Solitary confinement is regularly used for inappropriate reasons and inhumanely. Call your representative and let him or her know that you want the prisons that you pay for run more accountably and more humanely, and that you want federal standards for the use of solitary confinement.
The link below will connect you with your representative and will even make the call for you.
https://www.govtrack.us/poll/113-hr-4618/join/15543
Showing posts with label uncivilized. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uncivilized. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Stop the President from skirting his requirement to get Congressional approval for war
The decision to engage in military conflict should NOT be made without Congressional approval. HR Bill 4608 requires the President to file a report confirming the conflicts that he has committed US troops to engage in and for those to end if Congressional approval is not subsequently granted. It also puts an end to allowing the President to skirt around the Constitutional requirement that Congress must approve of getting US into war.
The link below will help you conect with your Representative and will even make the call to their office for your and provide you with a suggested script.
https://www.govtrack.us/poll/113-hr-4608/join/15585
Monday, November 12, 2012
Gay Rights Strategy
Here is a thought. Instead of letting hate-mongering con-christians determine the language of the debate as it is being played out politically and legislatively, why not take charge? After all, the discussion of whether an adult can marry another adult is a completely private question. So any other person's expression of rejection of such marriage is committing an act of inequality, unfairness, and invasion of privacy that that bigot does nothave the foundation or right to commit. And, when those that support the right of others to marry whomever they wish, among other very personal life choices, engage in a discussion of the benefits foregone by prohibiting others from marrying, those supporters are missing a golden opportunity to reinvent--and distract, the non-supporters.
Instead, what should be discussed and made into tv soundbites are the contrary religious beliefs. The discussion should be strictly limited to the religious fanaticism that it is, and not be given any sense of "social" or "values" legitimacy. In other words, just by countering the "anti" privacy and fairness factions with talk of benefits, values, etc, the Pro-privacy and Pro-fairness peeps are going down the wrong path.
Imagine, if religious privacy haters were constantly confronted with other self-professed educated "faithful", like religious leaders and ministers, etc, who consistently expressed and cited religious text that supported privacy (and, for example, gay marriage), and loving your neighbor no matter how different he or she is from you. Imagine if the rhetoric was moved to preclude discussion of values. This would have the wild and significant benefit of removing the scrutinizing "lense" of social morality from "gay". At the same time that it limits the discussion as it relates to gays, it broadens the discussion as it relates to the religious, as it turns the "burden of proof" from the gay to the religious.
So, groups like HRC should only make media spots that have other religious people talking about how accepting religions like christianity are, how those that express hostile and hatefilled religious-based sentiments are not really acting upon religious fundamentals, etc.
Instead, what should be discussed and made into tv soundbites are the contrary religious beliefs. The discussion should be strictly limited to the religious fanaticism that it is, and not be given any sense of "social" or "values" legitimacy. In other words, just by countering the "anti" privacy and fairness factions with talk of benefits, values, etc, the Pro-privacy and Pro-fairness peeps are going down the wrong path.
Imagine, if religious privacy haters were constantly confronted with other self-professed educated "faithful", like religious leaders and ministers, etc, who consistently expressed and cited religious text that supported privacy (and, for example, gay marriage), and loving your neighbor no matter how different he or she is from you. Imagine if the rhetoric was moved to preclude discussion of values. This would have the wild and significant benefit of removing the scrutinizing "lense" of social morality from "gay". At the same time that it limits the discussion as it relates to gays, it broadens the discussion as it relates to the religious, as it turns the "burden of proof" from the gay to the religious.
So, groups like HRC should only make media spots that have other religious people talking about how accepting religions like christianity are, how those that express hostile and hatefilled religious-based sentiments are not really acting upon religious fundamentals, etc.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Eliminate judicial immunity
The Economist provides the best introduction to this post:
"Judges may be trained...But they are also human, and thus subject to all sorts of cognitive biases..."
See Economist, April 16th, 2011, page 87.
The application of very simple logic to this fact--that the bench is really comprised of fallible animals, reveals that the time for extenive discussion on immunity and accountability has arrived.
First, immunity is unecessary given the availibility of Professional Liability insurance, or "E&O".
Second, judicial immunity creates a culture in which lower standards of judicial behavior can proliferate and thrive.
Third, judicial immunity shields corrupt judges from being prosecuted for their criminal misconduct.
Fourth, immunity prevents victims from pursuing justice or compensation for the more egregious and injurious misconduct.
Fifth, the fallibility of human cognitive functioning (for example, decision fatigue) warrants increased regulation and adherence to principles of accountibility--not decreased opportunity for regulation and accountability. These congnitive issues are addressed in other professions where denial of human imperfectibility could-and will, lead to failure to maintain professional standards, goals, and even to injuries or death. Studies suggest that judges' decision-making ability is increasingly impaired the longer they go from their last meal/snack, showing that even basic chemical/biological factors influence and contribute to a judge's action. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
There simply is no logic behind denying the biological and human aspects of this group of animals--judges.
"Judges may be trained...But they are also human, and thus subject to all sorts of cognitive biases..."
See Economist, April 16th, 2011, page 87.
The application of very simple logic to this fact--that the bench is really comprised of fallible animals, reveals that the time for extenive discussion on immunity and accountability has arrived.
First, immunity is unecessary given the availibility of Professional Liability insurance, or "E&O".
Second, judicial immunity creates a culture in which lower standards of judicial behavior can proliferate and thrive.
Third, judicial immunity shields corrupt judges from being prosecuted for their criminal misconduct.
Fourth, immunity prevents victims from pursuing justice or compensation for the more egregious and injurious misconduct.
Fifth, the fallibility of human cognitive functioning (for example, decision fatigue) warrants increased regulation and adherence to principles of accountibility--not decreased opportunity for regulation and accountability. These congnitive issues are addressed in other professions where denial of human imperfectibility could-and will, lead to failure to maintain professional standards, goals, and even to injuries or death. Studies suggest that judges' decision-making ability is increasingly impaired the longer they go from their last meal/snack, showing that even basic chemical/biological factors influence and contribute to a judge's action. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
There simply is no logic behind denying the biological and human aspects of this group of animals--judges.
Monday, May 28, 2012
guns in the home
For the second time this week, and from completely separate sources, I read that, statistically, a gun is a greater risk to family and friends than it is protection as self-defense.
Ummm, so just how stupid is my brother (and his wife): Two years ago, I didn't know the above statistics, but I did know that a teenage boy who commits suicide is predominately more likely to shoot himself with a gun that he obtains from his own home. For that reason alone, I told Chad and Alisha, I would make sure no gun was in the house while there was a kid in the house. They, in usual "pendidiotic" style, argued that they needed a gun to shoot anyone they thought was trying to break in to their house. I mentioned to them the fact that they live in a development with thousands of houses that all pretty much look the same, so that the risk of a neighbor's late-night visitor knocking on the wrong door was pretty high, and why not just give the burglar what they want--was any material possession worth the risk of injury to your children or of facing murder charges? They insisted that they knew how to handle a gun. A year later, on Father's Day even, they fought and ratcheted each other up until Alisha got out the loaded pistol, Chad wrestled it from her, and the witnessing teenage son screamed for help. Yeah, so I guess they know how to handle a gun.
By the way, the loaded pistol was in a shoebox, well within reach of the climbing three year old.
And, a couple of months ago, a guy living close to here shot a young man who was knocking on the man's door to get help for his car that had broken down in front of the man's house. The kid is dead, and the neighbor's homicide trial is already well underway. The kid was shot in the back, his body falling on the walkway, half-way back to the street.
Ummm, so just how stupid is my brother (and his wife): Two years ago, I didn't know the above statistics, but I did know that a teenage boy who commits suicide is predominately more likely to shoot himself with a gun that he obtains from his own home. For that reason alone, I told Chad and Alisha, I would make sure no gun was in the house while there was a kid in the house. They, in usual "pendidiotic" style, argued that they needed a gun to shoot anyone they thought was trying to break in to their house. I mentioned to them the fact that they live in a development with thousands of houses that all pretty much look the same, so that the risk of a neighbor's late-night visitor knocking on the wrong door was pretty high, and why not just give the burglar what they want--was any material possession worth the risk of injury to your children or of facing murder charges? They insisted that they knew how to handle a gun. A year later, on Father's Day even, they fought and ratcheted each other up until Alisha got out the loaded pistol, Chad wrestled it from her, and the witnessing teenage son screamed for help. Yeah, so I guess they know how to handle a gun.
By the way, the loaded pistol was in a shoebox, well within reach of the climbing three year old.
And, a couple of months ago, a guy living close to here shot a young man who was knocking on the man's door to get help for his car that had broken down in front of the man's house. The kid is dead, and the neighbor's homicide trial is already well underway. The kid was shot in the back, his body falling on the walkway, half-way back to the street.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Mexican and Immigration
It seems again that our political system is throwing another red herring at us and trying to dupe our vote out of us. As with a woman's right to her private relationship with her doctor and with a person's right to choose the details of his/her personal, most private intimate relationship, immigration appears to be another such example of our government splashing irrelevant arguments at us in order to appeal to some hormonal response that guides our vote, rather than a reasoned response that is intrinsically based on the principals of our american government.
The Pew Hispanic Center recently published a study that shows that net immigration (between US and Mexico) has dropped to net zero or below. Now, whether that is due to the recent changes in US immigration policies is irrelevant: it can be argued that their success led to the net zero flow, just as it can be argued that the changes are really a waste of money and resources because there just aren't the numbers anymore. So, any current politician or political candidate spouting an affirmative position in relation to immigration policy changes is just blowing smoke up our asses.
And, wasting our resources and money...
I heard that California spent millions on a program to facilitate the employment of US citizens in harvesting and farming work to only have about 10 persons apply and about three even try the work. Uhhmm, money well spent? I think not. So there it is, the truth: the truth is that we just don't want to do the work that immigrants are willing to perform and we are so miserable about it when we do show up for the job that we lose the job or quit.
The California experiment is supported by my middle class neighbors' experiences, as I suspect is also most of our experiences. My neighbor's nephew was the laziest fuck of a lawn maintenance guy--my neighbor even had to buy his equipment for him and pay the HOA fines because of his poor work. His Hispanic replacement, on the other hand, was on time, provided his own equipment, and met the HOA's standards. The non-immigrant US citizen guy hired by another neighbor to do drywall work called her a "cunt" when she told him to follow her directions while on her property (she told him at the beginning of his day use the ladders and scaffolding and not to reach. Within an hour, she caught him standing on the 120 year old fireplace mantle and reaching above the fireplace). The Hispanic crew left her a perfectly mudded house in just two days and didn't use one single expletive. Non-mexican US citizens simply don't want to do the work, and, quite frankly, we don't want you to do it either. This is ample demonstration that our recent attitudes towards immigration have led to exceptionally stupid policy decisions and expenditures that really only end up making us look like total asses.
If a politician had any real concerns about this immigration flow and its impact on our culture and country, there are at least two OTHER issues that he/she should be discussing.
The first issue is that a significant percentage (20%) of the flow from US to Mexico that helped get us to net zero are actually US citizens--children born in the US. Children--persons that are a US citizen in exactly the same way that makes me, and likely each politician, a US citizen. Can there be found any other emigration of US citizens in such a large number that we, as a country, as a nation, have approved of? I challenge any politician to find that example.
Further compounding the ethical challenges with this particular issue is that our own government is hiding from us--its constituency and funders, the actual numbers of US citizens that it forcibly and constructively deports to Mexico each year. The US Dept. of Homeland Security may provide some numbers on its acitivies, but it fails to provide numbers on how many US citizen-children that it has forced to relocate from the US to Mexico. Why hide that from us? And why do we tolerate this kind of lack of transparency in our own government?
The second issue that politicians keen on immigration issues should be discussing is how to effect and achieve the maximum beneficial characteristics of a society that is diverse and includes immigrants. How many times have we heard a politician define the "problem" of Mexico-to-US immigration as being one of immigrants failing our society some how. This seems very much like picking on the people who can't defend them selves--and who don't vote. And, more importantly, it seems to be an overly narrow view, since many immigrants provide necessary services that go unprovided without them. Their performance of domestic, farming, construction, and gardening services are just a few examples of their obvious and helpful contribution. Has anyone seen "The Help"....see any similarities?
Instead of talking about putting money into things that make us an antagonistic, pugnacious, and uncaring society, why not talk about putting resources into making sure all elements of our society are educated, have a way to provide for themselves, and have a way to contribute to their chosen society. When you shore up your society's provision of education, you achieve direct and indirect benefits for everyone. When you shore up a truly robust free market economy where everyone--especially the wealthy and the incorporated, pay their way instead of sucking our backbones out of us, everyone benefits.
The Pew Hispanic Center recently published a study that shows that net immigration (between US and Mexico) has dropped to net zero or below. Now, whether that is due to the recent changes in US immigration policies is irrelevant: it can be argued that their success led to the net zero flow, just as it can be argued that the changes are really a waste of money and resources because there just aren't the numbers anymore. So, any current politician or political candidate spouting an affirmative position in relation to immigration policy changes is just blowing smoke up our asses.
And, wasting our resources and money...
I heard that California spent millions on a program to facilitate the employment of US citizens in harvesting and farming work to only have about 10 persons apply and about three even try the work. Uhhmm, money well spent? I think not. So there it is, the truth: the truth is that we just don't want to do the work that immigrants are willing to perform and we are so miserable about it when we do show up for the job that we lose the job or quit.
The California experiment is supported by my middle class neighbors' experiences, as I suspect is also most of our experiences. My neighbor's nephew was the laziest fuck of a lawn maintenance guy--my neighbor even had to buy his equipment for him and pay the HOA fines because of his poor work. His Hispanic replacement, on the other hand, was on time, provided his own equipment, and met the HOA's standards. The non-immigrant US citizen guy hired by another neighbor to do drywall work called her a "cunt" when she told him to follow her directions while on her property (she told him at the beginning of his day use the ladders and scaffolding and not to reach. Within an hour, she caught him standing on the 120 year old fireplace mantle and reaching above the fireplace). The Hispanic crew left her a perfectly mudded house in just two days and didn't use one single expletive. Non-mexican US citizens simply don't want to do the work, and, quite frankly, we don't want you to do it either. This is ample demonstration that our recent attitudes towards immigration have led to exceptionally stupid policy decisions and expenditures that really only end up making us look like total asses.
If a politician had any real concerns about this immigration flow and its impact on our culture and country, there are at least two OTHER issues that he/she should be discussing.
The first issue is that a significant percentage (20%) of the flow from US to Mexico that helped get us to net zero are actually US citizens--children born in the US. Children--persons that are a US citizen in exactly the same way that makes me, and likely each politician, a US citizen. Can there be found any other emigration of US citizens in such a large number that we, as a country, as a nation, have approved of? I challenge any politician to find that example.
Further compounding the ethical challenges with this particular issue is that our own government is hiding from us--its constituency and funders, the actual numbers of US citizens that it forcibly and constructively deports to Mexico each year. The US Dept. of Homeland Security may provide some numbers on its acitivies, but it fails to provide numbers on how many US citizen-children that it has forced to relocate from the US to Mexico. Why hide that from us? And why do we tolerate this kind of lack of transparency in our own government?
The second issue that politicians keen on immigration issues should be discussing is how to effect and achieve the maximum beneficial characteristics of a society that is diverse and includes immigrants. How many times have we heard a politician define the "problem" of Mexico-to-US immigration as being one of immigrants failing our society some how. This seems very much like picking on the people who can't defend them selves--and who don't vote. And, more importantly, it seems to be an overly narrow view, since many immigrants provide necessary services that go unprovided without them. Their performance of domestic, farming, construction, and gardening services are just a few examples of their obvious and helpful contribution. Has anyone seen "The Help"....see any similarities?
Instead of talking about putting money into things that make us an antagonistic, pugnacious, and uncaring society, why not talk about putting resources into making sure all elements of our society are educated, have a way to provide for themselves, and have a way to contribute to their chosen society. When you shore up your society's provision of education, you achieve direct and indirect benefits for everyone. When you shore up a truly robust free market economy where everyone--especially the wealthy and the incorporated, pay their way instead of sucking our backbones out of us, everyone benefits.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Basketball
Recently, I had the "pleasure" of staying with some NBA allstars at Orlando's JWMarriot/Ritz-Carlton. No, I wasn't a part of any of their entourages, but I was living in such close quarters with the all-stars and their associates that my suspicions about the degradation of the sport were birthed.
Let's just sumamarize it this way: I stay at places like the Ritz to get away from the "uncivilized" experience of the "outside" world. If I wanted to spend four days around hookers, domestic fights, knife fights, and wildly increased police presence, I'd have camped out in my car in the seedier parts of town.
Is it any wonder that now, whenever I tune in to watch even the college games, all I see are "gang" leaders "in training"--NBA style.
So, for me now, watching basketball today is like watching cleaned-up gangs all dressed in the same clothes-the team uniform. I can't help but ask myself things like "How many is he gonna have in his entourage?, and "How many fights or other salacious or violent activities will he or his associates be involved in?"
These males are simply not so important that we, as a society, need to condone their bubbled-off world of illegal activity. Perhaps, salaries need to be dropped...a lot, the associates "registered" or made to get--and maintain, a business-license in any state in which they appear, or prosecutions and convictions made. Is the IRS making any of these guys pay gift tax or income tax on any of the benefits these associates are receiving? I hope so.
Let's just sumamarize it this way: I stay at places like the Ritz to get away from the "uncivilized" experience of the "outside" world. If I wanted to spend four days around hookers, domestic fights, knife fights, and wildly increased police presence, I'd have camped out in my car in the seedier parts of town.
Is it any wonder that now, whenever I tune in to watch even the college games, all I see are "gang" leaders "in training"--NBA style.
So, for me now, watching basketball today is like watching cleaned-up gangs all dressed in the same clothes-the team uniform. I can't help but ask myself things like "How many is he gonna have in his entourage?, and "How many fights or other salacious or violent activities will he or his associates be involved in?"
These males are simply not so important that we, as a society, need to condone their bubbled-off world of illegal activity. Perhaps, salaries need to be dropped...a lot, the associates "registered" or made to get--and maintain, a business-license in any state in which they appear, or prosecutions and convictions made. Is the IRS making any of these guys pay gift tax or income tax on any of the benefits these associates are receiving? I hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)