...and it no more merits the tread of a man's foot."
- William Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
It should come as no surprise that I'm a Francophobe, which is not to say that I fear all things French. Rather, I simply loathe French attitudes and French collectivist culture. Take your average Frenchman; he manages to work only 35 hours a week and take off the entire month of August, yet apparently can't seem to spare a moment to check on grand-mère, who has since died of heat stroke. You would think 15,000 people dying of heat stroke in a month might make a bit of a stink (pun intended). Then again, who can tell. As Frances Trollope once wrote:
I remember being much amused last year when landing at Calais, at the answer made by an old traveler to a novice who was making his first voyage. 'What a dreadful smell,' said the uninitiated stranger, enveloping his nose in his pocket hankerchief. 'It is the smell of the continent, sir,' said the man of experience. And so it was.
Ok, all French-bashing aside, I've taken a slight interest in the French presidential race. On the left, as in the blithering "useful idiot" Left known as France's Socialist Party, you have Ségolène Royal (ironic name, huh?), while on the "right" (a term to be used loosely when describing a European politician) you have Gaullist Nicolas Sarkozy. What interested me about this race was the similarity of tactics employed by Royal to those employed by those on the Left here in the states; it's as if they've been issued the same playbook. Instead of addressing, you know... hard things, like issues, Royal and her supporters have focused on demonizing Sarkozy, running on a platform with a central plank of "tout sauf Sarkozy"--anyone but Sarkozy. Sound familiar? In fact, Royal's supporters have gone so far as to describe Sarkozy as a "French George W. Bush." I find that good for a chuckle because the cheese-eating surrender monkeys are wholly incapable of producing anything or anyone that is remotely Texan in character.
Maybe a politician is a politician regardless of nationality. Maybe the Euro Lefties and the American Lefties trade notes. I dunno, but the similarities are worth noting. Another page out of the common playbook is the threat of violence if the other side wins. I seem to recall Elizabeth Edwards saying the same thing just before the 2004 election. While such threats are largely ineffectual here in the US (particularly down south, where they're always eager to pop open a can of whup-ass at the mere whiff of provocation), I can see how this might be an effective tactic in a country known for its tendency to run up the white flag... or just run. Sarkozy has a 10-point lead, so it'll be interesting to see if things go to hell. Of course, as Frank Zappa said, "there is no hell. There is only France."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I was surprised! An then I wasn't. And then I was! And then I wasn't...
Sarkozy wins, and not a "cute nose," as one English plumber on AGWOT was predicting Royal would do. Granted, this particular English plumber has a long history of spouting "factually errant" stuff. I think it's wishful thinking on his part. If it weren't for the fact that I've given up AGWOT (ok, so I kinda, sorta lurk), I would be indulging in much gleeful mockery o'er yonder, even though I don't have any particular skin in this game. But, I'm trying to give that up too--gleeful mockery just 'cuz.
Sarkozy wins and the anarcho-Socialists take to protesting. So much for the political process, eh? Predictable.
I guess what surprises me the most is that 85% of the French electorate (ok, 85.5%, to be exact) showed up to vote, and 53.06% showed enough backbone to not be swayed by the threat of violence and vote themselves out of the morass that is the current state of France. Bravo!
Thing is, 46.94% of the French collective continue to slurp the pink stuff like it's cheap Zinfandel from a box. And they're not alone. This is why I do not subscribe to the notion that we won the Cold War. Yes, the big, bad Soviet Union may no longer exist, but its ideological minions (useful idiots, if you're Lenin, though there is some question as to whether he used that precise phrase, but I digress...) flourish all over the world, like those stinky weedy wild onions that infest my lawn. Minions... onions... get it? Kinda sound alike? Well, ok, I thought it was interesting word play.
Disclaimer: Kelley has admitted that Jack calls her a "socialist." If anything, she's a small "s" socialist (though really, she's a small "l" liberal), which is not to be confused with those large "S" Socialists and Lefties who I deride. Just so ya know.
Thanks for the clarification. Jack calls me a socialist when I talk about things like pooling all the property tax money and sharing it across all school districts, rather than distributing it by county. Also when I get annoyed that my kids have two insurance carriers, but some kids have none. I'm sure there are more, but I can't remember any of them.
I'm a little offended, though, that you consider me a small-l liberal. Is that just because it's not supposed to be capitalized, or is it because you think I'm not really that liberal? Cuz if you think I'm not really that liberal, you have many fun things to learn about me.
Hey Kell. Sorry, I wasn't ignoring you. I've had my nose buried in trusts & estates... months of preparation culminating in four hours of "I hereby give, devise and bequeath the rest, residue and remainder..." Four hours. Open-book. Twenty-five questions. My head still hurts and my guts churn as I continue to work on the problems in the back of my head, now some 15 hours after the fact. Post-test regret weighs heavily.
Anyway, no, I don't think you're a Liberal. A key belief in Liberal ideology is that everything can be solved by government (if only they, the Liberals, were running things, of course). This means throwing money at "the" problem, and you've admitted that throwing money at an issue is not always the best answer.
I also don't think you're committed to the idea of government-controlled wealth redistribution--another Liberal favorite. I don't think Jack and you work as hard as you do just so you can pay more taxes. You may cheerfully give your time, talent and money to that which benefits others, but "that" isn't the government.
I could go on, but seriously, my eyes and head are throbbing. I think you lean to the left and wrestle with a fair amount of guilt because you see unfairness and injustice in this world and think "but for the grace of God, that could be me." Call it a heightened sense of empathy or simply a well-developed moral compass, but you want to do what you can to make things more fair and more just. That makes you a liberal, which is not a bad thing. Now if you were one who wanted to impose unfairness and injustice all in the name of politically correct "justice" and "fairness," (and there is a difference) that would make you a Liberal. I don't see that being the case.
I didn't think you were ignoring me, and you certainly don't need to apologize. All I gotta say is: Poor you! I can't imagine the pressure involved in law school exams. My counseling exams were, truth be told, mostly common sense. (Sssshhhh.) It'll be over soon! We should celebrate!
Okay, so maybe I am a little-l liberal. Or maybe I'm really not anything . . . just someone who gets really frustrated (and, sometimes, really pissed off) by things like intolerance and indifference. I do, however, have some things that make me decidedly not conservative: I don't like the right to bear arms thing. I don't like the death penalty. I'm pro-choice (although not as militantly as I was before I had children). I really don't mind paying taxes. I wouldn't mind paying more if they were stewarded more carefully. I'm not opposed to extending insurance benefits to gay couples. I started reading Doonesbury when I was in third grade. I think body piercing and tattoos are cool. I'd get a ridiculous haircut and dye it some fun color if I could get away with it. I'd shop at Urban Outfitters if I could afford it. (Not sure what the last few have to do with anything . . . but they're fun facts, anyway.)
You make it sound like Liberals are about big government, which sounds wrong to me. But maybe it's true. Hmmmmm.
When you talk about "imposing unfairness and injustice in the name of PC fairness and justice," are you talking about Civil Liberties Union-type stuff?
I'm pretty sure the big "L" Liberals are for big government. It's a power thing.
PC fairness involves quotas and the like--the idea that you have to penalize one group for the benefit of others. I've heard you mention equal opportunity, but I've never heard you insist on equal outcome (or superior outcome, for that matter) just because someone starts with a disadvantage. I mean, I've never heard you say Pastor Jan should be in charge just because more women in the clergy should be running churches and whatnot.
So, is your aversion to the Second Amendment based on the idea that guns are dangerous and that people shouldn't be allowed to possess dangerous items? I knew about your feelings on the death penalty from small group; my seemingly tangential question to you is do you think police officers have a right of self defense?
I don't like the idea that Liberals are about power. I would hope they'd be about justice. But, I understand what you're saying. This conversation is making me very anxious to re-register as an Independent.
I was once denied a job because the other, less-qualified candidate was Hispanic. The person doing the hiring admitted that to me. THAT, I don't like. When good ideas are stretched beyond the limits of common sense, I start to get irritated.
I'd prefer to eliminate disadvantages to begin with, but I don't have any great ideas on how to do that. The inner-city school conditions make me sick. (I'm only going on three hours of sleep, so I'm not going to attempt to articulate any of that right now.)
Yes, of course I think police officers have a right to self-defense. What I don't like is that one of my former clients keeps a rifle next to his bed just in case someone comes to try to rob his vegetable garden. I also don't like the idea of concealed carry permits. I DO realize that if guns were made illegal, then only the criminals would have them. So it's just a difficult question for me to wrap my head around.
Incidentally, I also think hunting is ridiculous, but Jack has me convinced that the deer would be a real problem if it weren't for hunting. So who knows.
Inasmuch as a Liberal sees government as the answer to society's issues, I'm not sure how they could stand for anything but acquiring power. Granted, we've had a supposedly conservative president and Republican-controlled congress for the better part of six years and we didn't see a single veto on a pork-laden bill until the recent Iraq funding bill. So, there are holes in my theory.
Ok, so if you believe police officers have a right to defend themselves, presumably with deadly force, then if I may ask, what is your rationale against the death penalty?
I totally don't get this logic: "Inasmuch as a Liberal sees government as the answer to society's issues, I'm not sure how they could stand for anything but acquiring power." Why couldn't they be standing for, well, caring for people? I'm probably just being dense and/or naive.
Argh. Well. I don't think we should have the right to determine if someone lives or dies. A police officer in imminent danger in a crisis situation is different than the death penalty.
I think I said at small group that I think all intentional killing is immoral. The self-defense thing is a huge whole in that argument, and I'm still processing that. But the death penalty, in my opinion, doesn't qualify as "in self defense."
Errr . . . "hole" in the argument. Not "whole." I'm tired.
Maybe I can illustrate by analogy using a phrase very familiar to us: It's not about the building, it's about the people.
Government is inherently bureaucratic. I don't care if we're talking local, state or federal, civil or military; it is axiomatic that government is bureaucratic. Big government is more bureaucratic than small government because the more people you employ, the more processes you employ to control those people and their functions. The employment of people, as well as the administration of process requires vast amounts of money--our tax dollars--and as you've mentioned, those tax dollars aren't carefully stewarded. Money, and the ability to say what it gets spent on, is power, and it's that power that Liberals crave.
So, where's the analogy? Well, you're pretty familiar with charitable organizations. I'm less so, but when I was asked at work to give to charity (United Way, I think), they gave me a book of various charities, what they did and how much of the money contributed went toward doing the charitable work, versus how much was used for overhead and administration... you know, the building, the salaries and such. Sites like Charity Navigator are helpful because they tell you exactly how much a charity spends (wastes) on administrative costs. It seems to me that the most beneficial charities are those that maintain low administrative costs while putting the most money to good use actually helping people. As Mike said, it's not about the building, it's about the people.
So, if government is the charitable tool of choice by Liberals to supposedly help people, shouldn't a Liberal government be a small, lean government? I think so, but that's not the case. In fact, one could successfully argue that a conservative government is more compassionate than a liberal government because a government committed to minimizing the tax burden on the individual citizen puts money into the hands of those who can truly make a difference--you (and me). You say you wouldn't mind paying more taxes if there was better stewardship, but who's the better steward--some GS-whatever who doesn't know or care about the hungry and homeless in St. Charles County, or you, someone who does know and does care about the issues faced by the disadvantaged right here in our own backyard?
As for the death penalty, why would you give an individual agent of the state the right to make life and death decisions, but not the state itself? Keep in mind that when I say "state," I mean society--you and I. Why would you give the individual, with his or her perceptions (faulty as they may be) and biases (repugnant as they may be), the right to use deadly force in defending his or herself, but you won't give us, society, the same right to collectively defend ourselves? How would you distinguish personal and societal self defense to allow for one and deny the other?
Okay, I'm confused. Your analogy concerning the death penalty and gun control is chop logic.
The "agents of the state" have been given the responsibility to protect and serve a "community". They are asked to put themselves between the law breakers and law-abiding citizens.
Now, in a situation where a life is at stake, whether it be the officer's or a citizen in harm's way, it is their duty to stop the agressor. With whatever force is necessary.
Your argument that by denying "something" from the majority, yet allowing a priviledged few to still utilize that "something" is not relevent. There are still so many ways one can "defend" one's self. And many do not end in death. Having a pistol, rifle, etc. is not the only type of self defense.
The "priviledged few" argument works against you, also. When you were in the Air Force you were given access to classified materials. By your argument, all Americans should have had that same access. All Americans should have the codes to launch nuclear weapons. Why should that be limited to just the President?
Yes, I am taking this to the absurd. But the point I am making is you have assumed that the use of the death penalty and "any legal" taking of another's life are somehow the same. Nor is the right to bear arms related to the death penalty.
Damn, y'all get pithy with your opinions!
Random - I first wrote that any "agent of the state" who did not fulfill his duty should be fired, but thought that maybe others would think I was making light of the situation. So I changed "fired" to "terminated". Then I had to delete the entire sentence.
Chop logic? Not at all. But alas, my response will have to wait since it's 0332CDT. Took Bry to the ER. All is well, but now it's time to get back to bed.
Wow. I'm lost.
Taking a break from real estate...
The point of my post to Kelley was to draw out her reasoning on her positions on gun control and capital punishment, which is not to say that one has anything to do with the other. I wanted her to distinguish why, in her view, it's ok for law enforcement to possess and use firearms while it's not ok for the average citizen to do so, and why it's ok for the individual to use deadly force in self defense while it's not ok for people on a collective basis (i.e. society) to do the same. I simply used one scenario to address two issues, but again, that's not to say gun control and capital punishment have anything to do with one another.
Yes, agents of the state are privileged by law to act in a capacity generally denied to the average citizen, though self defense is arguably a natural right guaranteed to all. One of the underlying principles of the criminal code and the penal system is to provide a means of defense against those within a given society who would do harm to it. While you could view criminal conduct to be largely individual in nature, a communitarian view of criminal law holds that crime is treason against society--if you hurt one person, you hurt them all in some fashion. Just as a society has a right to defend itself from foreign aggressors (typically through the use of deadly force), so it has the right to defend itself from internal aggressors. You are correct that defense can take on various forms, not all of them lethal. But, it's worth remembering that inherent to the right of defense is the principle of proportionate response, regardless of whether you're talking about aggression between states, within a state, or on an individual level--Hammurabi's "eye for an eye" applies to all.
So if we say the individual has the right to employ deadly force as a proportionate response in self defense to an attacker, and that the collective of individuals we call society, or the state, has the right to employ deadly force as a proportionate response in self defense of a foreign aggressor, why would we say that same collective doesn't have the right to employ deadly force as a proportionate response in defense against internal aggressors? I can think of a couple of reasons, but I'm interested in Kelley's (and yours). That said, I admit I'm being presumptuous in anticipating what she might say (hence the tip of the cards), which is that the death penalty is applied unjustly and that it's an unacceptable punishment in light of its finality, given the possibility of error. But I should wait and not put words in her mouth (or yours, for that matter). :)
It's still chop logic. :)
Sorry that I stepped into the middle of this. It was not my intention to derail your banter. I was more concerned that you were saying you see gun control and a judge's decision somehow being tied together.
Just a thought. Which is more cruel or unusual. The death penalty or life in prison without parole? If you were locked up and knew you that no matter what you did, good or bad, your world would always be a 10' by 10' cell, wouldn't that cause you to debase yourself? If you raped or murdered other inmates, what are they going to do? Keep your corpse locked up for longer? I know, morbid thoughts.
Really, how do either work as a deterant?
You and your chop logic. :b
Neither is cruel or unusual, though if you look at the history of criminal justice in this country, incarceration longer than it took a circuit judge to make his rounds was considered cruel and unusual. There were no prisons and jail was simply a means of holding the accused until he or she could be tried, convicted and punished. Punishment typically came in the form of whipping or time spent in the stocks, but if you committed a capital offense (and there were a lot, many of which didn't involve killing someone), you'd hang. Also, from a constitutional law perspective, clearly the Eigth Amendment did not apply to capital punishment as being cruel or unusual, since capital punishment was employed regularly both before and after 1791. Before you go into the whole chop logic thing again, you should know this reasoning is precisely how the US Supreme Court evaluates the scope of law when a textual analysis or legislative history fails to reveal the intent of a statute or constitional provision. Anyway, I'm not saying I long for the good ol' days, but it's useful to examine these issues in context.
Aside from the historical perspective, I don't see how the death penalty could be any more cruel, and certainly not more unusual, than incarceration, since dying is the one thing we're all guaranteed to experience.
As for deterrence, that's a utilitarian argument that falls flat on its butt. Punishment only deters "rational actors" who are inclined to obey the law in the first place. The primary purpose of the penal system isn't to serve as a deterrent; the purpose is to "penalize" or punish. It's based on the notion of retributive justice. Deterrence and rehabilitation are secondary issues. This article does a nice job of covering the concept on its various levels. Also from J. Daryl Charles, this article examines the issue from a religious perspective.
Post a Comment