One-upping God

Ilíon has analyzed the pope’s recent kissing of a Muslim’s feet. He says that this action constituted an attempt to one-up the morality of God. That is, Jesus washed the feet of his own people, and commanded them to serve each other. The pope, in contrast, went out of his way to serve and honor an open enemy of Jesus. Ilíon is correct.

The fact is, most political wickedness and most false religion result from a similar attempt to do better than God. God outlined in the Bible, for example, the type of government and law that God actually supports. Completely apart from biblical advice, people today (including Christians) disregard the Bible. They feel that they can set up their own legal system that is superior.

You explain that God did not advocate a government that could enforce charity. Well, the leftists say, we are more evolved than that now, and therefore we should create a socialist government.

You explain that God would criminalize adultery and other serious errors. Well, the social liberals say, we are more evolved than that now, and therefore we should tolerate wickedness the same way Jesus would. (In point of fact, Jesus apparently did rather staunchly advocate the death penalty for wickedness, in Mark 7:10).

You explain that God set up a criminal justice system based, primarily, upon pure retribution. Well, the statists say, we are more evolved than that now, and therefore we should create chapters upon chapters of new crimes to punish people who have not committed actual harm, but who simply create a danger of some sort. (The entire traffic code, with all its associated fines and its innumerable excuses for police involvement in your life, constitutes just one example.) The statists thus contend that they can do better than God, by “deterring” dangerous activity with their superior laws.

You explain that God did not advocate the garrisoning of troops to supervise the actions of the citizens. Well, the cowardly citizen says, we are more evolved than that now, and therefore since the cowardly citizen is afraid of the world, he proposes putting a police officer on every block. In my city, indeed the police are everywhere.

One could go on. But the point is, when you try to do better than God, you are basically just insulting God’s plan. And the insult simply results in a diabolical artificial system. Back in the good old days, philosophers like John Locke would actually cite biblical passages to derive their political theories. Even if a person like that got something wrong once in a blue moon, you could at least recognize that his heart was in the right place. Nowadays, the majority of churches seem to teach that God does not care about politics at all. (Today, the preacher at the church I attended explicitly said that.) Well, I guess we may as well get our politics from Satan then. That is certainly what we have been doing lately.

The intelligent ones, and their new systems

Lately via Facebook, I heard about a study that detailed how conservatives supposedly tend to have lower IQs than leftists. Obviously, the initial tendency would be for leftists to brag about such a finding. But even assuming the truth of this study, I would say that people with higher IQs probably tend to be less conservative simply because leftism is unnatural. Leftism is an ideology. For the most part, a person must be indoctrinated to become a leftist. People with high IQs spend more time in the education system becoming indoctrinated.

Leftism is based on various unnatural distortions of the world. Naturally, a person understands the importance of working for himself and keeping what he earns. It takes a system to make him believe that he must work for others, and that a bureacracy can best decide what to do with his earnings. Naturally, people understand the differences between the sexes. It takes a system to punish real masculinity and make women believe they can be men. Instinctively, people feel the need to protect themselves. It takes a police state to convince them that they should not protect themselves, but must rely on a cop on every corner — and libraries of statutes — to keep them safe. Naturally, a person is free. It takes time in the system to enslave.

Obviously, there are also some conservative institutions which are somewhat non-intuitive or unnatural, even convoluted. The idea of checks and balances in government is one example. Most of the rules of evidence are another. And even parts of the Bill of Rights are non-intuitive. But we have long passed the point of implementing convoluted conservative institutions. Anyway, most of the strange conservative fixtures have been with us so long that even the unintelligent understand them — or at least support them in ignorance. But whereas the less intelligent have trouble enough digesting the established, good institutions, the smart intellectuals of today press onward toward futuristic institutions, newer convoluted systems of slavery.

Herman Cain accuser analysis

On Friday the lawyer for the “sexual harassment” accuser made various statements to the media. Given that I definitively debunked the Al Gore accuser a while back, I think it is only fair to analyze these recent Herman Cain accusations as well.

In 1999, I was retained by a female employee of the National Restaurant Association concerning several instances of sexual harassment by the then-CEO. She made a complaint in good-faith . . .

He spontaneously denies that the complaint was made in bad faith. This might signal that the complaint was, indeed, made in bad faith. At the very least, he is going out of his way to be defensive on this point.

But even more importantly, this defensive denial is only a very weak denial. Complaining “in good-faith” absolutely does not mean that the complaint was well-founded. It just means that there was no blatantly fraudulent intent. An overly-sensitive (or crazy) person could complain about even innocent behavior “in good-faith.” So even if I assumed that this lawyer were telling the absolute truth here about “good faith,” it would not mean that Herman Cain did anything wrong.

. . . about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO.

So apparently, this woman complained about various activities — only some of which (allegedly) involved “unwanted advances.”

And the other activities did not apparently include rape, or coercion, or anything or anything else terribly serious, because the lawyer uses the rather mild word “inappropriate” to describe them. When I wear white socks to court, that is inappropriate. Rape is not “inappropriate.”

 Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing the matter any further — publicly or privately. In fact, it would be extremely painful to do so.

Why would it be “extremely painful”? Possibly because she cheated on her husband in some way. Or perhaps because she just knows that she fabricated all these accusations, or that the silliness and triviality of the accusations will cause her embarassment if the details become public.

She is grateful that she was able to return to her government career, where she is extremely happy serving the American people to the very best of her ability. She looks forward to continuing to work hard for them as we face the significant challenges that lie ahead.

More defensiveness and stupid rhetoric. He is going out of his way to paint the woman as a saint — and laughably, merely because she gets a paycheck from the government. She very easily could work at a post office, yet she is supposedly saving America from the significant challenges that lie ahead.

She wishes to thank the media for the restraint they have shown her, . . .

This part is basically just a lie. The media has not shown restraint. This comment demonstrates that the lawyer does not have much respect for the truth.

. . . and thank her family for their love and support, her colleagues and supervisors for their patience and forbearance, and her advisers for their wise counsel, and most of all her dear husband of twenty-six years.

When he thanks “her advisors for their wise counsel,” he is indicating that her “advisors” had to persuade her not to speak. This somewhat contradicts the earlier statement — that she is keeping quiet merely because it would be “extremely painful.” Instead, she is apparently keeping quiet because all her “advisors” have advised her to keep quiet.

He also points out that she was married when these alleged incidents occurred.

Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. Sexual harassment is unfortunately very much alive, and with us even today, and women must fight it in all kinds of workplaces and at all levels.

Generalities. He is saying that “women” in general must fight it — not that his client had to fight it.” Basically, he is trying to justify his dubious law practice. In his mind, sexual harassment occurs in all workplaces at all levels — and so therefore it was acceptable for him to attack Herman Cain. He is saying that some men engage in bad behavior, not that Herman Cain did. Notably, not once in this entire statement does this lawyer ever directly accuse Herman Cain of anything. Rather, the lawyer simply reports that his client made some accusations — and then the lawyer goes out of his way to distance himself from the client.

My client stands by the complaint she made.

First, this is an extremely DEFENSIVE comment. And basically, the lawyer’s entire statement is defensive.

The lawyer does not say, “Herman Cain is a predator,” or even any stronger defensive statement, like “Our complaint was justified.” Rather, he simply says that “[m]y client stands by the complaint that she made.” The complaint was not necessarily just, but she does stand by it. She made the complaint, not him. She stands by it. He does not. He is distancing himself from her.

Finally, in another interview, the lawyer also made the following very telling comment:

There’s an expression that where there’s smoke, there’s fire . . . . The fact that there are more complainants tells me that it’s more likely than not that there was some sexual harassment by this man at that time.

He did not believe his client, originally. But after learning that other women supposedly made similar allegations, this pattern “tells” him to have more confidence in his client. Thus, he now considers it “more likely than not” that his client was telling the truth. Notably, this is still a rather low level of confidence.

He also points out that another woman came to him, with a similar allegation, but decided not to pursue it. What are the chances that two women went to this same lawyer by chance? More likely, the news that one woman made the accusations had become public within the company. And this publicity brought other company malcontents out of the woodwork. Women are herd creatures.

Vague accusations

A story in the news right now is that some anonymous women once accused presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexually harassing them. Herman Cain admits the existence of the past allegations and denies the allegations themselves.

My question is:  Does anyone really care? This allegation seems to me like a defective indictment that fails to allege an actual offense. It’s like, even if we assume that any of this were true, so what? So what if he did sexually harass some women? I don’t see much point in having good-looking women at your business if you can’t harass them every now and then. (But then, do we even know whether these anonymous women were attractive, and thus worth harassing?)

People keep talking about this story even though I suspect that most people do not even know what sexual harassment is. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia defines sexual harassment as “intimidation, bullying, or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors” (emphasis added). I highlight the conjunction “or” to emphasize that sexual harassment does not even necessarily include sexual solicitation. Notably, another website specifically points out that “[s]exual harassment isn’t limited to making inappropriate advances.” Rather, “harassment” can include just saying things that are “suggestive,” or making “lewd jokes,” or making “sexual gestures,” or communicating “sexual comments about appearance.” I would go out on a limb and declare that even if a person were married and did any of the aforementioned forms of harassment, it would still not actually be wrong.

As far as legality, who knows. Everything is a crime nowadays. For example, I had a bonfire at my house recently. According to Tennessee, that is illegal unless I first ask for permission from the government. Come get me, Sheriff Long!

But whatever. I guess it’s always cool when you can throw vague accusations against people without backing anything up. My whole life story.

Bible-thumping

Today’s Sunday school lesson comes to us by H. Lee Sarokin of the Huffington Post, in reference to the current congressional debate over whether we should raise taxes on the producers of this country, or instead slash government waste:

I cannot find any passage in the Bible that says: “Oh Ye Faithful: The poor shall sacrifice so that the rich may retain their wealth,” but that appears to be the fundamental policy of the fundamentalists.

Hmm. How about Exodus 30:13-15.

Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less, when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives.

Well, that was easy.

But the Post continues:

I do not pretend to be an expert or scholar on Christian teachings, but I know they are replete with references to caring for the poor, the hungry and the sick.

It sure sounds to me like he is pretending to be an expert on Christian teachings. He is just failing at it. And then in the very next sentence, he refers to real Christians as “Bible-thumpers.” Technically, that is supposed to be a derrogatory term. But realistically, I like Bibles, and I like thumping people. So it seems to me like thumping someone with a Bible would not be a particularly bad idea. You just need to get one that in addition to being a good translation, is also sturdy and made from good materials.

“Caylee’s Law” and other garbage from the Tennessee legislature

Apparently the Tennessee legislature is getting down to the important work of rectifying the great widespread problem of Casey Anthony-type deceptions toward police:
Under the current law, parents are required to report to the police that their child is missing, but do not suffer any penalties if they fail to do so. Caylee’s Law will make it a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a $2,500 fine if a parent fails to report a missing child within 48 hours of the child’s disappearance. Further, if the child experiences serious bodily injury or death during the course of their disappearance, the offense upgrades to a Class C felony punishable by three to fifteen years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
 
State Representative Craig Fitzhugh said he drafted the bill in response to the many emails he received from concerned Tennessee citizens following last week’s verdict. Many citizens in Tennessee and around the country were outraged by the verdict, believing Casey had to have done something to Caylee or else she wouldn’t have waited 31 days to report her as missing. Naturally, this sparked an online movement to enforce laws like “Caylee’s Law” to prevent another situation like Caylee’s.

How stupid. Just what we need, another criminal law. This “Caylee’s Law” wouldn’t have changed anything in the Casey Anthony case, anyway. What Casey Anthony did (false reporting to investigators) was already illegal in Florida, and is already illegal in Tennessee, and she was specifically convicted of it. And most people who do that sort of thing when the child winds up being found dead nearby would be obviously guilty of murder.  The only reason Casey Anthony got off on the homicide charge is because defense lawyers convinced the jury that she lied due to her craziness, and not necessarily due to any guilt. (Personally, I think the jury maybe could have gotten her for manslaughter, because her lying would at least seem to indicate a sense of guilt, but whatever.)

If you actually do MURDER YOUR CHILD, we do NOT need new laws to punish you for that. If you do not murder your child but are simply slightly insane (like Casey Anthony argued she was), then we do not need to punish you for some new artificial crime for being insane. And a new law is not going to deter your insanity. If you do not murder your child but do lead the police on a wild goose chase, then we already have laws for that.

And under this proposal, parents would have to report missing kids within 48 hours?? From what I have heard, the police do not even take parents seriously when they call to report missing people within 24 hours. So under this proposal, parents would have essentially a 24-hour window in which to report children missing, and if they missed the window and it turns out that the child did come to some harm, it would be a Class C felony (i.e., 3-15 years).

The reason police do not take reports seriously when kids are missing for only a short people of time is because it often amounts to nothing. So what this law would do is further deplete police resources, requiring either taxes or (more likely) more official corruption/graft, in the form of traffic citations to further fund our overworked police force.

It also seems probably unconstitutional (based on the Fifth Amendment) to punish someone for not reporting their own crimes to the police — which is what this proposed law is obviously intended to do.

I get so fed up with the Tennessee legislature. Just recently, they made it a class A misdemeanor to say something OFFENSIVE to someone via Facebook. Then they made it a crime to cause harmful accidents with your car or to run into bicyclists (Have these people never heard of TORT LAW?). Then there was also that big DUI bill they passed effective January 1, which allows judges to steal the driver’s licenses of people charged with (but not actuall convicted of) DUI.

Seriously, we elected a bunch of Republicans because we genuinely could not stand things like taxation, welfare, abortion, etc., and because we were fed up with President Obama and the national Democrats. And then what do these idiots do when they get in office? They make up a bunch of crummy new criminal offenses. These people truly misunderstand their mandate. And although the article quotes a Democratic House member, it turns out that both the House and Senate versions of the bill are sponsored by Republicans. In fact, the Senate version is sponsored by the same idiot Sen. Ketron who made it a crime to say something mean over Facebook. Thinking that we were taking back our liberty, it appears that we have only elected a bunch of authoritarians.

Corrupt prosecutors

It seems to be a fad lately for criminal prosecutors to help put innocent people in jail, then go on with their lives for years, and eventually get promoted, and then FINALLY come clean and admit that they suppressed exculpatory evidence against criminal defendants. At least, that is what happened with the recent Margo Freshwater case in Tennessee (murder conviction overturned after 42 years), and now also in this Hannah Overton case from Texas.

In the Hannah Overton case, apparently Texas convicted a woman of murder in 2007 because the government claimed that she forced her adopted son to eat salt until he died. Seriously. Even on its face, that conviction sounds at least slightly ridiculous. But now it actually turns out that the prosecutors had a medical report showing that the level of salt in the kid’s stomach was LOW, not high.

Now, the assistant prosecutor has come clean and at least tried to appear as if she is repenting of her wickedness:

“I am writing this letter because I do believe that an injustice has been done. I do not believe there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Hannah Overton intentionally killed Andrew Burd,” Jimenez wrote in February.

But why doesn’t she try saying things a bit more accurately: “I am writing this letter because I HAVE HELPED CAUSE an injustice.” These people never seem to experience much shame for their misdeeds. They just pass the buck. Then we find out later that even though this lady has herself been promoted to District Attorney — that is, the person who is the BOSS of the prosecutors’ office — she is still allowing one of her underlings to RESIST letting the defendant have a new trial! The woman is so ridiculously two-faced. Or in this case, maybe you should call it “three-faced” since she keeps flip-flopping all over the place.

“It is because I witnessed Sandra Eastwood’s behavior before, during and after trial that I fear she may have purposely withheld evidence that may have been favorable to Hannah Overton’s defense,” she added.

So she seemingly admits that she saw questionable acts years ago and did nothing.

Doug Norman, the assistant Nueces County district attorney handling Overton’s appellate matters for the state, said Tuesday he does not see anything that qualifies as “a smoking gun” in Orr’s latest pleading, including the low stomach salt contents.

It doesn’t have to be a “smoking gun” to equal an unconstitutional Brady violation. Idiot. Try actually studying some law before you open your mouth.

“I may harbor doubts, but a jury heard this case and made a decision, and everyone has to respect that decision,” he said in a Tuesday interview.

Yes, we should all respect jury decisions based on an incomplete/false picture presented by dishonest prosecutors suppressing evidence. I know that I personally can barely contain my “respect.”

“I’ll put it this way. My job requires me to be an advocate for the state. As long as I can make a nonfrivolous argument, I’ll make it, but nothing in my job prevents me from praying for a more just outcome,” he said.

See, this is the type of garbage we have today. For whatever reason, some people actually imagine that being an “advocate for the state” just means keeping the maximum number of people in jail. You think the government is your friend? Well according to this government worker, his job is not to do the right thing, but rather to put you in jail. And he will make every effort to put you in jail as long as he can make a non-“frivolous” argument. The standard isn’t supposed to be whether an argument is non-“frivolous” but whether the government can prove the argument by the requisite standard of proof.  And yet this guy just admitted that he has made a career out of pursuing every single non-“frivolous” action he possibly can “on behalf of the State,” which is just code for “on behalf of the jail.”  If I were on the Texas Board of Professional Responsibility, I’d be tempted to suspend this guy’s law license for just making such a ridiculous and corrupt statement.

And he also essentially admits that in this particular case, he does not even have enough evidence to convince himself that the woman is guilty. And this is a guy who, practically speaking, is paid to be convinced of guilt.

And despite all this nonsense, people still call criminal defense lawyers slimy. A criminal defense lawyer is required by law to support a specific individual who is given by law a right to a trial. (That is, without a defense lawyer you CANNOT go forward.) And even if the client is guilty of something, the lawyer does not have much choice in the matter but must simply support the client. By contrast, these criminal prosecutors aren’t required by law to do ANYTHING, except to honestly pursue justice. And they apparently can’t even pull that off.

I think these prosecutors act the way they do — and then sometimes later come forward and act publicly like heroes for setting the record right — because they have almost absolute immunity. In my mind, intentionally suppressing this type of stuff is not much different from perjury. And granted, it’s usually hard to prove intent with this sort of thing.

And granted, even actual perjury by prosecution witnesses is almost never punished. But if you want my view on how we should start handling all this type of nonsense, here it is:

Deuteronomy 19:16-21
If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

We just don’t take the right things seriously enough today.


ANALYSIS
YOU WON'T
FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

Author


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.