Archive for February, 2009

Insuring domestic tranquility

(Originally posted August 04, 2008)

Whereas real men look out for themselves, pathetic people depend on the government for everything. This generality certainly proves true especially in the realm of self-defense. Whereas manly men will arm themselves, work out, and possibly even learn martial arts, the weak individuals in our society will accept the myth of “police protection.” Quite simply, the myth states that police officers exist to protect you from criminals. One hint for the clueless:  The police exist to arrest you, not protect you.

Arresting bad guys excites the police. It is their job. In fact, policemen enjoy arresting people so much that often they will go ahead and arrest innocent people, too. And regardless of the quality of your police, no individual criminal becomes “bad” until after he has already inflicted some harm. The government can mete out punishment afterwards, but criminal courts (generally) cannot reverse the effects of crime. How many defendants come to criminal court charged with attempt crimes – as opposed to actual crimes? Not many.

In Torts class last semester, we read a case where a lady tried to sue the police. She did so because the police failed to stop her boyfriend from throwing sodium hydroxide solution in her face, an attack which scarred her for life. See Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (1968). Recognizing the absurdity of the lady’s lawsuit, the court threw it out. That is, the government does not exist to protect individuals. The police are not your personal bodyguards.

On the contrary, the Bible says that the government exists “to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). Unfortunately, the same wimpy Americans who consider it the government’s job to set wages and provide for individual retirement also demand that the government guarantee their own personal security. If you want to stop crime, you must do it yourself.

Granted, the act of punishing evil-doers does deter many would-be criminals. Unfortunately, many of the same leftists who dislike guns also oppose executions and even stiff prison sentences which might deter violent crime. (Among liberals, sense is a rare commodity.) Regardless of deterrence, even a healthy government cannot guarantee your personal safety.

Overall, the police are no excuse to grow weak and defenseless. Americans used to understand the need for personal defense. Just ask yourself:  Would Davy Crockett walk around unarmed and then start crying when someone mugged him? In enacting the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers legally promised to maintain individuals’ God-given right to self-defense. Tragically, today’s Americans have lost both their faith in God and their common sense. And so they let themselves be slaughtered by murderers.

I was alarmed this past weekend when some jackass decided to shoot up the Unitarian church in Knoxville. Apparently this unemployed loser had grown angry at being receiving cutbacks to his supply of food stamps. Paradoxically, he decided to murder the food stamp-supporting members of the most liberal, hippie “church” imaginable to solve his personal problems.

I guess all the businesses that rejected this idiot’s job applications are glad now.

Mass-shootings against synagogues, colleges, and churches of every type have become all too common. Unarmed populations constitute flocks of sitting ducks. As I point out periodically, Jesus specifically told his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36). But now that he is in heaven, I give you all a new command:  Buy guns. Of course, Unitarians do not follow the Bible literally so I doubt any members of that congregation were armed. In one article, someone praised the police for their sensitivity and professionalism at the crime scene. What is missing from that praise? Oh yeah, the police were absent when multiple people got murdered.

At the time this tragedy occurred in Knoxville, I was carrying my .45 caliber sidearm under a sports coat. I dare someone to assault First Baptist Franklin. Last week was the first time I brought it to church because I had just bought a holster. But recent events only confirm my Drewish wisdom on this issue. Let justice be done.



Julianna posted,
I am all for the right to bear arms, too. Every time some innocent people are shot up by some mental case…I think…if only one of the sensible people had been carrying so many lives could have been saved. And it always seems to be kids they’re gunning for or maybe that’s what we hear about. According to the news, the shooter (1) used a shotgun for which he needed no permit; (2) aimed at the children who were doing some sort of performance and could not have been homosexual since they were kids and (3) that is significant since this is supposed to have been a hate crime committed b/c that church made a public statement welcoming gay people to the congregation. And marital arts, boxing, self-defense that’s good backup but there’s not a black belt in the world who’s going to avoid being hit by someone who can shoot. Also….I strongly beleive that any country that might think of invading another which could happen again one day…would choose countries with unarmed an populace before invading a country where the citizenry is equipped to defend itself and immediately join the defense of the country.”
(08-05-2008, 12:53 am)

I posted,
“Wow, Juli, I didn’t realize you were quite so brilliant.”
(08-05-2008, 5:06 pm)


Cleaning up

(Originally posted July 20, 2008)

So apparently the leaders of San Fransisco have decided to rename a sewage plant after the president. Once local voters ratify the measure in the November election, the sewage facility will be renamed the “George W. Bush Sewage Plant.” The liberals consider this an insult against the president. Personally, I wish someone would name a sewage plant after me: The Drew Justice Sewage Plant — Cleaning up the world’s mess one day at a time.

Thank you for joining us this week on the DREW BLOG, where I provide analysis you won’t find anywhere else. Since I know all my readers are dying to know what I have been up to, I will go ahead and tell. My last post came from Alabama, where I spent the Independence Day weekend. We did some interesting activities down there and saw some good fireworks. The weekend prior, I visited some friends in Knoxville. So far, I have seen a number of good movies. I still await the amazing X-Files movie, however, which should come out soon.

Fortunately, I have managed to obtain two new law school roommates for next year, so that is one less thing to worry about. Also, I have obtained my handgun permit, purchased a .45 caliber weapon, and practiced firing it a fair amount already. Watch out, Fort Sanders. There is a new law in town, and your time has come.

My summer league Frisbee team (olive green) is somewhat less amazing than the team I was on last year, but what can you do. If only my superb amazingness could rub off on everyone else, we would probably be undefeated right now, but what can you do. We are doing alright, at least. Go Olive Garden! Free breadsticks for everyone!

Anyway, life at the Public Defender’s Office continues fairly well. About a week ago, I went to Dunkin Donuts to see Steve Gill broadcast his show live. I met him, and he is a pretty cool guy. While I was there, one conservative lady asked me how the people at the Public Defender’s office could stand to defend criminals. I told her that a significant portion of our clients are genuinely innocent, and that an even larger portion of them may be guilty of something, but have nonetheless been severely overcharged by an overzealous government. Of course, even if someone is guilty, a public trial often benefits society by demonstrating justice in action.

Realistically, though who is truly innocent in the eyes of the law? The paternalistic, nanny-state authoritarians have criminalized nearly everything. If you look through the Tenneseee Code Annotated (Title 39) for yourself, you will see what I mean. Have you ever driven seventy-one miles per hour on the interstate? If so, you have committed a “Class-C Misdemeanor.” Technically, such crimes are punishable by up to thirty days in jail.

Did you know it is illegal to carry a sword? JESUS HIMSELF told his followers to carry swords, but now the Tennessee legislature prohibits the practice! (See Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1307.) The idiots in our government would actually criminalize Duncan MacLeod! How far we have fallen!

Ultimately, the authoritarians have established the all-encompassing legal system because it gives them the final authority over who walks free and who perishes. After all, the police can break a good number of laws with impunity. The people who anger the police are the ones who wind up in trouble.

The Public Defender and all other defense lawyers are basically an Anti-Government Prosecutors. Whereas the District Attorney punishes you for breaking the government’s rules, the Public Defender punishes the government for breaking laws.

If the District Attorney’s Office incompetantly charges you with a crime that you have not broken, the defense lawyers will make the prosecutors look like fools. If the police stop your car for no reason (perhaps after installing a tracking device on your car without a search warrant, which they routinely do), and then violate the Constitution to search your car for drugs, a defense lawyer will free you even if you are guilty. He does so not because he likes criminals. Rather, he frees you in order to punish the government for breaking the law — and because you have paid him money.

Ultimately, if you are the type of mean-spirited jerk who likes to break the spirits of individual citizens, you become a government prosecutor. If you hate the government — like me — then you become a defense lawyer. So I think criminal defense is my goal.

Independence forever

(Originally posted July 4, 2008) 

Welcome back, readers. Today, all loyal Americans will celebrate the country’s independence from foreign power. In 1776, Americans risked their lives for freedom from the most powerful empire on the globe. With the assistance of God, they successfully gained independence.

Sadly, people now seek to reverse this monumental American achievement. A significant element in our government sincerely believes that America should sacrifice its own independence. These weak-minded individuals look for the approval of foreign governments in virtually every area of political power. Militarily, they would require global ratification before America ever sent troops to defend national interests or support freedom. Domestically, the internationalists would require the approval of Mexico and other foreign governments before taking any action to secure the southern border. Economically, these subversives would impose global taxes on Americans through such schemes as the Kyoto Accord. Judicially, the internationalists would surrender American citizens to the jurisdiction of the World Criminal Court, a foreign entity. In various legal matters, some of the traitors actually cite foreign laws in their judicial opinions, in an effort to undermine American law. In the minds of these disloyal politicians, America must assimilate into the “international community.”

Imagine a life where you did not live for yourself. Instead, you sought the approval of society before pursuing any course of action. You never spoke your mind because you feared that your words might offend others. For the same reasons, you refrained from pursuing the actions of your heart. Many so-called “men” actually do live their lives this way — politicians in particular. Today, many of these same cowards want the nation as a whole to live in similar slavery relative to global opinion. They argue that America should live as a dutiful global citizen under some sort of world union.

The sad fact of the matter is that many Americans no longer believe in independence.

If we truly do want world government, I have an excellent idea: Let every nondemocratic state dismantle its tyrannical system, and let every nation on the planet surrender authority to the United States. At that point, the United States can preside over the world government. Granted, America would probably require additional soldiers in order to police the entire globe, but we could strengthen ourselves for the task by imposing taxes on the subordinate nations.

If no one else likes this plan, that is fine. Ever since the tower of Babel four thousand years ago, nations have remained independent from each other. Let international relations remain anarchic.

Especially on July 4th, Americans must remember one thing: The rest of the world does not rule over us. Let any lawyer who cites foreign law in an American judicial opinion be disbarred. And let us say, “To hell with monarchy, Europe, and tyranny of every sort. America stands on its own!”

Movie mania

(Originally posted June 23, 2008)

So I was driving in Nashville, and I saw a restaurant that identified itself as a “rum bar and satay grill.” I can only imagine that a “rum bar” means a bar that only serves rum. While I have come across quite a few bars, the idea of one that only serves rum intrigued me. The whole experience gave me a great idea:  I should start a gin bar. It will only serve gin. It will be called The Pine Needle Express. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no idea what “satay” is, so I would not serve satay. I would probably serve bratwursts instead. The sign would read, The Pine Needle Express:  Gin Bar and Brat Grill. Obviously, it would only serve gin and bratwursts — nothing else, except maybe pizza. Now that would be a great place to visit and bring the family.

My brother and I saw The Happening last night, the latest greatest blockbuster by M. Night Shyamalan. From what I hear, M. Night is supposed to make a cameo in each of his movies, but I never noticed him in this one. Overall the movie was good. I had heard from a couple people that it sucked, so I was delightfully surprised. (Of course, maybe movies just always seem better after you are already braced for the absolute stupidity of, say, The Village.)

Overall, it seems like a great number of excellent movies are coming out this summer. I already saw Prince Caspian, Iron Man, and Indiana Jones, all of which were fairly superb. Now Get Smart, Batman II, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and a bunch of other neat-looking films are coming out.

Of course, I have mentioned several movies already, but one upcoming film that I most want to see has EVERYTHING you could want in a movie. Check it out:

These days, a lot of people whine about the supposedly low quality of modern movies. Some ancient wisdom comes to mind:  “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). In this case, I think the summer of 2008 may prove the whiners wrong.

Overall, I have seen a good number of movies this past year, and I the vast majority of them were enjoyable. Certainly none come to mind that I actually regretted seeing.

Of course, I do think the trend toward high prices and sensationalism could stand to be fixed. Some modern movies, for example, go overboard with special effects and unrealistic action to the point of absurdity. What is even worse is when directors substitute action for plot (Think Star Wars Episode II). Overall, The Happening actually did a good job keeping the audience freaked out without many special effects at all. Supposedly, M. Night Shyamalan really likes to go easy on the special effects in all his movies, choosing to intrigue and/or scare the audience in a more subtle manner.

Regarding prices, I suspect that if movie-makers cut down on the expensive special effects and accepted more new actors (lower-paid actors) in place of the megastars, Hollywood could lower its costs. Then maybe ticket prices would drop, and we could afford to see all of the amazing movies coming out!



HANNAH posted,
“M. Night Shyamalan was “Joey” in The Happening.”
(06-23-2008, 12:47 pm)

Chris posted,
“Hah, that would be totally awesome…a different recommended gin mix to go with every dish. And maybe make all the bratwurst cooked in beer for old times’ sake. But yeah, couldn’t have chosen a better name…I wonder if most people would even get the reference.”
(06-26-2008, 11:53 pm)

Consistency in complaint

(Originally posted June 03, 2008)

“You distract her, and I’ll hit her with a shovel.”


Whenever you hear someone whining, you should analyze their words carefully to see if their whining makes sense. A lot of people like to whine in order to vent their frustrations, but they completely ignore whether the resolution of their complaint would actually make them happy. If you take such inconsistent whining too seriously, your well-intended resolutions can actually make the complainers less happy.

Generally, people buy cheap items and then complain that they break. They demand perfect justice but get mad when they have to sit in court all day. They complain about the high cost of movie tickets, but they also adore the exotic special affects, computer animation, and ridiculously paid stars which drive up the cost of movies.

In economics, trade-offs are inevitable. There is no such things as a free lunch. (Free samples hour at Costco is the only known exception to this rule.) People who whine about costs they have already willingly paid are schizophrenic. Of course, there is nothing wrong with whining simply to vent frustrations. The problem comes when “problem-solvers” actually start trying to find solutions to the thoughtless complaints of others.

Many Americans complain about the price of gas, which is currently approaching $4.00 per gallon. Overall, such a problem is worthy of complaint. It irks me, however, that the same whiners who complaint about expensive gas are simultaneously causing the high prices. Pricey gasoline comes from deficits in the supply for oil. Easing restrictions on oil drilling in the United States would eliminate these deficits and allow more oil to be turned into gasoline, as would the production of additional nuclear power plants, which would reduce the need for oil power plants. Building more oil refineries would also help the situation. But does anyone imagine that the schizophrenic voters of America would jump for joy if we implemented such wise policies? I would jump for joy, but Americans as a whole have voted socialist environmentalists into office. Now they whine about the economic consequences of their own stupid policies.

I think the world would be a much better place if everyone were more like me. When someone asks me, “Drew, don’t you care about the snowy deer up in Alaska who might instantly die of fright when we drill in Alaska?” I just say, not particularly. I try to be consistent. But I am too smart to imagine that others will follow suit, or that anyone will seriously change his mind about socialism merely because gas costs a lot. No, Americans will merely continue to whine, even though they actually appreciate the high gas prices more than appreciate like the alternative – free trade.

Again, inconsistent whining is not particularly immoral, although it is annoying. Whining about nothing is just part of the human identity. You have to know to look out for it. The status quo will never please everybody. The successful businessman addresses the sincere complaints of others. He ignores the whiners who, out of human weakness, merely complain about everything.



HANNAH posted,
“My dad says that if people stopped buying bottled water, they could afford their gas. I think in some cases the water actually turns out to be more expensive per gallon than the gas, actually.”
(06-03-2008, 11:41 pm)

I posted,
“Yeah, you’re probably right. Dave Ramsey made a similar point recently about giving up gourmet coffee.”
(06-04-2008, 11:11 pm)

Cristina posted,
“Drew, I’m sorry but I have to point out an inaccuracy in your recent post:

You have to pay for a Costco membership. Therefore, the free samples there aren’t really free, unless they’re handing them out in the parking lot.

Alas, I suppose this is no such thing as a free lunch!”
(06-12-2008, 2:36 pm)

I posted,

“That is a good point. I can always count on readers of the DREW BLOG to provide insightful review of my brilliant analysis. This just goes to show that the smartest individuals on the planet read my blog. The DREW BLOG is like the Wall Street Journal — except for smart people.”
(06-14-2008, 2:59 pm)

The Drew Law

(Originally posted May 14, 2008)

Well, I finally finished my crazy exams, and I have returned to Franklin. For the summer, I will be working with the Williamson County Public Defender — protecting innocent people who have been unjustly accused of crimes by our fascist government.

About a week ago, there was some kind of big hurricane over in Myanmar. My astute readers may instantly recognize that country (also called “Burma”) as being the setting for the last Rambo movie. Apparently the cyclone messed up a lot of villages, and many people continue to die from the devastation.

The collective world thought it would be wise to help out. While I was parusing the internet, I saw a link on Google that said “Donate money to help Myanmar.” Fortunately, my Drewish wisdom gave me discernment. I realized that any aid to that country would only prop up a wicked and brutal regime. Apparently, the people at Google and the United Nations never watched Rambo IV.

Within days, situational developments proved me right. The Buremese government began confiscating international relief shipments.

In retrospect, true charity must involve thinking through a situation fully and logically. Helping others requires a plan that will actually improve their situation. (People who give handouts to bums on the street fail to understand this principle.) Subsequently, I pondered the best way to eliminate corrupt regimes from the earth. I decided that international law needs amending.

When I mention international law, of course, I do not mean real laws. I am referring to Jus cogens, or international “norms.” These norms constitute a supposed global morality. If you ever hear folks whine that a border fence would “violate international law,” or that Bush “violated international law” by attacking Saddam Hussein, or that burning gasoline “violates international law” by polluting the earth, they are talking about these Jus cogens norms. Norms are not actual laws, but merely opinions of people. Examples include the norms that 1) peace is good and that 2) spreading nuclear weapons is bad. Norms are not laws, but merely statements that sound good.

Here is a norm I think sounds good:  “War against bad countries is great.” We should encourage countries to war against nations governed by oppressive regimes. For example, I doubt anyone would really be harmed if a nation invaded Burma.

The new warmongering norm should be named the DREW LAW, after me. Essentially, the norm will proclaim that “Peace is good, but war against bad countries is even better.” The DREW LAW will embody the old just war theory of St. Thomas Acquinas, but also travel one step beyond:  Just war theory promoted defensive war, but Drewish norms would promote offensive wars of aggression.

My proposal will combat the rampant rise of groteque pacifism within the Western world. Pacifism is the great destroyer of human life. Pacifism discourages resistance to oppression. It admonishes people to accept the status quo, despite continued danger or detriment. Pacifism keeps the Burmese rulers alive and in power (as opposed to Saddam Hussein, who is dead and out of power). The more people who fail to realize that war is often preferable to unjust peace, the more comfortable tyrants will remain.

Within a decade of adopting my policy, the international community will see a rapid decline of rabid dictators.

Of course, one final question remains — whether empires would be allowed to keep their conquered territories. I think the obvious answer is yes. What would be the point in allowing nations to attack wicked governments if they could not keep the spoils of war? Thinking this way, many Democrats have whined about the enormous cost of the Iraq War. Instead of merely helping Iraq, they argued that we should plunder the oil wealth from the country to pay American bills. These Democrats would obviously support my policy. Overall, the DREW LAW would allow a conquering empire to plunder the population, to some extent. This provision would give compensation to conquerers and create a proper incentive to initiate other just wars.

Now some my critics will argue, “But Drew, you’re crazy! How could any country be better off if you just replaced one dictator with another?”

Clearly, the conquering country would have an obligation to be better than the ousted government. Simply stated, however, the conquerer would not have to be perfect. The conquerer could keep the conquered subjects separate from the ordinary citizens. The conquerer could delay full democratic reforms, and refuse to integrate the new subjects with his democratic citizenry. Conquered land need not be returned, or independence granted.

If the conquering country were worse than the original government (or equally bad), that situation would obviously provide an incentive for a new just war. So naturally the conquerers will have reasons to implement reform.

If worse came to worse, at least the world would become more exciting under my proposal.

Thinking positive

(Originally posted May 04, 2008)

So far we have taken two exams at my law school. We have two more to go.

Now, these are some pretty interesting tests. Law school exams generally involve some ridiculous scenario where some jerk wrongs various victims in about twelve different ways, and then the test-takers get to sort through the information and find all the potential lawsuits.

These exams train us to expect liability. They train us to look for problems and find them. I guess that is a sensible way of testing. But I really wish I could take an exam where, after analyzing all the possible lawsuits, you could not find a single thing to sue over. The professor could design the test to make a point, that lawyers are not the answer to every problem.

It would be nice to imagine a world of freedom, where people solve their own problems instead of rushing to court at the drop of a hat. After all, lawsuits really do promote wimpiness. Instead of dealing with his adversaries personally, a plaintiff asks the government to do it for him. Lawsuits are sometimes necessary, admittedly. In today’s world, for example, the lawyers have so monopolized interpersonal interactions that lawsuits are often necessary.

The lawyers design the law to make lawsuits necessary because it gives them more power. For example, instead of punching back someone who hits you, the law requires you to sue them for battery. If you hit them back, they can sue you, or you might even get arrested. Instead of evicting a tenant who will not pay rent, many jurisdictions require you to file a summary (“quick”) lawsuit to evict the dead-beat. Instead of letting people find new jobs that appreciate and respect them, the law encourages employees to file discrimination lawsuits. In the criminal system, the law forbids private individuals to obtain vengeance against rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. But then the law lets those same perpetrators out of jail within twenty years.

Sometimes I think it would be cool to have anarchy, and just to let people do whatever the heck they felt like. Less government seems better. Nonetheless, my dreams are not entirely realistic. The lawyers are the third branch of government, and they have risen to prominence compared to the other branches.

Of course, it would also be nice to live in a world where law students got graded the same as every other type of student – with multiple, periodic tests. Instead, we get to study for exams worth 100% of our grade. I have a dream of a world without unrealistic fact-scenarios, without vague instructions to “discuss all liabilities.” In my dream, we would not sort through a jumble of information to spot dozens of potential lawsuits in a limited period of time. Tests would not involve an Easter egg hunt for legal issues, and no student would ever become so numb from the unrealistic jumble that he would miss even the obvious eggs lying in the grass.

I can only imagine.

Wish me luck!



Chris posted,
“The content doesn’t exactly match the post title lol

But in any case, I’ll wish you *favor* 😀 Did you take the other exams yet?”
(05-08-2008, 7:43 am)