An excuse from Justice because of health

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26loughner.html tells us that proceedings against the man who opened fire at a constituent event for Representative Gabrielle Giffords in January, killing six and injuring her and 12 others have been temporarily suspended due to his outbursts in the court and that it is possible that he may never be judged mentally capable of "understanding" what he has done and help in his defense. That really honks me off.

Now lets forget the fact that dozens of witnesses saw him do it. Hells, one cameraman even got pictures of him doing it. Let's just say for the moment that it is not blatantly obvious that he did it. (Okay I know its a stretch but work with me here.) He still needs to go trial. The very idea that this man may get a literal "Get out of Jail Free" card because he "might not understand" what he has done should get everyone riled up. Schizo, Nutso or simply Psycho, he must stand trial for his actions.

Oh I can hear the molly coddlers out there whining about how if the man wasn't in his right mind (I mean come on folks, no one in their right mind decides to gun down a bunch of people that they have never met before) then he shouldn't have to pay for his actions. My response to that is an old truism about the law in which it states, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If he committed the crime, he should suffer the consequences of it. (Please note I am being kind and saying if.)

Over my 40+ years, I have seen way to many people who were judged "Not guilty by reason of insanity" and it has always pissed me off. If a person has 12 personalities and #3 decides to take a shotgun and gun down a bunch of people, then the personality's host is guilty. If some kid gets hopped up on Acid and takes a knife to a bunch of other kids, he or she is still guilty. Saying these people weren't in their right minds is bull.

If this nutter is guilty of the crimes arrayed against him then he deserves to have punishment meted out to him to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn't matter if he is Schizophrenic or not because when all is said and done, he still committed the crime. To use an old quote, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Right of Way: Wrong in the head

Okay, as today proves, I lead a very interesting and seldom boring life where things happen to me that seem to never happen to anyone else. Today is my latest example.

As most of my friends and those people who read my blogs know, I do a varied amount of exercising to help reduce my blood sugar and lose weight. I usually alternate between walking, jogging and riding my bike. My bike riding has led to several previous posts and to the subject of today's.

I was out for a short ride today (about half an hour for the curious out there) and had just turned onto the second leg of my shorter route. Now Kimberly (St) is not a busy street but has decent amounts of traffic on it from time to time. I had just passed CVS and was going about 20 mph down the right side of the road next to the curb. (Speed limit here is 25 BTW) Suddenly I heard this load honking and before I could even turn to look, a gray Mazda whipped around me at probably twice the limit. A woman yells out the side window something that sounded like "...asshole...sidewalk." and then keeps on going.

Now I encounter my fair share of rude people on the road and promptly forgot all about it until I got to my next turn and there sat the car at the turn with the woman waiting beside it. This is when I knew things were going to get interesting. I was soo right.

She flags me down (Yes I could have just kept going but wheres the fun in that?) and proceeds to harangue me about my riding. This very foul mouthed petite Asian woman tells me that I was riding down the wrong side of the road and blocking traffic because I was going to slow. (Keep in mind that Kimberly is a very wide two lane street with a wide passing median in the middle.) She goes on to say that if I had to ride on the wrong side of the road, I should ride on the sidewalk like I was supposed to and not block traffic. She states that my "blocking traffic and slowing her down" has made her late for work. She then proceeds to say several things in what I believe was Chinese which I doubt were very complimentary and left.

Now folks, I have several major issues with her statements even if they were colorfully delivered. A bicycle is considered a vehicle by the DMV and when on the street, it is to follow the same rules of the road as a car. (Now in my actual neighborhood I switch out as the whim hits me, but on the actual roads and streets I follow this rule precisely.) So since I was on the right hand side of the road, I was not on the "wrong" side.

Secondly, Sidewalks are for pedestrian traffic only IE people using their feet to get to and from places. This is one I seldom fudge on while riding since you can never tell when you are going to turn a corner and find someone right in front of you. So once again, her suggestion that I use the sidewalk was a little confuzzling.

Now ignoring all of that, the fact that this woman was "late for work" and decided to pull over on the side of the road and wait for me just so she could yell at me for making her late to work is a little ludicrous. I have never seen her before so she had no way of knowing for sure that I would turn at that street. I could have just as easily turned around and rode back up the street. This makes me think the very loud lady was either stupid or as my Pawpaw would have said, "Teeched in the head."

Since I am guessing that the woman has a driver's license then she had to have at least glanced at the little handbook they give you that covers the rules of the road for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. So her screams about me breaking the law and hindering her were more than a little bizarre. I suspect she is the type that ignores "no parking: fire zone" signs because they can't possibly apply to her. Still it made an otherwise boring ride a little more interesting.

Like I said, my life is seldom boring and often times more interesting that many movies. I have yet to decide if this is a blessing or a curse for some previous events in my life. What do you guys think?

Enforcing the law

Webster's Online defines LAW as a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules.

Wikipedia defines it as Law[4] is a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions

(Now I bet all of you are thinking that this is about the guy who was ganged up on and handcuffed by police because he was legally wearing his sidearm. Nope, think again and keep reading.)

Now there are dozens of different definitions I can quote that pretty much agree on one thing. Calling something a LAW means that someone, somewhere decided that it was a good idea, codified it and enforces it. In other words, Laws are made by sentient (Most of them anyway) beings to give structure to their lives. With me so far? Hang on it gets a little bumpy.

A man I greatly admire, Stephen Hawking said in a recent interview that he believed that the afterlife (Inset your preference here) is a fairy tale. Here's the entire article for those of you who are interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

In earlier works, Hawking used the existence of God as a metaphor saying, "What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature." However, he himself does not believe in the existence of a Deity of any kind. He likens people to computers that eventually run down and quit working (I'd prolly be an abacus.) and that there is no afterlife for old computers.

In this interview he states that it would be possible for the solar system to have formed without the aid of God because of the Law of Gravity so it wouldn't have needed God's help. And this segues into my rant for the day.

The Universe is filled with Laws, Gravity, Lightspeed etc. The Universe is so carefully organized that most things (Cells, stars etc) undergo processes so regular, so precise that we can actually set our clocks by them (Atomic Clocks anyone?) These Laws are the very basis for all things in all of the Universe Well as far as we know at this point.) So if these Laws exist and are so powerful, my question is, who came up with them?

If we use humanity as a comparison, the idea of the Universe simply wandering into these laws on its own and keeping them going all this time is kind of silly. From the first days of man, we have codified our lives to give structure to the world around us and to protect us from each other. Anytime you find more than four or five people banding together for whatever reason, there will be some form of rules. Hells, even so called Anarchists create guidelines for themselves even though they supposedly hate such things. So if there are Laws governing the Universe then someone, some force had to create them and enforce them. To me that sounds like God and if you accept the existence of God then Afterlife kind of automatically follows.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim (most days) to have all the answers. I have no "proof" that God exists and that some form of afterlife follows our death. I believe so with all of my heart and to me that is enough. However as a closing statement to Dr. Hawking, I am reminded of a quote. I can't recall who said it or the exact quote, but the gist of it was "One day Scientists will reach the most distant parts of the universe and find all the answers they seek. When they do, they will find God already there and waiting for them. Peace everyone and God bless.

He's Dead Jim

A good friend of mine posted an article on FB called 7 Deceptions About Bin Laden's Killing Pushed by the Obama Administration which goes into great detail about how the original "facts" of the raid (team size, firefight duration, human shields etc) were either exaggerated or outright fabricated. This article is so much claptrap to me for two very basic reasons.

Reason the first: All of the initial "facts" that were released by the members of the press and a lot of the ones in the first few hours/days afterward were received almost entirely by "confidential sources wishing to remain anonymous due to..." How many times as a culture have we seen entire stories written citing such sources? Due to the fact they are unnamed, the sources have no strength of creditability, but we absorb and accept the information like it is handed down from on high. Something wrong with that.

I know many highly honorable and trustworthy journalists. One of whom I am proud to call Brother. I know that a lot of journalists, even when citing unnamed sources, strive to make sure the information they receive is accurate and up to date. I also know that there is a huge section of the news business that truly doesn't give a damn as long as it makes news. These people get "information" from the Relief Overnight White House Janitor Second Class that Bin Laden was armed with a Planet Busting Death Ray and they will run with it. Later, when the truth comes out (Whatever that may be) they blame the White House for disinformation.

Here's what a lot of people don't realize about situations like this. The White House (Government) doesn't have to clarify anything. They could have claimed John Wayne rose from the dead, teamed up with Chuck Norris and Bruce Willis to go in to take down Laden with their bare hands while drinking Coca Cola. Sure the press might have had a problem with that but nothing could force the WH to "correct" itself. The fact that the WH is willing to correct earlier misinformation, including parts that might not make them look so good, is a good sign of a good government. Give them chops for that.

So now you are probably asking what is Reason the Second? Well that ones not quite so profound and a little indelicate.

Reason the Second: Why do I feel this article is claptrap and unnecessary? Simple, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Osama was heavily armed, wearing Iron Man Armor with dozens of human shields or if he had just gotten ready for bed, drank his warm milk and put on his pink bunny slippers. It doesn't matter if the team of SEALS that took him down was a 25, 50, 75 or 1500 man team with a legion of attack werewolves. It doesn't matter if he resisted with all of his might or crawled on the floor on hands and knees begging for his life. Because in the end, we got him.

Some might argue that he should have been taken alive and brought to trial. Some might say we violated his rights. I say Horse Hockey! The man was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. His actions and direction are the cause of pain and suffering for thousands more suffering from the ill effects of living and working at or near Ground Zero during the clean up. We know he did it. Hell we have videos of him admitting to it and more. "The only thing you can do with a rabid dog is shoot him," is a quote from my brother who is one of those honorable journalists I mentioned earlier.

Its not very Christian of me, but I am personally glad the son of a bitch is dead and pray that whatever form of punishment meted out to him in the hereafter is eternal and painful. Like I said not very Christian, but that's the way I feel.