". Just let some of us complain.

Pete Stark Controversy

Not much to say on it; not as if he said anything I haven't heard before. Not withstanding his past comments, real, alleged or false, yes, I forgive him. What bother's me more is that he hopes to "become as insignificant as I (Pete Stark) should be" by his apologizing. Hate what he said if you feel justified in doing so, but his attitude about himself, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his sincerety, doesn't seem very healthy to me. Besides, how insignificant do constituents want their respective Congressmen to be? I assume most would say not very.

People who like torture films

Such as the Saw series. You're amoral or worse and you suck. Choke on that "fascist" view.

On Point, women in pursuit of men less successful than them

On Point, a public radio program I heard, about a week ago, was discussing the topic of how some successful women can't form lasting relationships with men of a lower economic and social status than them. The two women interviewed for their personal experiences as successful women who've dated "down," also spoke of dating at "their level," and their difficulties with men even at that standing." While I don't have a ready explanation for that, the insecurity around successful women that the men in the lower standing category have, does have a reasonable, I believe, explanation.

I thought, for a moment, about whether I would feel insecure around successful women, and it took me little time to admit to myself that I would. The reason, and this is something I believe affects a lot of male thinking, is that I believe men tend to value themselves in a somewhat different way than women. My theory is this: Men value themselves by accomplishments, with tangible proofs thereof. That means if we claim to be highly intelligent, we expect that you, a successful woman, will want to see advanced degrees and papers we authored published in respected journals of science, etc. Also, if we claim to be athletic, you'd want not only see us in action, but our trophies for games won and played well. Those things we see as proof of our value. For women, qualities such as charm, character, sense of humor, etc., take on a higher level of importance earlier than they do for men.

It's probably true of many misperceptions about other persons that it's assumed they will think as we do. Believing this, it's not hard to understand why some men can't cope with more successful women, as they might find it very difficult to believe women who have options would go for the lower class men, let alone stay with them.

Alternatively, some men might just only like weak women. Be that as it may, I do think my theory, original or not, has merit; is at least plausible.

Only I may violate it, says the arrogant ass

It always amazes me, no, it annoys me, how a person can complain, even if justifiably, about one person’s violating the rights of others while effectively doing the same thing, and they do not know they are doing it.

Here are two examples.

I’m strongly opposed to the anti-snitching movement (anyone with a decent bone in his body would be). There are understandable reasons, having to do with personal and familial safety, for why some persons might not snitch when they witness crimes and suspicious activities, but a broad stand against snitching, and not just to protect junkies who qualify as being harmless, but possible murderers, rapists, etc., is absurd.

One of the main defenses of this is the claim that the police are corrupt. That’s true in some cases, but what bothers me more than the generalization some form from their anecdotal experiences or rumors , is that some of those who complain about the police abuses, use that as a justification to not only refuse to assist in bringing justice to the victims of criminal acts, but also to advocate vigilante justice, which is inherently going to violate the rights of those suspected of criminal activities, whom do, in fact, have rights.

” it’s wrong for the police to beat people up, but, by golly, if I think someone did something illegal, it’s perfectly ok for me and my buddies to beat that person up”.

Well, to enlighten, if you complain about violations of laws and then violate the law yourself, you’re a hypocrite, and not in a tolerable way. That kind of violation wouldn’t fall under the banner of civil disobedience either, not without making that strategy for change look insane.
The second example, and here’s where I risk the neocon label, is with the notion of Impeachment (of President Bush in this case, but the following holds true for any person facing trial).

My opposition isn’t with Impeaching Bush, I couldn’t care less if that’s done. If there’s a case to be made, make it. Obviously, if not, it can be argued that Impeaching him would be wasteful but for giving some people a sense of appeased vengeance, but that’s really of limited value if the goal is to remove Bush from office. With all that said, I’ll go onto what does bother me.

Given the anger, the justifications for which aside, people have over Bush, I wondered what they would think if Bush were Impeached but not convicted; would that be justice? According to most people I asked, the answer was no. Well, from a subjective standpoint, that’s true for them, and I might form the same opinion. But what they fail to realize with their contention, is that they aren’t only supposing only one outcome can be, which makes their understanding of impeachment minimal, at best, but that there’s a hypocrisy (again using a double-standard with respect to law, specifically the US Constitution), here also: According to their line of reasoning, Bush violates the Constitution, literally and in spirit. Therefore, we should ignore, before the fact, the outcome of a Constitutional procedure, Impeachment if we don’t like it (just as Bush is alleged to ignore and violate the Constitution), and proclaim what it should be. In other words, a trial is moot; there goes the principle of assumed innocense until convicted by a fair and impartial jury or judge, or, in this case, the Senate (no comment).

If some want him out that bad, they should start a revolution, or at least admit to being hypocrites.