Tuesday, June 15, 2010

So who is responsible for protecting the sanctity of our kids butts? Kids are people after all & just as curious as adults. Any bureaucratic remedy will only be as successful as the prejudice of it's reviewers. church, parents, police, industry(?!) all go about it differently, each has pros & cons. but the total is that there is no universal solution. They ultimately profile all adult males as potential predators, and that doesn't work either.

Assuming that all males are potential child predators is pretty much the same as assuming that males are all selfish sociopaths, so that the males fear of prison is their only control. Those kinds of reasonings require men to prove innocence of intent, which can't be done, it's requiring proof of something that doesn't exist, proof of a negative. GW said Saddam had to prove there was no nuclear program, & then used his authority to frame Saddam over Yellowcake Uranium. I recommend that legal institutions (or media, or someone) define which situations require negative proofs, and make it a social faux pas issue of gigantic dimensions so that ordinary people will be aware of it's destructive potential, not just random bloggers.

Better Courts Now, the right-wing group that is seeking to get judges with a Christian bias elected to the courts in California, and eventually nationwide. (rightwingwatch.org)

One of Joe's (many) pet peeves is that dog owners are legally responsible for the actions of their pets but cat owners aren't. The state is responsible for wild animal control but not if your car gets smashed up by a deer jumping into the road, which would be an act of god. However when the state acts in it's own interest to preserve it's survival, the state is behaving like an independent life form. In which case, the definition of legal "Entity" is altered from judiciary to metaphysical, and is a conflict of church & state & said to be prohibited by the constitution.

I've been wondering how long it would be before the Republican faction of the Tea Party would start trying to appeal to marijuana smokers, since dope users are a very large demographic, & even more credulous than Christians.

On the bright side, since the church and state are essentially inseparable, I'm suggesting that a "state entity" could actually become legally impartial. Because when the state (like god) acts in it's own behalf, it becomes selfish/exclusive and justice becomes a matter of opinion. When in fact, God is demonstrably unbiased (except in the opinion of it's support groups). So that for the state to become an entity by any definition, it must be unbiased, and not use concepts like "imminent domain" or "gerrymandering" to defend itself or it's believers.

"We follow the teachings of a man named Charles Darwin ... " (youtube)

Poll: 83% say God answers prayers, 57% favor National Prayer Day (usatoday)

Israel the victim (newmatilda)

The far side 1994