The beating death of Tyree Nichols was a horribly tragic event with no apparent reason. The 5 ex cops have been handled reasonably appropriately and will be tried and likely convicted. The event, and the response seems pretty cut and dried and appropriate.
Yet, the response of the left doesn't seem quite right. But that's another post for another time.
There were two separate but related stories that came up this week that share a common thread. They both involve the punishment for crimes committed.
Someone posted a picture of the Singapore airport and asked why we didn't have beautiful places like that in the US. Matt Walsh responded by pointing out that one possible reason was that in Singapore they have a legal system that is so draconian that people aren't going to engage in destruction of property because if the consequences. Many people missed what I think was his point. What stood out to me was the fact that a legal system with draconian punishments for even minor crimes does seem to be successful in minimizing crime. In other words the trade off for a society with a low crime rate is a justice system which canes people for minor crimes, and imposes a swift death penalty for major crimes. I think he's onto something. In the US over the last few years we've seen increases in all sorts of crimes, and increases in rioting and looting. We've also seen cities start to not enforce certain laws, and criminals who's punishments range from minor to nonexistent. I'm not saying that I agree with these types of legal systems, but I do agree that cutting off the hands of thieves would likely be more of a deterrent than even a short incarceration. I'd suggest that the folx who are regularly looting stores in various cities with impunity, might be deterred if it was going to cost them a body part or being caned. Again, I'm not necessarily endorsing this concept, but I do agree that draconian consequences, swiftly administered, are very likely to lower crime, and save money.
The second story involves a couple of gay men who adopted children, brutally sexually abused them, and produced videos of this vile abuse. I think that virtually everyone in the US regardless of their political views would agree that these were heinous crimes committed by two vile and evil men. Many people, myself included, would argue that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for these vermin. But it seems as tough a left leaning court struck down the death penalty for cases in which parents sexually abuse their children. It could be argued that life in the general population of a maximum security prison is likely to be a death sentence, but do we as a country want prisoners in charge of meting out punishment to people? I admit that there is a perverse sense of these vermin getting their just deserts by spending years of their lives being violently raped, abused, and likely killed by their fellow inmates. While spending the rest of their lives being protected by the state doesn't seem particularly just. The fact that there are people who would argue that the death penalty isn't appropriate for vile creatures like these completely mystify me.
I think that the conclusion these two stories have led me to is that if the state is willing to be draconian enough in punishing minor crime, and actually follows through with swift and harsh punishment, that we would likely see a decrease in crime. The question then becomes how draconian is too draconian, and are people willing to trade draconian punishment for lower crime.
We all know that these idiotic bans on "assault weapons" will have a minimal effect on crime, at best. We know that criminals will be able to source illegal weapons, and will use them. We know that law abiding citizens will obey the law, and will use other tools to exorcise their rights. What would be interesting to see is what would happen if committing a crime with a gun, came with a swift, harsh, significant punishment.
For the last couple of years the state of MN has had a massive (and growing more massive) "surplus" in the state budget. For most rational people this would mean that taxes would be lowered for everyone, and that the "surplus" would be returned to it's rightful owners. Especially in a state that is one of the most taxed states in the country. One could argue that some of this "surplus" should be saved for the proverbial rainy day, and I'd agree that saving some would be prudent, IF taxes are lowered and the rest returned to taxpayers. Governor Walz promised us that he would give us "Walz checks" of a nominal amount before the recent election as a way to bribe people with their own money to vote for him. Shockingly, it worked. But, now that he's in power with DFL majorities in both houses of the legislature, there are discussions about how to spend this "surplus" that: 1) Don't involve lower taxes or refunds, and 2) Do involve new programs that will require increased public spending long after this "surplus" is gone. It's essentially a bait and switch. We'll use the "surplus" to provide free school lunches for everyone, so that when the "surplus" runs out the free lunch will be established and will require more taxation. Clearly the entire conversation around this "surplus" is based on lies.
The notion that this is a "surplus", as opposed to simply overtaxing people is absurd.
The notion that this "surplus" should be used to start programs that will require tax increases in perpetuity is simply lying to people.
The fact that Walz promised "Walz Checks" and isn't even discussing them is just one more blatantly false campaign promise that he'll never be held accountable for.
We're seeing incontrovertible evidence that "tax and spend" is an incredibly accurate description of the DFL.
The very notion that a state would over tax it's citizens for years and then spend the money (and more) instead of returning it to the taxpayers is disgusting.
Why would any rational person continue to vote for those who consistently lie, and who over tax their constituents?
Unfortunately, those who'll benefit from these new spending programs are those who (coincidentally) don't pay significant amounts of income tax. And even if we do get some nominal refund of excess taxes, it will be the same amount regardless of how much tax people actually paid. Just one more way to confiscate from those who earn, and give to those who don't.
It'll be too bad, but the DFL is determined to turn MN into one more state where those who produce are gradually pushed out, while those who consume will continue to demand more from the government trough.
Fortunately, my exit strategy is pretty much all planned.
I went to the Utah museum of natural history last week and saw the following presented as scientific facts.
"Cancer cells have broken the compact established billions of years ago when the first free living, one-celled organisms banded together to form multicelled organisms, to form the republic of cells. The spectacular evolutionary success of those multicelled organisms has always...remained under the threat that some cells would rebel.
Boyce Rensberger
Since Evolution is defined as an "unguided" process, then how could all of these non sentient organisms incapable of communication, band together to form a republic? How do the cancer cells know to rebel? Strangely enough, the Evolutionary community always seems to describe this "unguided" process in terms that suggest guidance, intelligence, or intent.
"Why did sex evolve?"
"Sex evolved because it shuffles the genes of two individuals. This genetics combining leads to variation, the basis of evolution. And sex is a form if insurance. More diverse gene combinations give individuals and populations more tools to respond to change or disease."
What an unsatisfying answer.
1. It's circular. Sex evolved so that it could form the basis of evolution.
2. It implies guidance in a process claimed to be unguided.
3. The notion that two completely unrelated reproductive systems evolved in such a way that both managed to perfectly work together to create offspring seems very far fetched.
4. How does unguided evolution continuously manage to happen in a way that seems guided?
"Flowers evolved in step with their pollinators"
Animal pollinators and their flowers have specially adapted to benefit each other. The flowers provide food -pollen and nectar- for the pollinators. In turn the pollinators spread pollen, ensuring that the flowers can reproduce."
Much like the above, are we really supposed to believe that two species spanning multiple types of organism (plant/animal) somehow, through an unguided process, managed to survive long enough to go through the trial and error process that matched the flower with the pollinator? That these two disparate types of organism that rely on each other for survival somehow evolved for thousands (millions) of generations without having that which they relied on for survival?
I forgot to mention one additional thing.
At this museum, they had a laboratory where scientists (I assume) were working on fossils. One of them was grinding away on a fossil with an air powered Dremel type tool. I couldn't help but wonder what would prevent a scientist from going a little crazy with the grinder and "manufacturing" something new and different? Before anyone starts in on the integrity of evolutionary/Materialist/Naturalist Science, there are still resources available that are using the long debunked finch beaks, moths, and other proven hoaxes as proof of evolution. The history of hoaxes to "prove" evolution goes back a long way, and these hoaxes manage to keep being used long after they've been exposed as hoaxes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64218179
Ahhhhhh, the continuous double standard for left and right.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763418307905
This meta analysis is interesting on many levels.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-public-schools-cps-seuxal-abuse-betrayed-tribune/3549912/
What could possibly go wrong by allowing teachers to spend more classroom time on issues related to sex?
https://www.sophiasociety.org/podcast/queer-jesus
"When Jesus says he identifies with the least of these, he means literally that when we encounter anyone on the margins we are meeting Jesus in the flesh, in their flesh."
I went to a RC wedding a couple of weeks ago where they served communion and it was obvious that they 100% believe that the bread and the wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus, this quote sounds like some weird form of transubstantiation that goes beyond the RC doctrine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/el-paso-clears-migrant-camps-ahead-of-bidens-first-visit-to-border-and-crossings-drop-to-a-trickle/ar-AA165wgT
Another story for the liberal hypocrisy file. It's clearly perfectly fine to relocate immigrants when liberals do it to set up a false narrative and hide reality to protect Biden.
"Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from disapointments to major disasters emotionally, physically, and spiritually."
Josh/Sean McDowell
"America is at a crossroads at which the most energized faction of the Democratic party possesses values that are distant from those of ordinary citizens-the perfect opportunity for the GOP to pounce- but Republicans keep producing liars, nuts, dunces, and extremists."
From the Monitoring Bias Twitter account
I don't know that I'd totally agree with the above, but it's also not totally wrong. This problem is compounded by folks who tell us that we must vote for these candidates and that to expect higher quality candidates means that we want the country to be destroyed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11458335/Male-female-Trans-inmates-drive-rising-numbers-rapes-abuse-womens-prisons.html
The fact that someone thought that putting biological males with fully functional male genitalia/reproductive systems in prisons full of women was a good idea, boggles the mind.
The new legislative session started yesterday with much fanfare, especially because the DFL controls everything. The DFL is pretty excited about this turn of events and has their agenda ready to go with absolutely zero desire to compromise. What's on the agenda you ask?
Weed, weed, and more weed.
"Bodily autonomy" for women.
Spend, spend, spend.
Avoiding giving the 18 billion dollar budget surplus back to taxpayers, and figuring out how to keep overtaxing us as long as possible.
I'll comment of two of those.
First the surplus, Walz promised everyone checks last year as a way to bribe voters with their own money (actually for those who pay minimal taxes, it was OPM), yet he failed to deliver on that promise. Surprisingly with no check on the DFL spending, the talk of rebates in very quiet and there doesn't appear to be much urgency
But, what's interesting is the insistence of "bodily autonomy" for women.
I started by looking up the definition of autonomy and learned that autonomy is defined as self government. So what is being proposed is that women be given the right for self government of their bodies. Let's start with the obvious that during pregnancy science tells us that there are two individual, unique, living, human bodies involved. Then let's go to the obvious, that autonomy is unlimited by definition. Finally, isn't giving a group a right that is not extended to any other group based on their membership in a protected class illegal?
What I think is that this is another example of those on the left using a term when they really don't mean what they say. We regularly hear leftists talk about allowing people to love whoever they want. Then you dig deeper and find that they really don't mean everyone. In much the same way, I suspect that this "bodily autonomy" they talk about isn't really "bodily autonomy" with the exception of abortion.
Hey, the reality is that these legislators don't really want "bodily autonomy" for women, they just need a high minded term to substitute for unrestricted abortion.
Many of us once said wedding vows where we promised that we would be there "in sickness and in health". I have had multiple occasions to live through the sickness part, while I would never abandon my wife in sickness, I have recently realized that I could certainly do better. Then I think of Gino. Gino is a friend of mine who's wife was diagnosed with ALS just over a year ago. His response was to put virtually everything else aside and to spend their last months filling their time with as many memories, bucket list items, and family time as possible. I won't go into detail, but I will say that Gino is my new role model when it comes to being a husband and father. I hope that their kids can look back and realize how blessed they are to have such parents.
"When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected."
Fauci
Although Trump did many things that I agreed with. His decision to believe Fauci and ignore any other voices could possibly have been the worst.
"...modern people think about slavery and say, "How could people have accepted such an monstrosity?"..."That's not the way historians think. they ask: 'considering the fact that it was universally believed by all societies that we had the right to attack and enslave weaker people, and since everybody had always done it, the real historical question is 'Why did it occur to anybody the it was wrong? Who ever first had that idea?'" The speaker answered by pointing out that the first voices in the 4th, 17th, 18th & 19th centuries who called for the abolition of slavery were all Christian. And the Christians who called for this justice believed that there was a God of love who demanded that we love out neighbors, all our neighbors, as ourselves."
Tim Keller
