The Real Public Nuisances

I’m sure many of you have read about a California law suit claiming that the manufacture of automobiles which burn hydrocarbons and release carbon dioxide presents a public nuisance. I want to comment on this from several angles in coming posts.

First, I want to say that the singling out of the auto industry for this type of problem is unfortunate. There are many similar unrecognized public nuisances which I hope they will ultimately address. In order to jump start the discussion on these problems which are equally or more dangerous, I’m providing a list of the top 3 here.

Oxygen
Oxygen and any process that produces it should be banned. Oxygen feeds the forest fires which plague California and the West. It also contributes to the combustion of cigarettes, marijuana, and crack cocaine. Oxygen promotes rust which depreciates the value of our bridges and automobiles. Despite the fact that it is needed by every vertebrate to breathe, we should take the bold step and ban it now. That means we should build a case against the agricultural industry and anyone who cultivates photosynthetic organisms.

Water
Let’s not hide behind the clever marketing slogan “water” put forth by Big Water. We should more accurately call this substance dihydrogen monoxide. It is responsible for burns, drowning, impaired performance of automotive brakes, poor visibility, not to mention flood damage. We should start an inquiry into those who irrigate, build reservoirs, dig wells, etc.

Food
Food is clearly the number one cause of obesity. If we were to outlaw food, the incidence of the overweight and obese would drop dramatically. We should move swiftly to address this public nuisance as well.

I’m sure proposals like these are already under consideration. We cannot tolerate the risks that these Big 3 unrecognized problems pose to our modern society. Some might argue that each has incalculable benefits which outweigh the problems they cause. They might suggest that every act of man produces both positive and negative consequences which must be carefully weighed. These people would probably also suggest that the elimination of the automobile would provide a greater public nuisance to California. We must not listen to these misguided individuals.

Hopefully, beginning with the automotive suit, the California courts will not only rewrite the law of the land, they can rewrite laws of biology, chemistry, physics, and human nature as well.

Lost In Translation

Religious Cult. We all have a definition for it, or at least some stereotypical view of what a group like this is. I think we can agree that one term to describe a religious cult would be a group who believes that they are “bettering” themselves through any means deemed appropriate by their leader(s). It is not necessarily a good means, but their deep, profound conviction for their religion and the guiding words of their Shepard blind them en route to some glorious life. Now, for as long as I can remember, a religious cult was typically held in low regard, often times associated with criminal activities (at least deemed criminal by the better majority) and secretive actions. I am not trying to say that every strong religious affiliation is a cult, but it seems that a line is crossed that is regarded as unbecoming of a society. The most popular ones that come to mind are the Branch Davidian at Waco or polygamist leader, Warren Jeffs from Utah. Some were dissolved peacefully, others not so. In the end, society deems that religious cults that conduct harmful behavior must be desisted. I don’t think many people complained for years on end when the government stormed the Waco compound after innocent FBI agents were killed.
Knowing what I believe religious cults to be, I ask somebody to explain how Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the followers from his country do not fit this bill. They believe an entire country should be eradicated because their god would want it that way. They chant “Death to Israel”, “Death to America”, and “Death to Germany” at rallies. They protest and kill at the desecration of their religion. They cast themselves as suicide bombs in the hopes that they “better” the world by eliminating Western infidels. Perhaps the most sickening part of all of this, is that people in this world respect him, give him a world stage to spew his hateful words. What happened to this world, especially this country, where a religious cult can be held to such high esteem? Perhaps the world needs to band together to ensure this cult does not gain further momentum. Make no mistake; they are a religious cult, just on a larger scale than we are use to. Does that absolve us from action? Can somebody who rewards and praises those that blow themselves up in order to “better” their religious convictions be reasoned with? In my opinion… no. But that is just common sense to me.

The Rest of the Geneva Convention

Below are excerpts from a Protocol in addition to the Geneva convention.

Did these articles keep New York, Madrid, London, or Baghdad safe?
Did the parties who carried out these attacks sign the Geneva convention?
Should we extend them its privileges when they intend to violate these articles the next chance they get?

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention, 1977
Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish
between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only
against military objectives.

…

Article 57: Precautions in Attack
List of 5 items (contains 2 nested lists)
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
List of 3 items nesting level 1 (contains 1 nested list)
A. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
List of 3 items nesting level 2
i. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection
but are military objectives within the meaning of
paragraph 2 of Article 52
and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
ii. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss
of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
iii. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian
objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
list end nesting level 2
B. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that
the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which
would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
C. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.
list end nesting level 1
3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that
the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules
of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

**5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.**

Real dialogue

The pope’s remarks this week provide a chance to make a point a bout “real” dialogue. Most of the headlines I’ve read look something like this:

“Pope’s words anger Muslims.”

This makes the Muslims passive recipients of the pope’s action. It denies their ownership of their own emotions. Being offended requires two parties. I would suggest a more accurate headline:

“Muslims choose to become angry at pope’s remarks”

“Real” dialogue means having to hear some things you’re not comfortable with.
“Real” solutions require an ability to consider facts and opinions even if they are unpleasant. Until parties realize these facts,
“real” progress will be long in coming.

That should be common sense.

Representation without taxation

In 1773, a batch of angry colonists poured crates of tea into Boston harbor to protest “taxation without representation.” They thought that it was only fair that since the fruits of their labor reached Parliament, so should their voice. Fast-forward to 2006. 100 million Americans legally do not have to pay federal income tax while countless millions try illegally to slip below Washington’s radar. To put this in perspective, approximately 120 million people voted in the last election. So, this group could represent a political majority.
Although the fruits of this untaxed majority are not gathered by Washington, their voice is still heard loud and clear. They are heard at the ballot box, in the protest march, on the internet, through contributions to their union or favorite PAC, and through calls to their Congresspeople. They have representation without taxation. To them, the United States can be thought of as an all-you-can eat restaurant where you place your order for whatever you like and everything is free. No wonder so many seem to buy into the notion that the rich aren’t carrying their fair share despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. Somebody has to pick up the check.

Please pass the tea.
In 1773, a batch of angry colonists poured crates of tea into Boston harbor to protest “taxation without representation.” They thought that it was only fair that since the fruits of their labor reached Parliament, so should their voice. Fast-forward to 2006. 100 million Americans legally do not have to pay federal income tax while countless millions try illegally to slip below Washington’s radar. To put this in perspective, approximately 120 million people voted in the last election. So, this group could represent a political majority.
Although the fruits of this untaxed majority are not gathered by Washington, their voice is still heard loud and clear. They are heard at the ballot box, in the protest march, on the internet, through contributions to their union or favorite PAC, and through calls to their Congresspeople. They have representation without taxation. To them, the United States can be thought of as an all-you-can eat restaurant where you place your order for whatever you like and everything is free. No wonder so many seem to buy into the notion that the rich aren’t carrying their fair share despite the fact that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. Somebody has to pick up the check.

Please pass the tea.

"It's all good."

How many times have you heard this phrase? “It’s all good.” We’re bombarded with it. In our society today, we seem to be told that actions and ideas can be judged (if we must judge at all) on their level of goodness. Sure, some things might be better for some people than others, but “they’re all good.”

No.

That assumption denies the reality that evil exists. There are actions and ideas which aren’t just “not good.” They’re evil. They seek to destroy what is good. We can just pick up a newspaper and see evidence of this in our communities and in the world at large. I know I’ve seen my share this week. In order for us to challenge evil, and try to do good, we must acknowledge that it exists.

Google, through their famous declaration, “Don’t be evil,” makes the opposite faulty assumption. They imply that not being evil means one is good. We all know what happens to evil when good people do nothing.

Evil exists. Let’s call it by name when we see it, and deal with it in ourselves and our world.

That should be common sense.

When The Ends Justify The Means

As I am sure many of our sensible readers are aware of, since… after all, knowledge is power, President Bush gave a speech recently regarding high level terrorist suspects from secret detainment centers around the world being flown to Guantánamo Bay for trial. In addition, the President was pushing the much indolent Congress to allow the use of military commissions for these terrorist suspects. We all know justice is not served without some form of a listening audience, oops, I mean trial (insert your own thought for what should be done to some of these mass murderers).
The interesting tidbit regarding this bill was most of this was in place at an early time, but the Supreme Court had to rule it unconstitutional due to no Congressional approval. In fact, supporting Justice Breyer claimed the court made its decision on halting these tribunals because “the concerns of critics had penetrated deeply at the court”. How can there possibly be critics to seeing justice handed down to some of these horrendous people, whether Congressionally stamped or not! Who are these critics? Is there not something more pertinent that Congress and the Supreme Court should be dealing with? The most disturbing part of all this is that our Supreme Court can be swayed by the “concerns of critics” rather than Constitutional bearing.
This also highlights another sore spot with me, which concerns the objections to interrogation techniques used by our government against terrorist suspects. The Pentagon recently released a report on Defense Department (excluding the CIA) interrogation techniques. In my honest opinion, when these despicable people are captured, if one single human life is saved through harsh or non-Geneva interrogation tactics, this government has done its duties to protect the nation. Isn’t that the government’s first and foremost obligation to its citizens? It is somewhat reassuring in my mind to know that there are groups or individuals operating outside the confines of our humane laws and that there are secret prisons around the world where somebody is ensuring that we remain safe, by any means necessary.