Why do I despise Universities -

The normal charge that universities are bastions of liberalism is only too true. I don’t necessarily mind people who disagree with me. That’s ok. Stupid, but ok. What I do mind strenuously is the dishonesty involved.

I grew up in a university environment. My mother taught at the university level for 44 years. Herself has a PhD. You might say that I have been around academia for the first half to three quarters of my life.

Typically liberal is the university mindset. Anything that slams this country or people who work for a living is fair game. Anything that gores one of their sacred oxen is likely to have severe repercussions.

Take Ward Churchill, for instance. His hatred of this country and poisonous polemics in class are well documented. The university where he was employed took the position that his diatribes were covered under free speech constitutional law. His many lies about himself and his past are well documented, but were not taken into consideration. Never mind that the students that he had were defrauded of the money that they had paid for his classes. He was allowed free reign with no repercussions.

Contrariwise, consider any professor who expresses the least doubt about the “global warming” religion. There are many examples of professors who have been disciplined or whose contract was not renewed after expressing same.

Consider the professors - documented to some extent in Ben Stein’s Expelled - who suffer bad consequences if they do not embrace Darwinism fully. To express any doubt, to even mention creationism or Intelligent Design is to expect termination of your job.

I suppose as Orthodox Christens our position is nearest to Intelligent Design. We don’t really get wrapped around the axle as to how God created the cosmos. We believe that the cosmos was created by God. We do not care whether it was 6 days as in the earth went around the sun 6 times or whether He used long periods and evolution. It is not particularly germane to our salvation which way He went. We do not get indigestion about slow evolution, and there is some evidence for that. However - and this is crucial, there is no conclusive evidence to support the Darwinist beliefs.

Another true story. I know. It happened to herself when she was getting her PhD. She experienced all kinds of discrimination and persecution. She has two very bad traits that are worthy of psychological treatment according to liberals. She is a Christian. First strike. She likes men. Second strike.

If herself even mentioned God in class she was severely put down. Contrariwise, the woman who headed the program would spend the entire class period rhapsodizing about the “Mother Goddess” and lecturing on the beauties of same-sex love. There were no disciplinary actions against this woman. Interestingly enough, she was married and had a child (female, of course). If I remember rightly, the husband was an engineer who made good money. The fact that he was a dickless liberal who put up with this nonsense was his problem.

Anyway, I would object somewhat less if these libs were honest. But I do not see any honest libs out there.

Joe McCarthy was right about the number of liberals and socialists. The problem is that McCarthy was such a dumb asshole, and his policies were so stupid and unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean that he was wrong.

Where I have the problems with the academics is that there is no intellectual honesty. Science should be (and is) based on nothing but facts. Provable facts. Global warming and Darwinism are religions not supported by incontrovertible fact. Therefore it is intellectually dishonest to persecute those who do not fervently espouse them. And there is the rub. Christianity and patriotism are contrary to the academic liberal religion and are therefore persecuted by those who claim to champion intellectual freedom. They do, but only if it aligns with their beliefs.

It is amazing to me that we now have the most ignorant bunch of people as teachers and students in the history of this country. Universities graduate people who have no clue what socialism, Marxism, communism, fascism, democracy, or republican democracy really are. People who have no clue about the history or geography of our nation. But they are “concerned” about polar bears and whales. Never mind that they don’t know enough physics to even begin to explain a psychometric chart, they are all climate experts.

When universities start putting the emphasis on education, facts, etc. and not politically correct bs then I may revise my opinion. But not until then.

Compassion –

When the head rules the heart, you are a king. When the heart rules the head, you are a fool. Or words to that effect. Chaim Potok in The Chosen.

Liberals tend to see the world somewhat differently than conservatives. The liberal looks out and sees some inequity and wants the government to kiss it and make it all better. The conservative sees that people should be provided the opportunity to help themselves. The liberal wants government to help people. The conservative wants to enable people to help themselves. The majority in the middle doesn’t give a damn about anyone else. They just want more bread and circuses. The problem with the liberal approach is that using the force of law to make societal changes is like inviting in the wolf to cure your mouse problem. The wolf may get rid of the mouse, but now what do you do with the wolf?

One of the points that just about everyone seems to miss is that a government bureaucracy shares most of the characteristics of the corporation. Especially the bad ones. Any corporation/ bureaucracy will fight to stay alive and to grow. There will be more loyalty on the part of 99% of the employees of either to the parent organization than to any customer/client or code of morals.

One of the problems with letting compassion rule is that the long term consequences of any action are not considered. A small example: When the British started colonizing India they saw poverty, but not extreme, most people could get by. They also saw an appalling infant mortality rate. Being, on the whole, rather decent people the Brits decided to “do something”. They did. They managed to reduce infant death rates significantly. They did not reduce births. They did not expand the supply of food. The result was predictable - poverty and hunger became worse. Now I don’t say that saving the lives of infants is not a totally worthy goal. It is. But the consequences of meddling need to be taken into account.

I was there when LBJ declared war on poverty. We have fought the war. We lost. Humans are animals just like any other. When we are born, we only have the basic instincts for survival. We must be taught to be anything useful. If, in our compassion to “save the children”, we place no restriction on breeding, then people will do what they are paid to do. Breed. We now have several generations of welfare people who know nothing different. The survival strategy is to “dumb-down” and make no useful contribution to our society. The children who show any spark of initiative are persecuted by the other children. School smarts are punished by bullying. Local gangs are a way of life.

Conservatives are told that this is all their fault because they are greedy and do not want to share. Not so. This morass is created by liberals and their misguided compassion. Conservatives would like to see everyone succeed to the best of their abilities. The freedom to succeed also carries the freedom to fail. In the long term those who cannot or will not help themselves must be eliminated from the gene pool. We have rewarded and bred for incompetence and are reaping a rich harvest. I find it interesting that liberals seem to understand that our ecology is a complex thing, and that fiddling with one aspect may have undesirable results. And yet, the very same people do not seem to understand that human society has evolved in the same way to a very complex balance. Now, I agree that we are not simple plants. We can and do change our society to better suit the needs of the day. But we should devote a good deal more brain power to considering results before we charge in and put a band aid in place. If we need an environmental impact study - and follow its conclusions - before we build, why then is there no attention paid to the consequences of social meddling? In the recent immigration amnesty bill debacle, there was only one long term study done. Since it was done by a conservative organization, The Heritage Foundation, the libs just pooh-poohed it. The study showed that this amnesty bill would cost around 3 trillion. Pooh-pooh 3 trillion? They didn’t even see fit to do their own study. No decent scientific refutation of an established assertion. A puzzlement.

In human history, the incompetent became subservient to the producers or just died off. Mostly there was a balance. The main problem with the old way was that it tended to become hereditary. A hereditary caste system will inevitably fail as incompetent or spoiled children fail to measure up to their responsibilities. There is also the boiling frustration of superior people born lower caste who cannot rise to the level of their abilities.  Now - we not only kill off our best in war (it is the productive who serve voluntarily), but the majority of the productive middle-class people have reduced the number of children produced. Why is it the libs, who tell us to have fewer children because we are running out of resources, also tell us we can take in 20 million more illegals as citizens? If we cannot support 20 million more of our own, why can we support 20 million undesirables? Anyway, back to children. The people on the dole are breeding at an alarming rate. ZPG is nowhere near their horizon. More kiddies = more money. Birth control is economically undesirable. If we had tough schools that really taught useful knowledge and discipline and could manage to make productive citizens out of the children of these parasites then it would not be so bad. But if you breed parasites, you will only get more and more parasites that are better and better parasites and who do not contribute anything positive to our society.

I maintain that 10% of the populous is the cause of 90% of our expenditures. The lower 10% of the populous consumes the dole. Provides most of the medical costs. Constitutes the majority of the crime that costs us police time and effort. Is most of the jail population. Don’t give me any shit about discrimination being the cause. Don’t tell me my bigotry has jack to do with one punk killing another over a handful of dope because the libs wouldn’t let us train these people to be useful citizens. Don’t tell me I have anything to do with the weakening of schools so that nothing of value is taught there. I didn’t have a damn thing to with schools failing to maintain discipline or scholastic excellence. That’s all liberal compassion at work.

Libs have got it so that not only can we not paddle a young offender at school, parents are being told that if they paddle a kid at home they may be arrested as child abusers. Now child beating is one thing, but a couple of swats on a well deserving butt is one of the foundations of higher knowledge. Children are animals. They are not miniature people, they are unformed, incomplete people. It is child abuse not to teach, love and discipline as necessary to instill morals and proper behavior. An undisciplined, untrained child will surely become a totally egocentric adult who is totally impulse driven and whose only morality is to serve himself and satisfy his own desires. Sound familiar, “me generation”? Thanks, compassionate libs.

Now, just to give a kick to the other side. We would not see half the problems out there if it weren’t for some of these idiot, loudmouth libs. Most of the productive, reasonable conservative (probably reactionary) people are so caught up in their own lives that they don’t notice anything that is not directly in their faces. Normal human behavior. We do need the libs to point things out. We just need to put the brakes on their impulses until we understand the consequences.

Herself sez: Apologies for missing Thursday - I was “out and about” in greater downtown Hotlanna trying to get “things” straightened out for applying for SS and Medicare (yeah, I’m running a few months late). Anyhoo, it took up the ENTIRE day and I was so wiped out when I got home I totally forgot to post the Ol’ Curmudgeon’s blog,much less my own! But I think you will agree it was worth the wait!

Why Do You Always Beat Up On Liberals and Democrats - -

Don’t the Republicans do things wrong?You betcha, in spades. However, obviously I am a conservative - original, true meaning. And secondly, the liberal press does just fine crucifying conservatives or Republicans. Look at MS-NBC, CNN, The New York Times, and all the other examples of the liberal press. They do a fine job pillorying Republican mistakes (whether real or imagined).

Take George Bush. Now, I don’t particularly approve of Mr. Bush, but - he is the duly elected Chief Executive and CIC and should be accorded the respect due his office. Would I go into Iraq - knowing what I know now? Probably not. Would I have gone into Iraq with the intelligence that we had at the time? Probably. Saddam Hussein was running a mammoth bluff and had every intelligence unit in the world convinced that he had WMD and the capacity to deliver. And he foxed us as well. This was an error. But, this does not give the left the right to be so totally foul towards our President.

I must also point out that having put our hands to this plow of Iraq we must finish the job or it will be many times worse.

George Bush had an opportunity to be great. Unfortunately he didn’t have enough personal charisma to carry it off in the face of all the liberal hatred and opposition. Even in the early days after 9/11 when the Democrats and the Republicans were reasonably united there were enough negative kooks around to take the wind out of his sails.

What kind of people complacently sit in their places looking like cows when some French bimbo tells them that 9/11 was an American conspiracy? The liberals of Hollywood at the Academy Awards. Sick. The Academy should tell these wackos that if they make political hay out of their awards they will lose them on the spot. No exceptions.

The press and the Republicans made a monstrous mistake in prosecuting Bill Clinton for the Monika Lewinsky business. (Not to mention Paula Jones and all the others). Did Bill do wrong - yes, big time - and the senior members of the Senate and the House should have gone to him privately and told him to clean up his act. The press did not print that kind of nonsense about other Presidents who had affairs. Consider JFK - many affairs - and nothing published during his presidency. There have been others. Sometimes covering the father’s nakedness is better for the country. Of course, these lib newsies don’t care about the country, only about themselves and their agendas.

Since the left successfully hounded Richard Nixon out of office it has been open season on the office, no matter which party was in. Unless there was nothing even microscopically useful for smearing the person. Gerald Ford was pretty clean and straight. Jimmy Carter was elected in a backlash and, although he was one of the worst presidents and biggest fools in history, there was nothing in his personal conduct to smear. Ronald Reagan was completely straight. George Bush senior was straight - he did not lose the presidency to Bill Clinton, he lost it to Ross Perot. Clinton was dirty, but he should have been nailed on his incompetence and illegalities, not his affairs. There is no discretion in the press anymore. Remember that we did not tell the press about Panama or Grenada until they were established facts. The press cannot be trusted not to give information to our enemies. There is no dirt on George Bush junior, so Dan Rather went with a story that was completely fabricated in an effort to discredit him. There is really no need for foreign intelligence in this country. All our enemies have to do is read the papers and watch CNN. Of course they might have some difficulty in separating truth from lies.

The Rosie O’Donalds of the world spew forth all sorts of filth about our president with no concern about the known foibles of their darling Hillary, who has been shown to be less than truthful on more than one occasion. Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc. Is it any wonder that we are losing any sort of prestige in the world? Why should foreign governments give any respect to our chief executive when our own people refuse to be courteous or respectful? In the military we learned that you always salute the rank, even if the individual does not deserve it.

So, I beat up on liberals and Democrats frequently. I must repeat that I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican, not anymore. The Republicans have left the principles that I hold dear: The Constitution as a basis for all law, applied equally to all people with no special groups favored either way. The essential dignity of all citizens. Fiscal responsibility with no pork barrel spending. Limited government. Firm and impartial application of the law. Tax reform. A strong military. Controlled immigration. I guess that makes me old-fashioned and oddball nowadays. I will admit freely that I usually vote against the Democrat in whatever race. I very seldom find that the Republican is someone I can vote for happily, just that he is likely the least poisonous choice available.

Have no fear, I will slam the Republicans as necessary. If we get McCain, it will probably prove necessary rather regularly. He is at least marginally qualified for the office. If we get Hillary or Obama I will definitely have things to gripe about, assuming we still have a country left. Neither one of those has any experience at all that qualifies them in the least to be Chief Executive. And both have promised to steer us down the road to hell and socialism.

Rosie and the Mullahs -

Now, anyone who has eyes and/or ears and is not in some third world country has seen and heard of Rosie O’Donnell. Anyone awake will also notice that she is very loud and opinionated. Anyone not in a coma knows that she is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She has made it abundantly clear that she hates America with a passion.

But, Rosie, where else could you be? Nowhere else in the world are you guaranteed the right of free speech, no matter how loud or stupid. Did I say stupid. Well, yes, I did. One of Rosie’s main rants has been that she does not believe that the Twin Towers were taken down by Moslem terrorists. She thinks that the good ol’ USA government blasted them down. Her evidence? Well, it was a while between the planes hitting and the towers collapsing. And the fire didn’t have anything to do with it. After all, steel doesn’t melt! Now, I beg to differ, steel will melt with enough heat. But that isn’t what did it. The steel was annealed. To anneal is to remove the temper (or strength) by heating. Now, steel will anneal as low as 1000° F. More heat, less time to anneal. Less heat, more time to anneal. If we take a tempered steel rod, say ½”, it is difficult for even a strong man to bend bare-handed. If we take the same piece of steel and anneal it, then we could bend it with no problem. Why is Rosie stupid? Because she has been shooting her mouth off for months without checking any facts. She has spouted dangerous charges with absolutely no foundation other that her own uninformed prejudice. Now, if you do a Google on the whole thing and check it out it becomes readily evident that the serious scientists and engineers state that the plane crash did cause all the damage. On the other hand there are a boatload of nuts and conspiracy theorists who think that the planes could not do the damage. I know that I do not place my confidence in nuts.

Since Rosie seems to want the US to die out and go away, what does she think will replace it? Well, at the moment, the strongest haters of America seem to be the Moslem extremists. It is not illogical to suppose that if America is torn down from within the replacement is likely to be Moslem. Not strong enough? How bout the fall of Rome? Rome was a lot stronger than the Alaric and his boys who sacked Rome in 410. BTW - there was a global climate cooling in 535 which was NOT caused by the Americans, unless the Indians were more powerful than we think. But, I digress, as usual.

Back to Rosie and the Mullahs - Sharia law has a whole lot to say about male homosexuality and practically nothing to say about female. What the Mullahs have apparently decided is that males can be executed if married or merely receive 100 lashes if not married. Now, since there has been no specific mention of female homosexuality in the Koran, the Mullahs have decided that since no penetration, the death penalty is inappropriate. Therefore women only receive 100 lashes. A lighter punishment, as it were. But hey, you know, 100 lashes can kill you just as dead as beheading if not very carefully administered. It is also a sight slower and more painful way to go.

So, Rosie, keep it up. Bring the troops home. Let no one enlist in the evil military. Let no funds be appropriated by Congress. Never study war no more. But get ready for your 100 lashes. For the stern, puritanical, fanatical and hate-filled Moslem terror types that will fill that power vacuum will surely not put up with a nasty, loud lesbian. If they don’t kill you out of hand.

Conservative vs Liberal

Basic premise: I tend to divide people in 5 basic groups (this is, of course, a simplification):

1.    True Conservative – these people can think and know why they think what they do. Generally want freedom and opportunity for people to reach whatever potential they have (include freedom to fail in life). Want the absolute least interference from government. Believe that people should suffer the consequences of their actions.
2.    Reactionary Conservative – includes a great many of the fundamentalist Christian Right. Just part of the herd and usually reflexively interested in tearing down anything/anyone that does not agree with them. Rather obnoxious, but usually polite in public if you don’t kick one of their triggers.
3.    The great unwashed middle – don’t give a damn about anything except their own bead and circus. Check that the ‘mainstream’ media spent more time on the doings of Paris Hilton than they did on anything of substance. (Can’t tell the mainstream media – which IS liberal anyway – from the celebrity rags anymore).
4.    Reactionary Liberal. Rather poisonous. A large chunk of the hippie and me generation legacy. Just part of the herd and usually reflexively interested in tearing down anything/anyone that does not agree with them. Same as #2, just the other end of the ass. Tend to get loud and obnoxious when in groups. Have been known to protest and expect big-daddy government to fix things rather than exercise initiative to find their own solutions.
5.    True Liberal – Opposite of #1, these people can think and know why they think what they do. Generally want to take care of “victims” and see victims everywhere. Tend to want government intervention to achieve goals. They are interested in freedom, but way too much want to penalize minor behavioral differences – Crucify Don Imus for saying “nappy headed hos”, and say nothing about the thousands of black rappers whose every other word is nigger or obscenity. On the other hand Liberals do not seem to want extreme murderers to pay the penalty for their crime. I do find this somewhat puzzling.

As a #1 conservative, I would like most of the amendments to the Constitution thrown out. Also 90% of the laws we have now. We don’t need them, we just need to pay attention to the original document. Special amendment to grant women the vote. Unnecessary. Just realize that the vote applies to all citizens. The role of the central government is to govern interstate commerce and to provide an entity for foreign government relations. The only time the central government should be evident in local affairs is when the local government has failed to protect one citizen from another. “Your freedom ends where my nose begins”. Local government can pass any laws that they like, however the central government has a mechanism to survey these laws and bounce them if they do not meet the constitutional test. This is called the Supreme Court.

Right now I’m going to pick on liberals, particularly #4 variety. But don’t worry, #2 reactionary conservatives get theirs later.
The left has gotten people so politically correct (afraid) that perfectly good and innocent words can get one into all kinds of trouble. Example: niggardly. Has absolutely nothing to do with nigger. Comes from Old Norse “nigla” – to wrangle over small or insignificant matters. Niggling comes from the same word. Nigger – as a gently raised middle class Southerner I still don’t like that word – comes from Negro – comes from Latin niger – black.
Now – if you want to get fried by the #4 liberals in your world, just use the word niggardly in proper context in a conversation. I find it amusing that #4 liberals get most of their exercise by jumping to wrong conclusions. Particularly about white males – who are, after all, guilty of all the bad in the world. Anyway, a rather nice example can be found at the Engines of Our Ingenuity web site: www.uh.edu/engines. I don’t remember which episode it was (currently 2240), but John Lienhard, the commentator (and a bit pc) was talking to one of his engineering professor associates and the guy said “we’ve just GOT to get more nigras into engineering”. Lienhard was ready to bust a gasket when a black student standing nearby took him aside and said “Relax, man, he’s on our side. We know what he really means”. Good attitude. There should be less touchiness about normal human fumbling with words and not see evil where there is no evil intended.
I find it perplexing that the various “human rights” groups seem perfectly content to slam the USA at every turn and brand us the worst violator in the world. These people ignore all the countries that use rape, torture and murder as everyday instruments of policy. The continuing elimination of the Mung tribes by the government of Cambodia is never mentioned. The treatment of anyone who acts outside the tenants of Sharia law in most any Moslem country is never mentioned. There was a great outcry when the Serbs tried to get the Moslem Croatians out. Documented ad museum. And, while such treatment of people is inexcusable, there was no mention of corresponding Croatian treatment of Serbs. Once again, the Christians are the bad guys and Moslems are not held to the same standards. As a historical note: the Moslems are the invaders and have systematically persecuted the Serb Christians for 400 years. Nonetheless, the UN & US bombed the Christians and supported and gave refuge to the Moslems, several of whom were recently stopped in the middle of an assassination plot against the people of Fort Dix, New Jersey. Thanks, Bill & Hillary.

Of course, you can get just as fried by a #2 reactionary conservative. Try disagreeing in some way that doesn’t set well with their particular bigotries. You could get your head bit off. Mostly these people don’t march and scream and shout, but some of them do. You can usually tell that these are #2 flavor since they are convinced that they speak for God, and put all kinds of things in His Name that cannot be supported by historical Church Law or Doctrine or Practice. They also seems to think that their interpretation of what they think the Scriptures say should become secular law. Challenge them on this and, if they don’t bash you with their sign physically, the usual answer is some Biblical verse quoted out of context with rabidly dogmatic intensity. And little – if any – understanding of the Traditional Church position. Truthfully, a lot of these people are exactly the same mentality as the Old Testament types who happily stoned anyone who acted outside the accepted Moasic Law.

Needless to say – the #3 slobs are the ones who are the real majority in this country and in the world. Most of them will vote for whichever worthless politician panders to them most recently. The lib Democrats hold first place here, but the usless, weak, and corrupt Republicans are catching up fast, and may pass the Dems as the spend, spend, spend party of excess. The Republicans, be it noted, are NOT truly Conservative, they have just been less stinkily lib then the Democrats. This is changing, and there is no truly Conservative party out there. The true #1 Conservative feels alone and abandoned. The reason we feel this way is that it is the truth.

Huh? –

I was raised an Episcopalian. In the South, in the 50’s, the Episcopalians were the movers and shakers and the intellectual elite. The Methodists had overcome their Holy-Roller past and had become solidly middle class. The personal magnetism and powerful oratory of Peter Marshall had put the Presbyterians on the map in the South. The Baptists were mostly lower class, but were moving up fast. The rest belonged to this, that or the other smaller protestant groups that I couldn’t tell apart. Back then, them that didn’t believe slept late, but didn’t mention it otherwise. Roman Catholics and Jews kept a very low profile. The Klan was still around.

In the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer of 1928 was used. The services were calm, dignified, rational and comfortable rituals. The sermons were somewhat warm, fuzzy and gentle exhortations to live the Christian Life. Usually not spelled out in detail. Sermons were also mercifully short.

I never really understood some of the thinking of the protestants. I used to go to church with my best friend, whose family belonged to one of those “sola scriptura” fundamentalist sects. I spent most of the service wondering what on earth the preacher was doing, other than trying to get more money in the plate. This was perhaps not entirely fair, but I didn’t have any background that would enable much deeper understanding.

They had the choir singing, usually pretty decent stuff. I rather like some of the more spirited protestant hymns to this day. And I really do like gospel music – both black and white – but that’s another story.

After the choir, they had this, that and the other prayers and announcements, but the main course was absolutely the sermon. Now, this preacher would really get all kinds of wound up. He would whoop and holler and jump up and down and grab the pulpit and duck down beside it and then jump up and pound on the bible. And sometimes I could follow him. Usually it seemed he was yapping about what would send you to everlasting hellfire. I seem to remember him as being somewhat fond of describing the torments. But – to be fair – this is 50 years later and is a bit fuzzy here and there. When he got exhausted/wound down – seemed to take about the same time every Sunday – then the choir would sing to the chink of money hitting the plate – mostly he liked the “quiet” money. Then another prayer and the choir would sing it closed.

One thing that I am quite sure of is that he would race around to the front doors at the end of the service so he could shake everyone’s hand as they left. I became convinced that this was a necessary part of the ritual. I clearly remember that at least every other person would shake the preacher’s hand enthusiastically and declaim “That was a real sincere sermon, preacher. Real sincere!” That to me has always been the most puzzling feature of all. Why is sincere so great?

Adolf was quite sincere in his hatred of the Jews. The Klan is sincere in its hatred of blacks. Farrakhan is sincere in his hatred of whites. Osama sincerely hates America. Satan is extremely sincere in his hatred of humanity.

Hatred is one the most honest and sincere of all human emotions. It is not, however, a Christian virtue. When we are infected we must pray and fast and strive to eliminate it from our souls, no matter how sincerely we hate.

So, why is sincere a Christian complement? Huh?

Founding Fathers and the Law –

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were some of the greatest and smartest people who ever lived. But – they screwed up in a place or two.

Now, this time, we will take a look at the law, just as a concept. The sole and only purpose that a law in the United States should have is to protect individual freedoms and/or protect an individual from exploitation by others. Period. Interstate commerce? Well, yes, that eventually filters down to protecting a citizen from abuse. Sometimes the trail is long.

A look at the history of law goes from the Egyptians to Hammurabi, to whichever way you want to go from there. One thing that emerges is the notion that we humans can make a pretzel out of anything. Take the Talmudic interpretation of the simple “Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” Exodus 34:26, I think. By the time the rabbinical philosophers got through with that one it had evolved into a whole system of kitchen cleanliness. Including four separate sets of dishes and some very convoluted recipes (good though). Mr. Spock was only partly right. Logic is great until you make one wrong step. Everything after that is garbage.

OK, back to law. “The law is an ass” Everyone has heard that one – here’s the whole thing from Dickens’ Oliver Twist:
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” It is not that the law is an ass, it is that laws are made by humans. Most of our laws are compromises to start with, they are written down. Then they must be interpreted and enforced. Oh my, what is written and how it is interpreted may be two different things. And what was intended may not come through at all.

We are looking at criminal law here.

Let us look at a small part of the world of the Founding Fathers. Just the forensic science part. It didn’t exist. Fingerprinting wasn’t there. Blood testing wasn’t there. DNA matching wasn’t there. Ballistics wasn’t there. In fact, physics was just beginning to be explored and codified. Electricity was the new kid on the block (Franklin, remember).  Calculus was understood and beginning to be used for less than 100 years. The only thing that the Fathers had to go on was eyewitness testimony.

Humans have evolved to be pattern matchers. We have to be able to jump to a conclusion based on partial information. Does the grass move the wrong way? Might be a lion. Run. Now it could be many things other than the lion, but those that jumped to the conclusion and acted on it survived. Those that waited for full data and deliberated the implications became lion food. Guess which set of genes we carry. Back to the discussion. Human eyewitnesses depend on two things: Perception of events seen in an emotionally stressful situation. Memory. Oh boy, memory. Now we got two immediate strikes. Interpretation of perception and memory. I can’t think of any things that we humans do any worse. The FFs were really smart guys and tried to take that into account. Now we get what they wrote and then we get how the lawyers and courts interpret. Ouch! We now have the logic guys in the picture. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’d way more rather use logic than emotion, but it is a razor. You can get hurt if you are not careful. So – we get into the whole Catch-22 about admissible vs. inadmissible evidence. There is no justice in our courts. There is a rather horribly beautiful exercise in insane logic and acting that takes place. Watch court TV for a while and you will find a fascinating/repelling experience. The FF wanted to be as sure as they could that the innocent did not suffer falsely. Even if it meant turning some of the guilty loose. Anyway, back to admissibility of evidence. A fact is a fact, but said fact is not admitted if the cop at hand did not play the game according to the rules. All Ts crossed. All Is dotted. Didn’t even slap an uncontrollable wild man on the wrist. Look here, any rational human knows that people in positions of authority can become bent. We need to be protected from the protectors. But try this on instead of this admissible evidence crap: All evidence is admissible. No matter how it was gotten. A fact is a fact. However (twist!), if it was improperly gathered or falsified, make the individual cop personally responsible, with rather stiff penalties. This way we still protect individuals from abuse. We also protect the next child by not turning molesters and serial killers loose on technicalities.

I don’t think we need to twiddle the Constitution. I don’t trust this current crop of politicians to look past their bribes and bigotries. I do think we need to take a fresh look at what we think the Constitution says.