I Have a Dream-

to find a group that is drunk enough to try to sing this, yet sober enough to do so decently.

When Seconds Count--

I think I've linked this before; Seraphic Secret did so well on it, though, that I must do so again.

I lead her to the glass case that holds the wheel guns, weapons that are simple to load, easy to handle, jam-proof. And, you better believe: lethal. She scans the display. She seems overwhelmed. Finally, she looks up at me and says: “What’s to stop Ned from killing me in the next ten days?” I have no answer.

A very, very good question. UPDATED: John Wright muses on the subject of women, guns and "feminism" for a bit before pointing folks to Cornered Cat. That site has an image that is perfection defined-- and the gal with the gun looks eerily like my mom's little sister, the martial artist. (No mean feat, since we're all pale Isles blood...but no less true for that.)

Maaaaaaybe....

Below, Sleeping Beastly asks if I might rather Libertarian; I wouldn't take that identification, even though many of the views are similar.

 The "why" is different-- I just flat out don't trust groups of people. Take about ten minutes to look up "homeowners associations" for really good examples of why I distrust the... beneficent tyranny of groups. (I mean, really: if you wouldn't trust one random person, why would you trust fifteen of them more than yourself?) Anyways, Sleeping Beastly also asked:
I wonder: do you also think that crimes should not be prosecuted any differently when the perpetrator is shown to be insane?

I've got to pull up one of my favorite quotes:

If you mean whiskey, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pits of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being. However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it. This is my position, and as always, I refuse to be compromised on matters of principle. ~ Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr, 1952 "Whiskey Speech"

Insane?
 Insane how?
 Insane as in not being in a state of sanity, that is, a mental state free of disorders and derangements?
 I am not sane, by that measure-- claustrophobia. I've only blacked out once-- nearly punched a chief while I was at it, for added fun. My mind is disordered in that, when confronted with high temperatures, dark and close areas, high humidity, constricted movement or even a couple of these, it "tells" me that I cannot breath and triggers a panic response. Would I have been fully responsible for hitting that chief, if I'd managed it? Nope-- beyond the blackout, and not knowing I was actually claustrophobic, I wasn't even trying to hit anyone.
However, the flip side of that freedom from responsibility is a new burden-- instead of being punished for an action I couldn't control, I've got to avoid things that cause that action. I got pulled off of the fire team, and I am very careful to avoid responsibility-bearing situations that might trigger the same response. Now, if I went and killed someone, that mental disorder would not be a consideration at all-- I should be treated just like anyone else.

 If by insane, though, you mean "clearly not responding to any identifiable objective reality"-- well, that one depends on how that disorder effects what they're being punished for.
 First off: the treatment should not be preferable to the punishment for a sane person.
 If the person is getting the chair if they don't make folks think they're insane, the shouldn't be treated and released because of insanity. They're a proven risk. (Also, it channels Arkham.)
 That poor woman who killed her children because "God told her to" shouldn't be lose in public-- for her safety and that of others. With a lot-- and I mean a WHOLE LOT-- of protections for everyone involved, cases like that (along with the classic mumbling street person) is why I support the return of mental institutions. (There are abuses in foster homes; that doesn't mean we turn all the kids who don't have natural families out on the street.)

 If by insane, you mean "believes some objectionable thing"-- such as that humans, once they are past breeding age, should be killed, or that children before the age of reason aren't really human, or that women dressed in X manner should be physically assaulted in an obscene manner, or that other people are food animals: heck no, the insanity shouldn't matter for their punishment. They have a belief, they acted on it, and it's unlikely that being locked in a room being told they're wrong will change their beliefs. (It's even less likely that we'd want to give the gov't the ability to decide that X belief is proof of insanity-- we've already got enough idiots that are ready to label philosophical disagreements into mental disorders.)

  Alright, the very short version: Insanity should be considered in punishing a crime only insofar as it effected culpability at the time of the crime, and in consideration of direct culpability if the crime should have been avoided, given the knowledge of the accused.
 First time I swung at chief: not culpable.
 If I put myself in the same situation, knowingly and willingly, and hit him: culpable.

 You *really* don't want to get me started on the topic of mental retardation and culpability-- at the far extremes, it's cut and dried; when we start to talk about Asperger's making you not responsible for murder....

Comparing Accidents

There are five fatal, two-car wrecks. In each case, the survivor was at fault, and the dead are a family-- two parents and a kid. In the first accident, the driver was legally drunk. In the second, the driver was trying to get home for the weekend after staying up for the last two days. In the third, the driver was a teenage boy that was showing off. In the fourth, the driver was a standard "aggressive driver"-- mild speeding, frequent lane changes, failure to yield, doesn't know where the blinker is--- you know them, if you've driven on a crowded freeway lately. In the fifth, the driver was on prescription anxiety medications. In all of these cases, the driver that was at fault made a choice-- they altered their systems, or they acted stupid. So, why is only the first example the one that makes people want to write laws to prevent even the chance of it happening? Why is it only one of the three examples of impaired driving has laws specifically against it? Laws which, incidentally, don't accurately model who is impaired-- at my first command we had a pilot pop on a random breathalyzer (they were given after flights because it's too much of a pain to make sure it's done properly otherwise) at over double the legal limit. He'd been pickled since about a year after he left boot camp, and had a perfect flight record. Who doesn't know functional alcoholics? Maybe a more accurate question would be, who doesn't realize they know functional alcoholics.... I knew several when I was growing up, but until it was pointed out, I had no idea. Here's another thought experiment: Same accidents as above, but the person at fault was the driver of the family car. Even though they're all impaired, which of the victims of that accident would probably end up charged with murder and sent to jail? I'm all for throwing the book at those who drive when they are causing hazard-- be it alcohol, lack of sleep, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, old age, pissed off at someone, showing off, or too Fing stupid to follow basic traffic laws. If you're driving dangerously, the police should enforce the laws and make it so you are not doing so. Don't even get me started on the stupid garbage that happens to pump up "drunk driver" arrests and alcohol related accidents. Drunks sleeping it off in the back of their car are not drunk drivers. China Lake NAS had multiple cops brag about these arrests in the yearly "don't drink and drive" briefings. Hitting the diesel leaking out of a beer truck on an icy road and flipping is not an alcohol related accident. (actually happened to a friend) Three drunks in a car with no keys, at a gas station, while their designated driver is inside paying for the gas, is not drunk driving. Stepping on a beer bottle and getting an infection is not an alcohol related accident-- this one was actually overturned by the CO, who didn't make any friends with the base police. This site seems to have some pretty good info on problems with breathalyzers. Here is another, from a Lawyer POV. Now, the most common response I get to this argument is "but drinking is bad for you! Alcoholism is bad!" True. So? These are driving laws. Not your doctor, not your mother, not your master. Road safety is the point. I'd lay five bucks that removing all males ages 15-30 would result in lower car accidents than an entirely "dry" area-- doesn't mean that we should ban guys from driving. Reminds me of another "safety" issue.... where states are raising the driving age to 18, on the logic that the younger, inexperienced drivers are more dangerous. All I can think about is that old joke, where the hillbillies moved 30 miles away because they read that 90% of car accidents occur within 20 miles of home..... Finally: The most common accusation I get on the internet is that I'm a guilty drunk driver. Head here. Neat little calculator. I like table wine-- undercutting my weight a bit, it says I'd need a bit over four 4oz glasses of wine an hour to get almost legally drunk. I'd pu--- I'd be physically ill. I know this, because on the few times I've gotten distracted with a conversation and drank faster than I realized, I get ill around 8-10 oz in a bit over an hour. I can't imagine drinking more than two beers an hour-- let alone four. It takes me two hours to drink a high ball in the few bars I've been to-- it's just too much alcohol. I'm a light weight, pure and simple. Although I am guilty of driving when I was so tired I only kept going by giving myself mild caffeine poisoning... had a lovely black wolf-cat thing loping along beside my car for a good hundred miles. That was dangerous, it wasn't very bright, and thank goodness I had the sense to time it for a time when I'd pass a total of two cars in a three hundred mile trip.

Wait, WHAT?!?!

Spock in a dress? @#$#, that's an attractive man.... Also, I covet his coat. ;^p

Radioactive Mutant Bluebirds of Happiness-

two genetic freaks, and two mornings in a row spent with a flamethrower! What's not to love about that? Explanation: The bluebirds around here are usually the size of wrens and a kind of dull blue color, a bit slate colored. We saw a bunch the size of robins and a gorgeous electric blue color. The genetic freaks are calves-- two heifers, from registered black Angus bulls, mothers are one solid black and one black with a brockle face (white with patches). The calves are a lovely, deep red in color. Red Angus were developed from sports like these, and now breed true. (I still prefer some Hereford blood, they are such cute calves....) The flamethrower... well, it's just after spring thaw, nothings living in the dry grass yet; the grass was about five feet tall when it was standing, and is a huge hazard in the summer. Thus, my inner pyro gets to exercise. ^.^ And I get to come back Wed and do it again!

"Political Corruption, Moral Cowardice,

religious hypocrisy, and physical violence." Welcome to Holy Week!

Another Programmed Post!

Hope this works, too.... Anyways: Want a layout of why Obama's had me worried for months on end, now? Neo-Neo covers it. She's got a more generous soul than I do- she was willing to give him a chance. I chose the less generous "take them at their word-- and if they offer multiple contradicting statements, take them at all the worst words." A taste-- go read!

Before Obama took office, I noticed some traits of his that concerned me (you can find the relevant posts under the category “Obama” on the right sidebar of this blog). His grandiosity and narcissism. His fostering of a trancelike hero-worship in his followers. His lack of humor. His complaints about being tired, used as an excuse for his errors. His ignorance of history. His hubris about his foreign policy background, based on his childhood and early adulthood sojourns and travels. His emphasis on “coolness” over substance. His breaking of his word on campaign finances. His associates, especially Wright and Ayers.

Very Quick Thought-

Might we be in a time of miracles? The Anchoress' two I mentioned earlier. (sp? Dictionary on this computer doesn't recognize it....) Now these two. Maybe someone is trying to tell us "Be Not Afraid"? Can anyone find me some more?

Trying Out The Programmed Posting-

with a cute little comic. I wish I had more skill with computers, because I'd modify the last bit in a heartbeat to use as a personal reminder. Elfie had a similar reaction-- it's no wonder Girl Genius is so popular with geeks! They think like we do! Please, go read the whole thing, it's delightful.

Baby, Cancer, Miracle!

At the Anchoress:

I know some will say, “well, it wasn’t GAWWWWD…it was the radiation, and the trained people, it was science!” I suspect - because my religion has formed me in faith and reason, and in openness - that it was both. I don’t understand why anyone needs it to be only one or the other. Let us remember that the best combinations of scientific knowledge and human intent do not always achieve wonders, and sometimes they do.

Thank God they're alright!

Way Out Of My League--

This type of charity, I mean:

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 11:46AM I serve on the board of a halfway house I helped found about twenty years ago. Now, we expect to be in financial trouble, since almost half of the donations that support us come from people who are over the income limit and already are experiencing a lowered financial worth because of the stock market. Obama's blather about a $100 donation is totally dishonest. The big donor doesn't give $100, he gives $100,000. Now this will cost him $128,000 instead. The big givers often give MOST of their income to charity. This is a 28% tax on our charitable budget, nothing less. I've been involved in charitable institutions professionally for over forty years, and this coming year is shaping up to be the worst. If we have to close our doors, I will know exactly who to blame.

This is the full comment made here, which I found by here. Try to imagine giving most of your income. Kinda neat, eh? It reminded me-- Former President W. Bush gave 10% of his income, each year he was President, and in 2005 Former VP Dick Cheney gave 77% of his income. Who says all pols are selfish?