“In anonymous postings on local Web sites, parents [falsely] accused [owner, Gina Seebachan] of handing out antiabortion literature at the Playseum, accepting support from right-wing Christian groups and playing Christian rock music at the play space. Most damning, one anonymous poster who said she was Jewish [falsely] claimed that Seebachan told her that unless she accepted Jesus as her personal savior, the client and her children would go to hell.”¯ “Ali-Sheldon has come from her home in Gaithersburg to the Playseum every week since it opened in November. Asked about seeing any religious message there, she laughed. ‘That's insane,’ she said. ‘I'm a Muslim. And if I saw anything like that, I wouldn't come back.’”¯
2570 hours, 12 minutes ago Here's an idea! Let's make a law that's really strict, draconian and with some severe penalties for violating it. But, we'll let law enforcement only selectively enforce it. And we'll give a little wink and nod when judges ignore the sentencing requirement and give only a fraction of the penalty written into the law for those few the law is actually enforced on. Isn't that a great idea? Doing this would allow us to "scare" criminals by the mere threat of such a law, while then allowing us to constantly show compassion in only selectively enforcing it and partially implementing it. But there'd be a problem. Some people actually believe laws should be obeyed, and in order to make such a law strict enough it would have to criminalize what would normally be acceptable behavior. A lot of people wouldn't have a problem with such a law, because they believe law, and morality for that matter, is something that should be an individual choice based of the convenience of the moment. But others, stubbornly hold on to the concept of a moral absolute, and the principle that a civilized society should have reasonable laws accompanied by reasonable enforcement. Under our proposed law, these people would find life very burdensome, because they would try to obey a law never actually intended to be obeyed. Yes, eventually criminals would figure the law out, and adjust their response according to the actual consequence rather than the actual law, but we'd simply then make the law even more draconian to scare them even more. Maybe we could target a few people at random who've somehow violated the law (intentionally or unintentionally) punish them with lengthy, expensive trials, followed by lengthy prison sentences and outrageous fines, make a big deal about it in the press, throw parties for the law enforcement officers that brought down the scapegoats, er wanton criminals, toss out promotions to the "good guys" and scare the real bad guys into maybe not doing the thing we actually wanted them to not do in the first place. Sort of. Maybe. It should work. Right? Welcome to American Legal Philosophy 101. What I've described is actually how much of our laws are written. We've got all the immigration laws, yet they're rarely enforced. We let repeat criminals stay in the country, while deporting people who grew up here, never being told they weren't US citizens. Making scapegoats out of the innocent in hopes it might frighten they guilty, which we don't prosecute. We don't guard our borders, then the media accuses those that try on their own of being racists. We make laws requiring stricter sentencing on those who use guns when committing a crime, then selectively apply the new sentencing guidelines to railroad the few law enforcement officers who actually assumed they were supposed to do their jobs. The pervasive attitude that laws are suggestions has created a climate of quasi-anarchy. We have speed limits, but they aren't very seriously enforced. Most speed limits, therefore are placed at least 10mph slower than what they reasonably should be placed at, in hopes that it would slow drivers down in the absence of any realistic enforcement. What's ironic is that the real victims in all this are those who actually try to abide by the law, but these are laws that become increasingly ridiculous as the words of the law-- rather than the enforcement-- is used to deter criminals. Originally posted at http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2008/03/legally_insane.php more»»
2690 hours, 37 minutes ago The Left as well as the Media love to portray capitalism as something inherently evil, while they themselves enjoy the benefits of it. While greed seems to be the motivating force behind Capitalism, the truth of the matter is that greed is a primary force behind most human endeavors, Capitalism is simply honest about it. Did the leaders of the former Soviet Union live in squalor like most of the people who suffered under the system they ruled? No, of course not, neither do the leaders in Communist China or Cuba. They allow themselves perks the average citizen is denied. Who lives in the biggest house in Communist North Korea? The unelected dictator. Who lives in the largest house in the US? The Vanderbilt family, not the President. Actually quite a few people live in homes larger than the one provided for the US President. In fact, in few Capitalist nation will you find those running the government, living in the largest houses, or possessing the greatest wealth. But in few Communist countries will you find anyone living as well off as those in control of the government. And in spite of what some may say, socialists are Communists. Name one purely socialist nation that isn't Communist. Every nation that's dared dabble with socialism, hedged that attempt with a strong emphasis in Capitalism to ensure a vital economy, which means it wasn't real Socialism. Individuals need to make a living, therefore they expect to get paid for what they do. However, when productivity is divorced from income, time and time again history has shown most people have little interest in any real productivity. The pilgrims discovered that when they first came to the New World. They were lured into the concept of sharing burden and resources, because it sounded so noble. They almost starved to death. Seeing the failure of that approach, they instituted a system of Capitalism, allowing each person access to what they themselves worked to produce. From that point on they thrived. The problem comes from the false assumption that benevolence can ever be forced. Once you've rationalized using the force of law to take people's possessions, stealing other things becomes very easy. Ultimately the greedy gravitate to positions of power, leaving society a reverse prison, where the dishonest are in control and the honest suffer deprivation. Socialism, cannot exist without forced "benevolence", and it therefore always becomes Communism. Capitalism, however, is built on the principle of freedom—freedom to keep what you build. Starting from a position of freedom, it can then maintain that same ideal. All Capitalist nations understand the core principles of Capitalism, and therefore work to ensure fair competition, private property rights and limited government. There will always be a conflict between what a business owner thinks is fair and what the employees think is fair, but ultimately, competition solves that problem. The fair and generous employer can keep the most productive employees, giving that business an advantage. The horror stories of Capitalism come not from Capitalism, but from those who failed to follow the principles of Capitalism and stopped being Capitalists to become thugs, cheats and thieves. Ironically the person most viewed as an example in the US of Capitalism gone bad, Bill Gates, contributes heavily to socialistcauses. His failure come from his abandonment of Capitalism, not his use of it. When guns were first introduced into Japan in the 16th century, Samurai thought them cowardly weapons which allowed the unskilled to kill from a distance, rather than having to bravely face their enemies. The Samurai preferred their deadly katanas—deadly at three feet, pretty much useless at five feet. Thousands of Samurai subsequently died because they failed to distinguish between the illusion of false bravado and reality. The illusion of Socialism as moral and Capitalism as immoral contains the same seeds of destruction. As long as we court with Socialism in our tax system, in our economic policies and in our educational institutions, we poison our future. Originally posted at http://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2008/04/mere_capitalism.php more»»
