I Don't Get It

EeeeeAaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!

Howard Dean wants an apology.

Howard Dean wants an apology from somebody he doesn't like.

Howard Dean wants an apology from somebody he doesn't like for something she said about someone else.

Ann Coulter insulted "The Breck Girl," John Edwards. Or not. It all depends on how you interpret it.

She is reported to have said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I — so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

At it's worst, she may have called him a homosexual. For this, Howard Dean thinks she should apologize and the rest of the conservative world should shun her.

From a liberal perspective, Ann Coulter lumped John Edwards into a group, differentiated by their choice of behavior, that the liberals tell us is the most wonderful and courageous behavior choice anyone could make.

Howard wants us to shun Ann Coulter for lumping John Edwards into that group, differentiated by their choice of behavior, that the liberals tell us is the most wonderful and courageous behavior choice anyone could make.

Confusingly**, Howard was outraged at Ann's comments. He said they were "hate-filled and bigoted." If I interpret Howard aright, for Ann to imply that John may be numbered among the most wonderful and courageous behavioral choice group in the world is to insult The Breck Girl, and Ann should, therefore, be shunned.

Look. Either homosexual behavior is good or it is bad. If it is good, then let us all agree that we should all aspire to be queer. If it is bad, then let us all agree that we should all aspire to rid our society of it. Homosexuality isn't just good if you long to be a choreographer or a designer. It has to be good if you want to be a football player or a surgeon -- or a President -- too.

On the other hand, if homosexual behavior is so repugnant that we have to castigate a pundit because she may have implied that a failed vice-presidential candidate may practice that behavior, then we have to conclude that, in some cases, homosexual behavior is bad.

The phrase, "in some cases," must be fully defined. This should not be interpreted to just mean "in some situations." Sometimes a situation makes things more offensive than others. It's wrong to fart during a wedding. That's a situational thing. (SBDs, on the other hand, can have some comical results. More on that maybe sometime a long time from now.)

When the phrase "in some cases" is used in this monologue it should be interpreted as "for some people."

If homosexual behavior is wrong for John Edwards, but right for Rock Hudson, then we are socially confused and we need to find a "controlling legal authority" regarding this matter and refer to it.

Oh, yeah. Our controlling legal authority -- the God of the Universe Who created these broken vessels -- is rejected by those broken vessels. I guess we're at an impasse. So we're back to using logic.

Either homosexual behavior is good and we should all aspire to it or it is bad and we should all find a way to rid our culture of it.

Howard Dean may be on to something. Even relying on Howard's response, it is most likely that homosexual behavior is repugnant and we should do everything we can to rid our culture of it. Ann is very perceptive. Ann should recognize what Howard is saying and welcome him to the majority who believes that homosexual behavior is wrong. If Howard will acknowledge that we need to rid our society of the homosexual evil in it, then we should be willing to write Ann and ask her to apologize.

That is, unless she actually has the incriminating grainy photographs and negatives of John and is willing to sell them to Weekly World News. At that point, we're well past words. We're into politics.

** this word has never before been used in conjunction with Howard Dean

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the GoodPart III

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the Good
Part III

The kinds of figures and knowledge exhibited in Parts I and II of this post must be at the foundation of all of our conversations about criminal alien invaders:

They are, by their initial actions, criminals.  Beyond all other characteristics they may possess, this is fundamental.

Were an employment candidate to reveal, during the interview, that he or she was a wanted, yet unindicted criminal, the interview would be over.  Were your plumber or interior designer to come to your home and, before crossing your threshold, reveal that the police were hunting for him or her for crimes she admitted to committing, the door would close and you would throw the bolt on the lock so fast, the metal would get hot

Yet, these criminal alien invaders cross the line between oppressed Mexican (or Dominican or Venezuelan...) and criminal alien and want us to overlook their criminal behavior.

Everything after that act is a continuing series of criminal behavior.  Living here is criminal.  Working here is criminal.  Having children here is criminal.  While you and I may (excluding traffic laws) go for years or decades without even once edging toward criminal behavior, these criminal alien invaders break several federal laws every day.  The list of crimes, including fraud, theft, and participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise, extends every day they awake within the borders of this country.

Prosecuted for each crime, these criminal alien invaders would spend the rest of their lives behind bars after the first week after their initial crime.

However, they know they will not be prosecuted.  They will be protected.  Farmers, mothers, homeowners, meat processors, and homebuilders protect them.  Politicians protect them.  Our government protects them.

The excuses range from silly to serious.

ØThey are working in jobs citizens won't do

ØThey pay their way

ØWe are stingy

ØMexico could collapse without the pressure release of criminal alien invasion

ØThe United States stole the land from Mexico anyway

ØThere exists absolutely no data to support any single claim.

Anecdote is not evidence.  There are sufficient anecdotes to contradict every one of these excuses.  We know the following.

ØThe criminal alien invasion costs border states billions of dollars every year

ØThe criminal alien invader is never checked for disease or contagion

ØThe criminal alien invader is willing to break laws to gain benefits for which he is not entitled

ØThe criminal alien invader is of low skill

ØThe criminal alien invader is of low education

ØThe criminal alien invader is of low class

ØIf any of the previous three statements are wrong, the criminal alien invader may be a terrorist

ØThe criminal alien invader is just as likely to be a terrorist, anyway

The beekeeper who willingly allows killer bees into his hives knows that every hive will eventually be infected with Africanized Killer Bees.  The level of aggressiveness increases and the level of production drops.  If unchecked, the enterprise is eventually destroyed.

Some bee keepers allow the killer bees to remain, at least for a time, before they act.  They need the honey, they say.

Some beekeepers prefer to terminate the entire colony as soon as the killer bees appear.  The loss of production and the increased risk of harm or injury are just too great.

We have no less a challenge.  The criminal alien invader is like the killer bee.  What we have to ask ourselves is, "Do we need the honey that badly?"

Well, do we?  Punk?

Some think so.  But those are the population of spineless ninnies we send to the state houses and Capitol in D.C.  For them, I have the following suggestion.

The Dexter Cogni 2007 Criminal Alien Invader Social Integration Process

There are currently an estimated 20 million criminal alien invaders inside the borders of the United States.  The president and congress want to grant them easy access to citizenship.

We, they say, got citizenship free.  All we had to do was have our grandfathers and fathers and brothers die on the battlefields of Concord, Gettysburg, Prussia, Germany, Italy, Libya, France, Japan, the Philippines, Afghanistan and iraq so we could get this good stuff for free.

Why not make it just as easy for them?

Each and every liberal who wants to see a criminal alien invader assimilated into the United States can sponsor one (1) criminal alien invader.  These brief rules outline the Criminal Alien Invader (CAI) Assimilation Candidate Process.

The criminal alien invader must:

ØDwell solely at the residence of the CAI sponsor for the first two years of the candidacy

ØRenounce all allegiance and fealty to all other nations and leaders except the United States and the President and Congress.

ØMust learn English

ØMust show education levels equal to, or pass a state-proctored GED

ØMust release the United States government and all state and municipal governments of any claim against prior payment toward any government entitlement or support programs

ØMust prove they are free of any and all contagious diseases, including, but not limited to: AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, cancer, heart or vascular disease, mental disorder,  chronic infection or any other chronic disease.

The CAI sponsor must agree to the following:

ØProvide and pay for any and all health care required by the CAI candidate while in residence

ØProvide and pay for all education or special support required by the CAI candidate in order to qualify under CAI requirements

ØDocument the whereabouts, daily, of the CAI candidate.

ØPost a personal bond against any liability involved in the CAI candidate employment while the CAI is an assimilation candidate.

ØProvide CAI assimilation monitors full access to the home where the CAI assimilation candidate is housed.

ØCAI assimilation sponsor is prohibited from requesting or accepting any remuneration, payment, labor, or other reward for acting as a CAI assimilation candidate sponsor.

ØIf, after two years of spotless record, the CAI assimilation candidate can demonstrate the following, they will be considered for service in any of the United States military service branches.

The CAI assimilation candidate must demonstrate the following:

ØHigh-school senior fluency in English, both spoken and written

ØSpotless criminal record

ØClean bill of health

ØComplete employment record for two years, with no periods of unemployment over two weeks and no cumulative total of unemployment of more than four weeks.

ØSatisfactory completion of exams on the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, English literature, high-school algebra, and American history (beyond the GED)

ØHigh School education equivalency

At this point, if the candidate is of age to serve in the United States military, they can be assigned to the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, or Air Force, for an enlistment minimum of six years.  If they are of too many years, they can train to serve as logistical or non-combatant support services overseas to the United State military branches.  Serving as civilians, yet in overseas or higher-risk posts than those served by United State civilians, they will also serve a minimum service of six years at pay rates equal to that of enlisted military and be housed and boarded by the US military.

At the end of six years of honorable duty or service with the United State military, the CAI candidate may apply to become a United States Citizen.  They can make application to have one (1) family member join them as an associate CAI candidate.  (requirements to come later)

This is my amnesty.  If after performing these actions, under the supervision of their sponsor and then the United States military, and completing all duties and objectives completely and honorably, they will not be prosecuted for committing their initial crimes of entering the country illegally and defrauding the government and their employers.

The CAI assimilation candidate becomes, then, an un-monitored citizenship parolee.  So long as the parolee is not convicted of any felony within two years, they are then granted full citizenship.

And what shall be done with the rest?  Outlaws!  Bounty!

Pretty nice carrot.  Pretty big stick.

~~ Dexter

PS: It has been proposed that the CAI assimilation candidate military could be used to invade Mexico and plant the seeds for the first democracy south of the Rio Grand.

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the GoodPart II

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the Good
Part II

Recently, WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com) reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arrested more than 9,000 criminal alien invaders during a three-year operation to net sex offenders. [**]  This statistic is both shocking and clarifying.  Americans who value their liberties and their safefy must take the time to investigate this underlying problem in the debate over the criminal alien invader.

Before evaluating the details of criminal behavior, let's analyze the population of the criminal alien invader.

Universally[1], they are criminals.  The very act of violating national sovereignty by crossing the border without benefit of international agreements and documentation is a crime.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

ØEnters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

ØEludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

ØAttempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

These criminal alien invaders are, firstly, criminals.  There were not born on this side of the border.  Therefore, they lack status as a citizen.  They are aliens.  Finally, just because they do not bring firearms or artillery with them as they come doesn't mean they are any less an invading force than any destroying, conquering army.  The most vocal of these groups are The Brown Berets of Aztlan and MEChA.  Both want to "re-conquer" the western half of the United States and place it under the mythical banner of Aztlan.[3]

From these origins:  criminal; foreign and alien; and supported by the rhetoric of a violent army, these criminal alien invaders are not benevolent.  They are not benevolent by their group identity.  They are not benevolent individually.

Mexico has an estimated population of around 105 million.[4]   The current estimates of the numbers of Mexicans illegally in the United States ranges from 11 to 20 million.[5]  This simple calculation results in a staggering 19 percent of Mexico is currently stationed in the United States as an occupying force.

The stereotypical Mexican Bandito has icons in myth and truth that range from the real-life Pancho Villa to the comic Frito Bandito.  The truth is that the most corrupt criminals in Mexico are in the highest government offices in Mexico.  (It is important to complete that clause, "in Mexico" in the preceding sentence, lest someone mistake the object of the sentence as Washington, D.C.) 

The fact that at least one news site devotes an RSS feed solely to Mexico's corruption is an admission by the Fourth Estate that there are problems South of the Border.[6]  That the 19 percent of Mexico's population who would violate U.S. border laws would also be criminals by culture is no rude awakening.

After arriving in the United States, the criminal alien invader thinks nothing of procuring forged citizenship documents (another felony), and committing continuing fraud on both his employer and on the federal government.

As between 8 and 20 million criminal alien invaders stream across the United State's southern (and northern) borders, their crimes escalate.  Assuming these 8,000 or so criminal alien invader sex offenders are actually brought before a sentencing hearing at the end of a trial and are incarcerated in one of our plush prisons (compared to Mexico), they will join the 326,704 criminal alien invaders who are currently incarcerated in the United States. [7]  The cost for incarceration will be phenomenal.  Those already incarcerated have been a  $1,372,947,333 drain on our nation. [8]  Taxes from United States citizens paid this price. 

Unfortunately, when both our resources for apprehending and detaining criminal alien invader when they commit the harsher crimes, and our fundamental resolve to do so, are so thin we can read the newspaper though them, no one will do the middle police work.  As crimes escalate, Heather Mac Donald reported that big-city policemen enter a "bidding war" to convince a police chief to detain and prosecute the criminal.[9]  The eventual result is a "catch and release" that irritates United States citizens more and more.

Putting all the criminal alien invaders in jail is not the answer.  Frankly, I just don't want to pay for it.  The only real answer is a secure border through which "la cucaracha" couldn't squeeze. 

Locks are for honest people.  But how many times does the bank robber come around when the vault is locked?  The most important obligation of our representatives in Washington, D.C. is the security of our bank vault.  The most important obligation of our representatives in Washington, D.C. is a border security implementation that keeps the criminal alien invader out of our back yards, out of our businesses, and out of our criminal justice system.  The resources of the United States, as they are, are insufficient for the overwhelming numbers of invaders.

The criminal justice system in the United States was once the crown jewel of integrity and impartial adjudication.  Today, it is a poorly-running antique with too many miles and a too-heavy load.  In the hey-day of the United States, it was anathema to consider taking the law out of the control of the appointed system of judges and officers of the court.  Today, the only way justice will be delivered is by vigilante.  Then, what shall be done to the vigilante?  It is a circle of violence and crime that we should not have to endure.

But something must be done to stem the flow of alien toxins and poisons from Mexico and south of the border.  First Aid demands a tourniquet be applied to the border.  Everyone must squeeze tightly and keep the bandage on until the flow stops.

Country-Club Republicraps cry real tears at this.  "We might lose a limb," they warn, "if the flow is not allowed, at least from time to time."

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."[10]

[1] For the rare liberal reader [2], that means "everybody in the group."

[2] Most liberals can read, but you can see their lips move when they come to a hard word.

[3] http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico

[5] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5365863

[6] http://www.einnews.com/mexico/newsfeed-mexico-corruption

[7] http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

[8] ibid.

[9] http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

[10] Matthew 5:20 King James Version

[**] Sex-offender stings get thousands of illegals, Chelsea Shilling, WorldNetDaily, January 9, 2007, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53683

 

   ~~ Dexter

Coming: Part III

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the GoodPart I

The Evil Done in Pursuit of the Good
Part I

The source of nearly every problem extant in the federal government is federal benevolence in the form of wealth redistribution.  The thorny problem of criminal alien invaders would be far less emotional were the federal government more responsible to the Constitution and their constituents than their current "spend like a drunken sailor" ways.

Were the federal stingy with my tax dollars, and not just in the case of the criminal alien invader, there would be little reason for most of the forms of persistent oppression our biased media lament.

Criminal alien invaders would have little success north of the Rio Grande if they were not guaranteed welfare, aid for dependent children, food stamps, housing subsidies, free healthcare, and, for many states, free in-state tuition and a free high-school education.  Regardless of the propositions passed by the people, even the state governments will find a way to continue and increase the pathways of redistribution.

These same redistribution channels are the vector for lifelong poverty, the enabler for illegitimate births (many by children themselves), the genesis of fatherless homes and the origin of the gang-land culture and its concomitant drug-businesses.  They act as an inhibitor to personal effort and result in an under-performing underclass of ignorant, illegitimate, criminal herds who perpetuate the sins of the fathers on their sons.

The whole time, good Christian people allow and encourage government largesse on the underprivileged as a way to salve their own consciences.  They knowingly disregarding nearly 70 years' of evidence that the affect of government handout is universally contrary to its goal.  And socialists and communists, who have no desire but to assure that all wealth is held in the government's accounts, enflame the guilt of the Anglo-Saxon Christian culture as a way to hasten government's eventual monopoly on wealth via taxes.

The criminal alien invader is only one visible symptom of the metastasized cancer in our society -- our own government and its willing accomplices in the leftist media.  The bursting prison populations are another.  Our unwillingness to win a war against an evil who wants to behead our children before our eyes is further evidence of a possibly terminal national disease.  The violent criminal drug gangs selling drugs on street corners from Portland, Maine to Portland, Washington is further evidence that we may have already lost the battle for our national soul.

And the fireman savagely stoking the firebox of the government steam-engine is my elected representative.  The coal in his shovel is my own labor, stolen by threat of bayonette or prison.  These same elected representatives, living on our money, going to parties, taking extended junkets, wearing suits we cannot afford, receiving gifts from people, and falling for the lies their handlers tell them, chastise us for our resistance to additional taxation and redistribution.  We, they say, are selfish.

I am selfish.  I want my home back.  The government says it belongs to them unless I pay annual duty to the city.  I want my own labor back.  They say they will throw me in prison if I don't work half the year for them.  I want my family back.  They tell me what my children must learn and how they must answer questions, even regarding our religious beliefs.  I want my life back.  They tell me I must move over to give an undeserving, unproductive, uneducated, and ill-prepared candidate my place in a) school, b) work, c) health care, d) or public office because of so-called racial disparity.

We have already lost so much to a gluttonous government that we might be fooled into believing that we don't have much more to lose.  We do.

I wonder, though, where we are on our barrel-trip down the Niagara.  At some point along the way, there's a long fall and no way to go back.  And we will be condemned to fall completely and churn, for an uncountable time, in the foam at the bottom of the falls.

   ~~ Dexter

Coming: Part II

 

I Have a Dream

Following the Invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm II and the subsequent utter defeat of the Iraqi standing army in a matter of weeks, the will of the American People faded as the cowardly crying ninnies in Congress cringed at the mainstream media's bleeding-heart reports of each American soldier's death.

After more than four years' tentative efforts to pretend to fight against Islamo-facists in Iraq, the President raised the alarm and proposed to increase the efforts against terrorists in Iraq; supported and trained in enemy-combatant nations like Syria and Iran.

The day after the President's speech, a lone statesmen rose (in my intangible hopes and desires) to address Congress.  The following is what should be transpiring at the very moment.  The following cannot happen, but should.

A lone gentleman walks to the podium in the House Chamber and speaks, without notes, to the gathered body.

---

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the Islamic terrorist for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that condescending smile with which our efforts have been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our peacekeeping comports with these warlike preparations which cover foreign waters and darken the Middle East. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling in discourse that force must be called in to win back our commitment? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which Islamofacists resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Islam any enemy, in that quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the Islamofacists have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the Imams, and have implored their interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the terror cells.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the negotiations table. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when an Imam shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three hundred millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Basra! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the east will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Were Patrick Henry actually allowed to address our congress - January 11, 2006

~~ Dexter

Garbage Disposal

America's greatest embarrassment came in Iraq at the close of last year.  Iraq, a purportedly primitive and undisciplined nation, showed America how to deal with murderers.  In a display of judicial relevance that would cause apoplexy in the United States, Iraq's new government dispensed with all heart-bleeding and hand wringing and dispensed with a murderer in 56 days.

Fifty six days elapsed in Baghdad between the time a mass-murdering thug was sentenced to die and the instant his neck was stretched far enough from his body to make a difference to his soul.

Fifty six days.

Of course, there were detractors.

The UN on Sunday criticized the decision to sentence Saddam Hussein to death, calling upon local authorities to refuse the to hang the ex-leader. [i]

The U.N.  What would civilized people do without the U.N?  What would a prom queen do without that zit in the middle of her forehead on prom night?  Were there no U.N, Preparation H would sell far fewer tubes of ointment.

And then, there is the reasonable comparison, the United States.  By our own admission, we take 71 times as long to walk a convicted murderer from his (or her) jail cell to the gallows.

During 2004, 12 states executed 59 prisoners, six fewer than in 2003. The inmates executed had been under a death sentence for an average of 11 years, which was one month longer than the period for inmates executed in 2003. [ii]

These old numbers, for the last year uncovered through thoughtless Internet search, are sufficiently indicative of the United State's pattern of cruelty.  Previous years' statistics were no less appalling.

There comes a point of decision.  Cindy Sheehan[iii], who seems to have run out of things that will get her in the news, could take the reins on this one.  Rather than accuse President Bush (43) of invading Iraq for oil (again), Sister Sheehan might suggest a useful purpose for our presence there:  Murderer Disposal.

Iraq's judicial system, less than a year old, has already proven far more efficient than the United States'.  In the United States, two hundred years of self-criticism and prestigious law school matriculation has littered our cognitive landscape with highly-paid, highly-educated imbeciles who have devastated our criminal justice system.   America's courts are crippled; some say beyond repair.  Why condemn justice to our courts?  Why not grant justice where justice is still free?  Why not ship our convicted murderers to Baghdad?

Here's how everybody gains.

Ø       The moonbats (see: Cindy Sheehan) decry the long wait on death row, "suffered" by the murderers and inflicted on them as a result of the moonbat's own activities in court as they stifle the system of justice in America. 

Ø       Americans bemoan the cost of keeping murderers alive while they exhaust all their legal maneuvering.

Ø       Policy wonks worry about the cost of supporting Iraq.

 

America can pay Iraq to dispense speedy justice to those on whom America no longer has the courage to dispense that justice.

Yes, it is embarrassing.  Yes, it is crude.  Were it not so darned convenient and appropriate, it would be almost, well, just.

The Lost Angels Times says it costs ONE QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS (yes, that was screaming) for each prisoner execution in California.[iv]  While California may be a bit excessive in treatment of its death row prisoners (they recently cut out lattes after brunch), they are useful for extreme calculation.

Were the United States to pay just half of that cost, per prisoner, for Iraq to execute our judicial system flotsam and jetsam, Iraq would pay for itself in services to our country.

According to the previously cited Justice Department press release, there were 3,315 state and federal death row inmates awaiting execution in 2004.  At a discount rate of $125 Million dollars per execution, the United States state department could hand over all 3,315 state and federal death row inmates, hand Iraq $414.375 Billion, and, to turn a phrase, Kill Two Birds With One Stone.

"This is crazy!" some might say.  "Where would we find all that money?"

Calm.  Please remain calm.  This sounds, at the outset, like a lot of money.  But if the Lost Angles Times is right (and they are never wrong), this means that the United States would save $414.375 Billion in execution and incarceration costs.

The advertisers of the Lost Angles Times know that shoppers can "save thousands" if they buy at the right time and in the right stores.  It's all funny money anyway.  (What do you call it when a group prints money they say is real but if you print the same money, they say it's counterfeit?)

The Boston Globe reports[v] that the Iraq War is costing taxpayers (assuming that the Boston Globe is talking about American taxpayers) $2 Billion per week.  At $125 Million per execution, that means that Iraq could pay its own way by executing just sixteen (16) prisoners each week.

With the precision and efficiency they showed last Saturday morning with Saddam, I think they could easily reach this modest goal.

And, to further extend the calculations, at $2 Billion per week, they could "pay as they go" for another 207 weeks.  That's almost four more years.  The Iraq war could continue, free of cost, for another four years were this modest proposal accepted.

The Iraqis, by showing how they are better at dealing with murderers than the United States, have opened the door to a whole new cottage business: garbage disposal.  Of the most toxic nature.

At the end of four years, the United States would have paid Iraq to pay for its own war, we would have saved $414 Billion (not spent it, mind you), and would have 3,315 more beds in our maximum security prisons available for later shipment to Iraq.

Perhaps Iraq is not as primitive as we originally thought.

 

---

[i] UN Criticizes Saddam Death Penalty, The Jerusalem Post, Nov 5, 2006,[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378330583&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle

[ii] Bureau of Justice Statistics, Press Release, Department of Justice, November 13, 2005, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cp04pr.htm

[iii] http://www.cindysheehanwatch.com/

[iv] Cost Studies, Death Penalty Focus,http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost&menu=1

[v] Cost of War Nearly $2B a Week, The Boston Globe (online), September 28, 2006, http://www.boston.com/news/world/ middleeast/articles/ 2006/09/28/ cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week /?page=full

What's To Miss?

Gerald Ford is dead.

Q: How can you tell?

The 38th president of the United States was Richard Nixon's last joke on the nation he distrusted and on the office he abused.

A life-long politician with little leadership ability, Gerald Ford was a compromise choice in a time when a criminal and paranoid occupied the White House, when the socialists and communists in our own country and government were plotting the downfall of our military in Viet Nam, and when the Soviets had their coldest grip on our national throats.

Gerald Ford is what compromise buys.

He was never intended to be a vice president. Yet, when Spiro T. Agnew had to leave the office under indictment for taking bribes as the Governor of Maryland, Richard Nixon and the country-club GOP needed a "nothing" to fill the absence.

When it became clear that Richard Nixon would stand trial for his orchestration and manipulation of the break-in at the Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, and for his actions afterward in his efforts to quash the investigation through brutal thuggery, there was Gerald Ford, ready to occupy the position of the most powerful politician in the world.

Where there is nothing, a vacuum exists. What, then, can describe when something moves into the vacuum and measures less than nothing? Gerald Ford, 38th president of the United States.

Besides pardoning Richard M. Nixon, no one can name anything that Gerald Ford did. Compassion is one thing. Cheating justice is another. What Richard Nixon did to the office of the President of the United States has never been corrected. His crimes were never paid. His actions lay, like a pall, over every president since him. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice denied is lawlessness.

A compromise died this week. And in the face of all our challenges, this nation honors a mediocre man whose only accomplishment was to be more useful in his absence than ever he was by his presence.

Many are amazed that a politician can go through an entire life without offending anyone. When the salt loses its saltiness, what good is it? When given the opportunity for greatness, Gerald Ford chose blandness. When asked to do the hard things, Gerald Ford demurred to consensus. When challenged in the darkest of times, Gerald Ford doused his lamp.

Those challenges extant in our nation when Gerald Ford became president: he left them untouched for the next leader. Against those problems with our economy: he used his blandness to no effect. Protesters in the streets when Gerald Ford became president were assimilated into politics and academia because there was no leadership to ferret out the poisons and toxins in our national discourse. All the ills and scissions and cancers in our society were still there when Gerald Ford left office. He touched nothing.

And that is why the socialist and US-hating press is praising Gerald Ford this week. They would love to see more politicians like him: weak, affable, non-confrontational. Nothing. As Islamo-fascists gather on our national horizon, as government grows to bloated and diseased proportions and the socialists and tyrants in our own government plot the further subjugation of the wealth-producers in the nation, nothing would please the press and our enemies more than to lead another Gerald Ford around by the nose.

Let's hope we never see another Gerald Ford in office again. Farewell, Gerald Ford.

I hope.

~ Dexter

New Years' Resolution

Carl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Dennis Hastert were all trying to help Tom Foley conquer his predilection for little boys. Finally, after so many months of badgering, Tom Foley agreed with his GOP buddies that he'd give up little boys as his 2006 New Years' Resolution.

About 11:45PM on December 31, Hastert found Tom Foley in a House of Representatives broom-closet with another young boy.

"Tom," reproached Hastert sternly, "I thought you were going to turn over a new leaf!"

"I will," Foley quipped, "just as soon as I get to the bottom of this page."

Apologies to any fans of Oscar Wilde stories, from which this may or may not have been lifted.

~dexter~

Not on My Watch

I would like to state, unequivocally, that I was never given an opportunity to kill Osama bin-Laden.

 

The CIA never told me where he was.  The FBI never gave me an assessment of his threat.  No European or Middle-Eastern nation ever called me and let me know where to find him.  I never even had a cruise-missile to shoot his way.

 

This is why I cannot be held responsible for Bill Clinton's tirade last week.  Not to mention, I never voted for Bill, either.

 

But I'll say one thing Bill will never say. 

 

Give me one chance.  Tell me where Osama is.  Give me an AR-10 and 2,000 rounds of ammunition, a BLU-82, two "quick-strike" teams, and a volley of Tomahawk missiles and I guarantee I'll smoke Osama or die trying.

 

The difference between Bill and me:  I don't think Osama is someone else's problem now.

 

Preparing for Flight

Airline travel lurks in the not-too-distant future. Airline travel is tortuous. Airline travel is degrading. Airline travel is terrible and frightening. Airline travel is probably against the Geneva Convention.

But airline travelers are not uniformed enemies of the United States. Airline travelers are the United States. So airline travelers do not have any rights.

The government tells the passengers how they may fly. Passengers must be compliant. Passengers must be patient. Passengers must be quiet. Passengers must discard most jells, liquids, laptops (with Sony batteries). Passengers must never joke about the ineptitude of the TSA employees. And sure as shootin', passengers must be disarmed.

The only thing worse than an armed passenger may be one who tries to smoke in the lavatory -- or disable the government-mandated smoke detector before they light-up. Armed smokers, of course, have a special place in Hell reserved for them and their bad habits and individual rights.

Airlines, similarly, have no rights either.

The government tells airlines what kind of security must be present: trained and government salaried. The government tells airlines what routes they can travel: published and unprotected. The government tells airlines who can travel: those on the governments' "infallible" list of suspected terrorists cannot. In one case, that included Sarah Zapolsky's 9-month old. (Check Reuters for latest listings.)

All of this assumes the color of street theater when travelers realize that not one thing -- nothing done to inconvenience, threaten, assault, or degrade the millions of airline passengers -- has made a single passenger any safer.

But one thing has. The passengers are emboldened. By putting on such a show, the government has implied that something should be done in the sky to make airline passengers safer. Although the government will never accomplish this, the passengers are erroneously emboldened to take that duty.

Passengers are profiling other passengers. Passengers are asking other passengers to reveal the contents of their carry-on luggage. Passengers are demanding other passenger's removal from certain flights because of the way they look or act.

Passengers are making the sky safer.

Like all the other "feel-good" legislation that has gone before, congress should repeal every rule and law intended to keep airline passengers safer unless it is one that empowers other airline passengers. The ones that empower the government should be thrown out the window at Flight Level 440.

And every airline passenger should be armed and authorized to remove any other airline passenger.

That's safety. That's security.

Secondary Targets

Secondary education facilities are victim disarmament zones. Most, if not all, education facilities are victim disarmament zones. It has served two families and two victims very poorly this past week. Two moonbat lunatics walked into institutions of secondary learning and killed unarmed and unprotected victims.

The victims had obeyed the law and were not carrying firearms for their personal safety.

The lunatic criminals broke the law (the one about having a firearm on educational institution property) before they broke the other law (the one about committing murder).

North of the border, in "O Canada," an institution of higher learning suffered an armed attack, too. These hallowed halls are also victim disarmament zones, only colder. And "O Canada" has a much more restrictive rules regarding personal ownership of firearms.

No amount of debate will convince the pantie-wetters in education or government that the Second Amendment exists (still) for the personal defense of individuals. They are afraid of guns. They are so afraid of guns that they are willing to sacrifice young people and themselves to avoid the thought of guns.

This is silly. This is stupid. This is illogical. It is naive. It cannot be justified.

Young people, their parents, their guardians, and their teachers need to be armed and trained to defend themselves and those around them for the certain time when the next nutjob enters a school with a gun.

The police cannot be everywhere. (This would be called a police state. Is this what we want?) We cannot track the loonies. We certainly know that the criminals will not obey the law. (It is the definition of a criminal: one who breaks the law.)

The parents of the victim in the Platte Canyon High School hostage standoff, Emily Keyes, should sue the high school for abridging the students' rights to self defense. They should sue the city for abridging the parents and any other adult's right to self-defense and defense of their children. They should sue the state for abridging their right and the right of their child to the Second Amendment's personal right to self defense.

And when it is all over, they should demand that the state, the city, and the school district encourage each student (with parent's permission) and each adult (who desires it) to obtain, train in the use, and carry a defensive firearm in every class.

You never know when your child will need it most.

~~veritas~~

Court Irony in Phoenix

Two men are awaiting sentencing in Phoenix.

These men stole $550 million from investors, mainly elderly, in their financing scam.  Their victims lost their retirement, homes, investments, and futures.

Each convicted felon faces more than 46 years in prison for their crimes.

Isn't it interesting that the criminals are the only players in this drama who have secure futures?  They will get a warm bed, three squares, and clothes.

Their victims, not being criminals, are not so lucky.

~~veritas~~

Going For A Walk

Terri Schiavo did not have a right to live. More to the point, neither Terri Schiavo, her husband, her family, the courts, nor any physician nor any politician had a right to kill her. Yet she was killed.

The common wisdom said that she was a vegetable and had nothing more to give to her family or her community. Yet, even frozen in her emaciated body, Terri accomplished in the last three weeks of her limited life what no non-handicapped person could have done: she surgically separated the three cultures of life and death in America.

There is a culture in America that promotes life, but does not know why.

There is a culture in America that promotes death, but has no foundation for that philosophy.

And there is a culture in America that defends life for specific and defensible reasons.

The first two cultures represent most (perhaps almost all) of the people. They use secondary reasons to defend their positions. Most arguments in defense of Terri's life rested on the arbitrary quality of Terri's life, the quality of her husband's character, the intelligence of the judicial, or the argument that there were people who were ready to care for her. The arguments in defense of Michael Schiavo's right to kill his wife rested on his legal standing, some hearsay comment he remembered years after her accident, the pitiful quality of her life, or even that providing food and water constituted "artificial" lifesaving means.

Neither side rests on the foundation of logic and neither conclusions are, therefore, defensible.

The only logical reason to defend Terri's life is this: the person who gave her life is the only person who has the right to take it. Michael Schiavo didn't give her life. The doctors didn't give her life. The courts didn't give her life. No one in government, no bureaucrat, no policy wonk, no commentator, and no bystander gave her life. Even Terri didn't give herself life. None of them, therefore, had the authority to take it.

Even Terri's mom and dad did not give her life. They acted as the surrogates through whom Terri's life was developed, but even they did not breathe life into her sinew. (Consult Mary Shelly for information on reanimating dead tissue. Other than the fiction of her master work, no one can do it.)

The single greatest challenge to our own sovereignty is our helplessness in the face of life and death. The God of the Universe (GOTU) is fully in control in this area. Humbling, isn't it?

Even when considering that some people may overstep their authority and kill another person -- thusly ending a life prematurely, no one may overstep their authority and restore a life or create a brand new one. Life and Death are in the hands of the GOTU.

When fully embracing this culture of life, the extension of this belief is that the GOTU is also in full control of the Quality of Life of those still living. Some are poor. Some are fat. Some are rich. Some are tall and thin and beautiful. Some are bald. Some are disabled. Some are geniuses. We're just not in charge of who is one way or the other. (The rhetorical assumption equates "Extreme Makeover" with those who would similarly disfigure someone. The issue is not whether one change is good or the other is bad, but that both are artificial.)

The GOTU gave us life. The GOTU also placed us our particular situation, with individual gifts and individual burdens. Our IQ is not up to us. Our innate abilities are not ours to choose. Our height is not ours to change. As the GOTU's son once said, "Who can, by worrying, add one single inch to his stature?" We're not even in charge of that.

Speaking to the "Extreme Makover" folks, there are instructions in each and every cell in the Made-Over recipient's body that mitigates against the artifice foisted on the victim in those dreadful shows. Doctors can add prostheses to the chins and cheekbones and breasts and buttocks. Hairdressers can bleach black hair blonde. Dentists can straighten crooked teeth and whiten smiles. But if this made-over beauty ever has children they will, most likely, have no chin, sallow cheeks, flat breasts, sunken butts, black hair and crooked, yellow teeth.

All our efforts are superficial and temporary. And the same goes for death.

We may artificially hasten death, but everyone is destined to die sooner or later. Our efforts -- taking the GOTU off his throne for our temporary tantrum -- does nothing but influence the time of death.

In a more fundamental fact, we can do nothing, ever, to change the creation of life. That area belongs solely and squarely in the power of the GOTU. We have no artifice.

The first recorded theft of authority from the GOTU was when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Interestingly enough, the punishment for that was death. The legal trick there was that they didn't die immediately. But all, from daddy Adam down, are now destined to die. And none of us know when.

The second recorded theft of authority from the GOTU is when Cain killed Abel. Death was already here. It was already our enemy. Cain just used it for his benefit. Should Abel have died for preparing a better sacrifice than his brother?

The cultures of life and death have been at odds ever since. The Egypt of the Pharos was a culture of death. Caesar's Rome was a culture of death. World War II Germany and Japan held cultures of death. The current Jihadists soak in their own culture of death. The only cultures where life was esteemed are those who retained their humility toward the GOTU and embraced the idea that life is amazing and death is the sentence for disobedience.

Further reasons that no one besides the GOTU has the right to take a life are found in our (past) courts. Only those courts who convict and sentence the accused have jurisdiction to carry out the sentence. Even though Scott Petersen is a convicted murder, sentenced to die, no individual has the authority to carry out that sentence. Only the courts whose laws were broken, who convicted and sentenced the accused, may carry out a sentence.

In the same way, although each of us is condemned to die, no individual has the authority to carry out our just and coming sentence. Only the GOTU has that right. In the same way our jails will put a suicide watch on a condemned criminal, none of us are really free to decide when to "cheat the hangman," so to speak.

Those other cultures, the 99 percent who do not cede full authority to the GOTU in areas of life and death, are illogical in their positions. The saddest segment of our society are those who argued in affirmation of Terri's life, but do not have consistent or logical reasons. It is tragic irony to be right for the wrong reasons.

Terri's life belonged to the GOTU. He had a right to take it. He was in control when she was reduced from energetic and animated woman to bed-bound disabled wretch. Yet, the GOTU had a purpose for her life and an established time for her death. (Arguing that the GOTU had planned for her death in just the manner it occurred would be a good argument. But the GOTU knowing that the life would be prematurely and criminally taken does not make the act pleasing or justifiable.)

Those who would argue for one side or anther without first acknowledging the proper ownership of Terri's life argue the position without foundation. Their arguments must, then, originate and extrapolate from what are called States or Properties.

In these arguments, one's State (not in the sense of Texas or Florida, but in the sense of condition) becomes the determinant of life's justifiability or death's desirability. Terri's "state" was unenviable. But she was alive and nothing -- except an overt act of homicide or a merciful act of grace by the GOTU -- would end that life. Terri's properties were never fully known. Could Terri see? Could she hear her mother talking? However, these became side issues that justified one position or another. They were as unimportant as whether Terri's hair color was blue or her chin had implants.

Some argued Michael Schiavo's properties as a good husband or those of a heartless cad. Still others argued that they would not want to live without properties of speech or movement; justifying their conclusion that it was better for Terri to die.

The other Property arguments included legal properties (not in the sense that she was the "property" of one person or a court, but whether a court or a person held legal standing in her stead or behalf). One could argue that Michael Schiavo had legal standing. Others argued that the Shindlers had legal standing. In reality, the courts overstepped all their legal authority and tried to grant to one or the other a property that neither could ever hold and that the court did not have the right to grant.

All of these arguments and excuses are irrelevant. For the courts to grant anyone besides the GOTU authority to give or take a life is the equivalent of a court ruling granting Michael Schiavo the right to walk off a 100-story building and land gently on the sidewalk below.

The courts, even the Supremes, just don't have the authority to contravene the Laws of Gravity. Any ruling of this sort would be met with hilarious laughter, general ridicule, and a large, messy spot where Michael Schiavo would have suddenly discovered the impropriety of the court.

Even Michael Schiavo -- whose own moral interpretation led him to conclude that murder is preferable to divorce -- isn't stupid enough to walk off a tall building based on the decisions of a rogue and degenerate judiciary.

Good news for the courts, though. The rest of us are.

It Can Only Last A Lifetime

The Schiavo case is just too easy.  The Schiavo case is just too complex.  A woman is alive.  A woman is barely alive.  Someone wants to care for her.  Someone wants to kill her.  There is a right to live.  There is a right to die.  The judges are insane.  The judges are right. 

It would take the wisdom of King Solomon to figure this one out.  Or would it?  We obviously need better judges, but we also need to decide what is right and wrong.  The wisdom of Solomon and the universal truths that guided him haven't changed since he built his temple and judged over his people.  They are available to us in the here and now.  So, too, are the liberal ideologies and situational relativism that confuses our culture.  These are the two sides of judicial temperament.

King Solomon stands at the extreme righteous end of the measure of judges. 

Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?  And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; (1Ki 3:9,11) 

Solomon asked for wisdom to rule according to righteousness.  And we still remember his wisdom and his right judgments.  He asked for special insight into the universal truths that do not change and do not shift according to our whims.  That kind of wisdom is rare today.

Contemporaneous judges rule via social comfort and prevailing attitude.  There can be no greater chasm than that between our judges and Solomon.

Millennia stand between us and such Godly wisdom.  We are left trying to decide what is right and what is wrong in our world and issues like those of Ms. Schiavo are the crucible in which our assumptions are separated from our facts.  We search for facts and we get sophistry.  We look for truth and we get rhetoric.

Our media are a font of rhetoric.  From the ABC poll that slanted the idea that Terri is brain-dead to CBS posing the issue as a political one, there is no solid logic in the rhetoric that gives direction for the future.  Should we, as a culture, find ourselves in the same place sometime in the future, what shall we do?  We must explore it now before it overtakes us by renewed surprise.

Rhetoric provides no answers.  Rhetoric seeks to persuade.  Facing critical and deadly decisions such as those illuminated by Terri Schiavo, we need answers, not persuasion. But rhetoric can provide a venue for discussion.  Regardless of it's poor use by our media, rhetoric can provide a useful process.  Francis Bacon said, "The duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will."  Standing on the firm foundation of known truths, working with logic and reason, we can apply rhetorical tools as a means to decipher signals from static.

More than one life is at stake in this debate.  Most of us are fully unprepared for this situation  Once upon us, situations like that of Ms. Schiavo do not allow us much time to consider our options.  Like a pilot flying into poor weather, we must sometimes be wary when we are reaching the limits of our abilities or experience.  Training and experience teaches the pilot to establish the limits of every theoretical situation.  Regardless of what the regulations allow or what the law prohibits, each pilot establishes those limits and decides, beforehand, not to cross them.  Therefore, when an emergency arises, or even when some marginal event occurs that could increase his risk, he knows ahead of time how he will react.  The choices are made under little stress and with plenty of time to debate.  These individual limits are called personal minima. 

We must also have personal minima in our day-to-day lives.  Otherwise we will encounter a situation, like that facing the husband and parents of Terri Schiavo, where we are making it up as we go.  When pilots in bad weather attempt such haphazard approaches, they are called accident statistics.  When we personally crash upon our own haphazard attempts to handle crises, our personal lives can do little more than serve as a warning to others.  It is much easier to prepare than to clean up the mess afterward. We are engaged, though, in more than risk avoidance.  The Terri Schiavo debate demands that we seek, and find, real truths.

The spiritual and philosophical truths we seek must exist completely within the confines of logic and reason -- which are set firmly within objective truth.  If logic, within the process of rhetoric, can lead us to a philosophical truth we must avoid sophistry and remain committed to reason.  The principle tool of rhetoric, invention, should never push us beyond what is real, but should extend our thoughts to the edge of possibilities.  Cleverness is not invention, it is manipulation.  We should not be clever, but using our knowledge and understanding, build truth upon truth. 

Asking the hard questions and inventing scenarios where our assumptions are tested, we can examine our conclusions for logical integrity.  As we invent different situations, we can measure each conclusion for consistency and integrity.  Real life may even take us beyond the edge of possibilities.  We must, therefore, explore the effects of our beliefs at the edges so we can be prepared to act when the time comes.

We search for philosophical truth that retains its integrity, even out to extremes.  We stress-test our ideas.  If a position collapses at an extreme, it is no truth.  We may use it for a "rule of thumb," but it cannot be truth.  Nor can we simply accept a "rule of thumb" when we ultimately seek a truth.  All current philosophies proposed and promoted in the Terri Schiavo case collapse under minimal stress; like the central arguments about Ms. Schiavo.

In her case and many like hers, some medical ethicists suggest that there exists some point where life is not worth living.  This is the current philosophy supporting most rationalizations of Ms. Schiavo's right to die.  Objective truth demands, then, that there exists some identifiable point of demarcation between the life that is worth living and the life that is not worth living.  We should be able to firmly fix that point, either by observation or analysis.  However, we cannot. 

If we say the point exists where mechanical means are continually used to support life, then Terri Schiavo is on the side that is worth living and Christopher Reeve was on the side that is not.  If we fix the point where food and water must be administered for life to continue then both Terri Schiavo and every suckling baby falls on the side of the life not worth living.  We must start adding conditions and exceptions to maintain our extemporaneous and shifting sense of control.  We quickly walk away from reason and logic and wrap ourselves in unsupportable opinions.

These irrational beliefs cannot be the kind of truth for which everyone is looking.  After some contemplation, only two positions can long stand the stress of such analysis.

• All life -- even marginal life -- is precious.
• All life -- even the ideal life -- is worthless.

The first position that retains integrity is that of ultimate, universally precious life.  In this philosophy all life, even that of brain damaged and severely handicapped men and women, is precious.  This position provides clear, logical, and consistent guidance in the cases like Ms. Schiavo.  It provides clear, logical, and consistent guidance in cases like Christopher Reeve or Dr. Stephen Hawking.  It provides clear, logical, and consistent guidance, even in cases of severely brain-damaged children who will never even show any response to stimuli and require round-the-clock care.  It even provides clear guidance for cases where a person is living a normal, unremarkable life.

The only other position that retains integrity is that of the worthless life.  In this philosophy all life is transitory, limited, and is of no supernatural consequence.  The living do so in a meaningless state of eventual termination.  Living is meaningless.  Dying is meaningless.  Any incompetence or weakness is an opportunity to humanely let the suffering die. 

This position holds that there are no interim decisions about quality of life or what constitutes an extraordinary effort to extend life.  There is no life that has any quality.  All efforts to extend life are extraordinary.  The only life worth saving, therefore, is the life that does not need saving.   Vaccinations, antibiotics, defibrillators, and all manner of respirators and feeding tubes qualify as extraordinary actions to extend life.  Denial of any of these resources -- and many more -- would constitute logical actions toward a worthless life.

Society is not founded on the worthless life, so the concept may be a little shocking.  But it is logically consistent to the extremes.  The baby that cannot survive outside of his mother's womb would be considered incompetent and termination would be logical.  The grandparent who could not open a can of beans would be considered weak.  Termination of the weak would be considered humane.

It is certainly beastly, but it is consistent.

Unfortunately, as a culture we do not like the idea of the precious life, either.  We, therefore, perform the cognitive soft-shoe-shuffle and pick and choose based on the situation.  Questions arise and we try to mix and match to sound compassionate and simultaneously distant.   The result is a jumble of irrational, inconsistent, and contradictory laws, phobias, decisions, and precedence that cannot be reconciled.

There cannot be two more divergent possible views about life's value than those above.  Both stand the scrutiny of logical exercise.  One, though, sounds better than the other.

Solomon has been in his grave more than 2,800 years.  You must judge.  The precious life stands on one side.  The worthless life stands on the other.  Both argue, logically, for the life of Terri Schiavo -- possibly even for your life, if not more.

Solomon's throne is empty.  His bench is silent.  You decide.

 

~ Dexter