We've always known that too much money went into keeping prisoners happy. I talked about it a little when Martha Stewart was under "house arrest" in her million dollar home or whatever the mansion was worth. Just recently I heard on talk radio that it costs somewhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year per prisoner. That's outrageous! But in case there are still those who doubt that US prisons aren't too expensive...
I've said before, although unfortunately there's no written record of it in this blog, that our prisons are so nice that people in financial trouble might as well do something illegal instead of trying to survive on their own.
Well, it's finally happened.
William Crutchfield shot his mailman seven times. He raced to the police station and turned himself in. He was heavily in debt and wanted to commit a federal crime so he could go to prison and get three square meals a day and have nothing to worry about. This is a smart and clever man. He recognized the problem in our prison system and took advantage of it.
Too much of our tax dollars are wasted in keeping prisoners happy, healthy, available to video games, the Internet, and anything else they could possibly want. Someone has finally directly taken advantage of it and exposed its flaw.
Too bad it took something this drastic to bring about a change. And yet I doubt there will be any changes made at all...
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Constitution: Under Construction
Since O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court, the journalists and columnists have been unloading nonstop about the Constitution and the Supreme Court and the problems therein. Here's the root of the issue:
The Constitution is not very specific about a lot of things. So when the Supreme Court has to apply it to a specific case, it is often unfortunately ambiguous. To make matters worse, our society has evolved so much in these two hundred years that even if the Constitution had been very specific, it still wouldn't cover a large part of the Supreme Court cases today.
So what do the justices do? When it's not black and white, we've moved out of absolutes and stepped into a matter of opinion.
This opinion thing creates a flaw out of the provision that a simple majority of nine selected (not elected) people can determine the meaning of the Constituition when applied to a specific case. If the decision was 9-0, even if it was an opinion, there might not be too much controversy over whether they made the right decision. But, oh, when the Supreme Court decides 5-4!
How do we know that that's the right decision, that it's the correct interpretation of the law? If one of the 5 voters switched, than the complete opposite decision would be made. There are a hundred different scenarios for that possibility, and the fact that it could happen so easily shows that any 5-4 decision is unreliable. How can five people set in stone the meaning of the Constitution if almost as many other people disagree? It's like it's all up in the air. Since there's so much disagreement, how can we be sure that the 5 side has made the right decision?
It's a fundamental flaw. It worked before because Supreme Court justices didn't link themselves to parties and ideologies, and were actually more concerned about what the Constitution said. Now every potential nominee is labeled as "conservative" or "liberal." It's not a group of people interperting the Constitution anymore. It's a nine-member congress that the President can't veto.
How do we solve this, then? I don't exactly know. I know this much: when there is a case that the Constitution does not adequately cover, whether by being too general or too outdated, then it is something for the people or their elected representatives to decide, not nine justices without check or balance. So there has to be some way to move these cases into the public arena, or at least the Congressional arena, for debate and discussion that results in action. Not only does this increase of involvement ensure that the fate of the nation is not hinged upon five people's opinions, but it ensures that democracy is still a part of our so-called democracy.
I haven't worked out specifics on when such transfer should happen or how it should work, but I know that, if done right, it would be much better than the system we have now. The Constitution needs amending.
Edmond the Hun
The Constitution is not very specific about a lot of things. So when the Supreme Court has to apply it to a specific case, it is often unfortunately ambiguous. To make matters worse, our society has evolved so much in these two hundred years that even if the Constitution had been very specific, it still wouldn't cover a large part of the Supreme Court cases today.
So what do the justices do? When it's not black and white, we've moved out of absolutes and stepped into a matter of opinion.
This opinion thing creates a flaw out of the provision that a simple majority of nine selected (not elected) people can determine the meaning of the Constituition when applied to a specific case. If the decision was 9-0, even if it was an opinion, there might not be too much controversy over whether they made the right decision. But, oh, when the Supreme Court decides 5-4!
How do we know that that's the right decision, that it's the correct interpretation of the law? If one of the 5 voters switched, than the complete opposite decision would be made. There are a hundred different scenarios for that possibility, and the fact that it could happen so easily shows that any 5-4 decision is unreliable. How can five people set in stone the meaning of the Constitution if almost as many other people disagree? It's like it's all up in the air. Since there's so much disagreement, how can we be sure that the 5 side has made the right decision?
It's a fundamental flaw. It worked before because Supreme Court justices didn't link themselves to parties and ideologies, and were actually more concerned about what the Constitution said. Now every potential nominee is labeled as "conservative" or "liberal." It's not a group of people interperting the Constitution anymore. It's a nine-member congress that the President can't veto.
How do we solve this, then? I don't exactly know. I know this much: when there is a case that the Constitution does not adequately cover, whether by being too general or too outdated, then it is something for the people or their elected representatives to decide, not nine justices without check or balance. So there has to be some way to move these cases into the public arena, or at least the Congressional arena, for debate and discussion that results in action. Not only does this increase of involvement ensure that the fate of the nation is not hinged upon five people's opinions, but it ensures that democracy is still a part of our so-called democracy.
I haven't worked out specifics on when such transfer should happen or how it should work, but I know that, if done right, it would be much better than the system we have now. The Constitution needs amending.
Edmond the Hun
Capitalism In Action: The Employee Discount
Ah, the wonder of capitalism! When one business offers a special deal for a certain product, competing businesses that offer the same product have to do the same thing, or risk losing customers. If one cell phone company offers free nights and weekends, they all have to. If one fast-food restaurant offers a low-carb salad, they all have to. It'd be a lot easier if one company had a monopoly on a product, but then it wouldn't be as fun, and they wouldn't have to offer special deals. That's part of capitalism.
GM decided to boost lagging auto sales by giving their employee discount to everyone, forcing Ford and Chevrolet to offer similar packages. This would be like McDonald's cutting all their prices in half. And it appears to be working---their sales are up.
But the question no one seems to be asking: If everyone gets the employee discount, what do the employees get?
Edmond the Hun
GM decided to boost lagging auto sales by giving their employee discount to everyone, forcing Ford and Chevrolet to offer similar packages. This would be like McDonald's cutting all their prices in half. And it appears to be working---their sales are up.
But the question no one seems to be asking: If everyone gets the employee discount, what do the employees get?
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The Truth About Terrorism
So terrorists have struck again, jolting us again out of our supposed world of safety that we naively fall back into time after time. This time it's a subway in Great Britain.
There are two truths about terrorism.
Truth number one is that it is impossible to stop. No matter how hard we try, terrorism can not be stopped. If someone wants to blow up a subway, all they have to do is build a bomb, catch a ride on the subway, and set it off. To stop the bomb from getting on the subway, you would have to personally search every single passenger's baggage, or use a foolproof machine. Even that wouldn't guarantee detection. And who says the terrorist has to get on the subway? What if he just sets it off at the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person that enters the station, whether they board a subway or not. But what if he sets it off just outside the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person out in public, which is simply impossible. The only way such a plan is even remotely conceivable involves complete video surveillance of everywhere, and even that would only guarantee detection, not prevention.
Terrorism is impossible to stop, but even more so in a democracy or republic. Security is inversely proportional to privacy; to add to one, you must subtract from the other. If people are getting worked up about a Chicago security system that can detect gunshots, just think how they would react to a complete, all-encompassing system. To have total security, you must have no privacy, and that is unacceptable in today's society.
But the inevitability of terrorism leads many to abandon truth number two: Terrorism must always be fought against. We are still required to do everything we can to prevent it from spreading further and from happening again. That is why we cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq until we achieve victory. Whether or not you believe Iraq was a threat in the past, there are obviously terrorists there now, and it's our duty to fight them.
If you had a hose on the side of your house and your neighbor's house was on fire, would you say that it wasn't your problem and you shouldn't waste your time dealing with it? No! You would turn on your hose and extinguish whatever you could! Likewise, the problems in Iraq are our problems. There is no reason to pull out of Iraq. There is no reason to say it's not our responsibility. We are all descended from one man. Iraqi lives are not worth less than American lives. If a human's life is endangered, it is the responsibility of every person---who is in the position of defending it---to defend it!
Terrorism, like sin, is impossible to prevent. But, like sin, we keep fighting it anyway, striving for the perfection we know we can't reach.
Edmond the Hun
There are two truths about terrorism.
Truth number one is that it is impossible to stop. No matter how hard we try, terrorism can not be stopped. If someone wants to blow up a subway, all they have to do is build a bomb, catch a ride on the subway, and set it off. To stop the bomb from getting on the subway, you would have to personally search every single passenger's baggage, or use a foolproof machine. Even that wouldn't guarantee detection. And who says the terrorist has to get on the subway? What if he just sets it off at the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person that enters the station, whether they board a subway or not. But what if he sets it off just outside the station? Now you have to check the baggage of every single person out in public, which is simply impossible. The only way such a plan is even remotely conceivable involves complete video surveillance of everywhere, and even that would only guarantee detection, not prevention.
Terrorism is impossible to stop, but even more so in a democracy or republic. Security is inversely proportional to privacy; to add to one, you must subtract from the other. If people are getting worked up about a Chicago security system that can detect gunshots, just think how they would react to a complete, all-encompassing system. To have total security, you must have no privacy, and that is unacceptable in today's society.
But the inevitability of terrorism leads many to abandon truth number two: Terrorism must always be fought against. We are still required to do everything we can to prevent it from spreading further and from happening again. That is why we cannot leave Afghanistan or Iraq until we achieve victory. Whether or not you believe Iraq was a threat in the past, there are obviously terrorists there now, and it's our duty to fight them.
If you had a hose on the side of your house and your neighbor's house was on fire, would you say that it wasn't your problem and you shouldn't waste your time dealing with it? No! You would turn on your hose and extinguish whatever you could! Likewise, the problems in Iraq are our problems. There is no reason to pull out of Iraq. There is no reason to say it's not our responsibility. We are all descended from one man. Iraqi lives are not worth less than American lives. If a human's life is endangered, it is the responsibility of every person---who is in the position of defending it---to defend it!
Terrorism, like sin, is impossible to prevent. But, like sin, we keep fighting it anyway, striving for the perfection we know we can't reach.
Edmond the Hun
Book Look: Life of Pi
I'm 32 pages into Life of Pi by Yann Martel. It's called "a novel," in the "fiction" section, but it's presented as based on a true story and as the closest the author could possibly get to what actually happened. So far, it's unique and promising. It's written from a character's first-person view, but not in a normal fictional narrative. It is more like an autobiography or memoirs, giving the impression of an older person looking back on his life explaining things that affected it---an "uncle" that taught him to swim, memories of the zoo his father owned, humurous little anecdotes---hardly a novel in its conventional sense.
Pages 15-19 could stand alone as a short essay about the misconception that animals don't like living in zoos and would rather be out in the wild, where it's better and more natural for them. It's a very convincing argument, too:
"In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out... A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal... Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spot on a leopard..."
Interesting stuff. I just hope it doesn't get too bogged down with essay-like tangents and sticks with the main story. That's why I couldn't finish Moby Dick. I don't care about how many species of whales are and what their differences are! I want to see them hunt the whale! But so far, the tangents in Life of Pi are both interesting and relatory, and I believe I am about to get to the main part of the story.
Edmond the Hun
Pages 15-19 could stand alone as a short essay about the misconception that animals don't like living in zoos and would rather be out in the wild, where it's better and more natural for them. It's a very convincing argument, too:
"In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out... A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure is the equivalent for an animal... Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spot on a leopard..."
Interesting stuff. I just hope it doesn't get too bogged down with essay-like tangents and sticks with the main story. That's why I couldn't finish Moby Dick. I don't care about how many species of whales are and what their differences are! I want to see them hunt the whale! But so far, the tangents in Life of Pi are both interesting and relatory, and I believe I am about to get to the main part of the story.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, July 04, 2005
Sad and Scary: Clinic For Online Addiction
This is so sad and scary...
China is a country that is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in many aspects, from a greater demand for oil (which increases prices for everyone, including us) to their level of technology. And those online video games and chat rooms affect their youth just as much as it does us, if not more.
Apparently, these young people are so addicted that China has opened its "first officially licensed clinic for Internet addiction." In other words, people are spending so much time online that they need help---and they're getting it.
Listening to these kids sounds like they're druggies or drinkers. Read this paragraph from the article:
"In school I didn't pay attention when teachers were talking," one 12-year-old said. "All I could do was think about playing the next game. Playing made me happy, I forgot my problems." He spent four days in an Internet cafe, barely eating or sleeping.
Four days! I'm amazed that someone would be stupid enough to do that! But I know it's not just in China. I'm sure there could be twice as many stories about teenagers in the United States who could use this clinic. It's just so sad that it even has to exist.
People have always wanted to escape. But instead of just drugs and alchohol, now there's the Internet to help you do that. What is this world coming to?
(Source: www.canada.com)
Edmond the Hun
China is a country that is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in many aspects, from a greater demand for oil (which increases prices for everyone, including us) to their level of technology. And those online video games and chat rooms affect their youth just as much as it does us, if not more.
Apparently, these young people are so addicted that China has opened its "first officially licensed clinic for Internet addiction." In other words, people are spending so much time online that they need help---and they're getting it.
Listening to these kids sounds like they're druggies or drinkers. Read this paragraph from the article:
"In school I didn't pay attention when teachers were talking," one 12-year-old said. "All I could do was think about playing the next game. Playing made me happy, I forgot my problems." He spent four days in an Internet cafe, barely eating or sleeping.
Four days! I'm amazed that someone would be stupid enough to do that! But I know it's not just in China. I'm sure there could be twice as many stories about teenagers in the United States who could use this clinic. It's just so sad that it even has to exist.
People have always wanted to escape. But instead of just drugs and alchohol, now there's the Internet to help you do that. What is this world coming to?
(Source: www.canada.com)
Edmond the Hun
Friday, July 01, 2005
Current Events: Revenge of the Homeowner
This is amazing. Logan Darrow Clements is attempting to get the rights to build a hotel on the property of one of the Supreme Court Justices who voted for the decision that it's constitutional to build things like hotels on private property if it will bring in more tax dollars.
Ingenious! The Supreme Court has infringed on the rights of private homeowners, and Mr. Clements is bringing it right back at them by applying the policy to one of their own homes. He has to get a majority vote from some kind of five-man council, but I don't see how they could not give him the rights to do this. The Supreme Court has declared it legal! The only way the justice could save his house is by becoming more of a bad guy---things like intimidation and bribery, unless he can find a way to prove that his house will provide more tax dollars than a hotel.
Mr. Clements is kind of a weirdo---he's an anti-government extremist who supports Ayn Rand's philosophies (he even wants to provide a copy of her novel Atlas Shrugged in every hotel room instead of the classic Gideon Bible). I obviously don't support everything this man stands for, but I certainly support his attempt to show the Supreme Court justices the reality of their recent decision.
I'll be rooting for him all the way, and keeping you updated as well.
Edmond the Hun
Ingenious! The Supreme Court has infringed on the rights of private homeowners, and Mr. Clements is bringing it right back at them by applying the policy to one of their own homes. He has to get a majority vote from some kind of five-man council, but I don't see how they could not give him the rights to do this. The Supreme Court has declared it legal! The only way the justice could save his house is by becoming more of a bad guy---things like intimidation and bribery, unless he can find a way to prove that his house will provide more tax dollars than a hotel.
Mr. Clements is kind of a weirdo---he's an anti-government extremist who supports Ayn Rand's philosophies (he even wants to provide a copy of her novel Atlas Shrugged in every hotel room instead of the classic Gideon Bible). I obviously don't support everything this man stands for, but I certainly support his attempt to show the Supreme Court justices the reality of their recent decision.
I'll be rooting for him all the way, and keeping you updated as well.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)