Thursday, July 25, 2013
Profiling
We commonly use profiling daily
Profiling is decision-making in the presence of uncertain
information. One profiles by employing visual or audio cues to make decisions,
and these clues can be skin color, clothing, hygiene, or the presence of things
in hand that might be a weapon. Other profiling techniques may include modes of
operation, personal habits, or associations with others of known potential for
harmful action.
Most people use profiling daily either consciously or not
.They make decisions about other people they encounter. Are they trustworthy, are
they honest, are they of good behavior, are they likable and friendly, and so
on? Or, are they the exact opposite of these bell weathers of comity?
As a result of PC thinking, profiling has become a nasty
word when it should not be, since it is in such constant use in our lives. Some
people resent terribly being profiled when they are put in a group that has
some known bad characteristics or cues, yet, while they do have the cues, they
do not have such bad characteristics.
Both blacks and Muslims have cues, such as color of skin
or dress, that are used by both civilians and government authorities to focus
on potential
troubles In the making. White citizens, on the other hand enjoy less hassling
by authorities (Except for the TSA. They search all passengers, even 5-year-olds,
regardless of the probabilities). The reason for this difference is a matter of
a lesser probability of whites making trouble than blacks or Muslims.
Blacks and Muslims need to cure their own problems and
show less probability for troublemaking to escape the onus of being profiled
more than normal. It is in the record that the 8% of the population that is black
fill 40% of all prison cells, which is a strong indication that blacks are more
prone to crime than whites. Then too, the FBI list of most wanted terrorists is
98% Muslim, again a strong indication that Muslims are more prone to terrorist
acts. (These statistics are from a recent article by Walter Williams, citing
government sources.) One can expect that until these people do clean up their
collective acts, profiling will continue.
Profiling is decision-making in the presence of uncertain
information. One profiles by employing visual or audio cues to make decisions,
and these clues can be skin color, clothing, hygiene, or the presence of things
in hand that might be a weapon. Other profiling techniques may include modes of
operation, personal habits, or associations with others of known potential for
harmful action.
Most people use profiling daily either consciously or not
.They make decisions about other people they encounter. Are they trustworthy, are
they honest, are they of good behavior, are they likable and friendly, and so
on? Or, are they the exact opposite of these bell weathers of comity?
As a result of PC thinking, profiling has become a nasty
word when it should not be, since it is in such constant use in our lives. Some
people resent terribly being profiled when they are put in a group that has
some known bad characteristics or cues, yet, while they do have the cues, they
do not have such bad characteristics.
Both blacks and Muslims have cues, such as color of skin
or dress, that are used by both civilians and government authorities to focus
on potential
troubles In the making. White citizens, on the other hand enjoy less hassling by authorities (Except for the TSA. They search all passengers, even 5-year-olds, regardless of the probabilities). The reason for this difference is a matter of a lesser probability of whites making trouble than blacks or Muslims.
troubles In the making. White citizens, on the other hand enjoy less hassling by authorities (Except for the TSA. They search all passengers, even 5-year-olds, regardless of the probabilities). The reason for this difference is a matter of a lesser probability of whites making trouble than blacks or Muslims.
Blacks and Muslims need to cure their own problems and
show less probability for troublemaking to escape the onus of being profiled
more than normal. It is in the record that the 8% of the population that is black
fill 40% of all prison cells, which is a strong indication that blacks are more
prone to crime than whites. Then too, the FBI list of most wanted terrorists is
98% Muslim, again a strong indication that Muslims are more prone to terrorist
acts. (These statistics are from a recent article by Walter Williams, citing
government sources.) One can expect that until these people do clean up their
collective acts, profiling will continue.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Moral Culpability
In that Zimmerman Took a Life
Because George Zimmerman took the life of Trayvon Martin, he garners moral culpability (thou shalt not kill), and because he contributed to the situation that resulted in a deadly conflict.
Trayvon Martin likewise garners moral culpability because he also contributed to the situation that resulted in Zimmerman's fear of bodily harm or death.
Since we do not and can not prosecute for moral culpability alone, it is apparent that Martin was punished with his life, and Zimmerman will not only be punished by his peers at every turn in his remaining lifetime, but he will also eventually face the wrath of God, and then, so will Martin..
Because George Zimmerman took the life of Trayvon Martin, he garners moral culpability (thou shalt not kill), and because he contributed to the situation that resulted in a deadly conflict.
Trayvon Martin likewise garners moral culpability because he also contributed to the situation that resulted in Zimmerman's fear of bodily harm or death.
Since we do not and can not prosecute for moral culpability alone, it is apparent that Martin was punished with his life, and Zimmerman will not only be punished by his peers at every turn in his remaining lifetime, but he will also eventually face the wrath of God, and then, so will Martin..
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The Unnecessary Trial of George Zimmerman
The Case of Zimmerman versus Martin
When all of the extraneous matters have been explored,
this case turns on a very few considerations of the Florida law. In that body
of law, the right of self-defense is allowed under specific circumstances.
These circumstances were met by Zimmerman. In his deposition before trial, he
claimed he shot Martin in self-defense because Martin was pummeling him and
beating his head on the concrete and he felt threatened for his life. One
witness corroborated this fact and stated that he witnessed Martin sitting
astride Zimmerman and beating him. Subsequent medical attention and photography
showed evidence of contusions to the back of Zimmerman’s head, and a nose
injury. There were no other credible witnesses to the shooting of Martin by
Zimmerman. The law does not require that Zimmerman suffered injuries at all,
but only requires that Zimmerman’s state of mind was that at that specific time
he felt threatened for his life.
The police did not arrest Zimmerman because they decided
that it was a case of self-defense, and hence his arrest was not necessary. All
of the press hoopla, conniving, pressuring, forcing action by the law, avoiding
an empanelled grand jury, and moaning since that time has merely resulted in a
jury confirming the decision the police made a year or so ago at an enormous
cost.
Virtually every legal authority in the nation agreed with
the decision of the police and the jury that Zimmerman was not guilty by virtue
of self-defense, although several lawyers waffled primarily for their own
aggrandizement or that of the progressive left, which wanted a conviction
regardless of the facts and law.
This was a trial motivated by leftist dogma and racial
thinking, when race didn’t enter into the situation at all.
The Case of Zimmerman versus Martin
When all of the extraneous matters have been explored,
this case turns on a very few considerations of the Florida law. In that body
of law, the right of self-defense is allowed under specific circumstances.
These circumstances were met by Zimmerman. In his deposition before trial, he
claimed he shot Martin in self-defense because Martin was pummeling him and
beating his head on the concrete and he felt threatened for his life. One
witness corroborated this fact and stated that he witnessed Martin sitting
astride Zimmerman and beating him. Subsequent medical attention and photography
showed evidence of contusions to the back of Zimmerman’s head, and a nose
injury. There were no other credible witnesses to the shooting of Martin by
Zimmerman. The law does not require that Zimmerman suffered injuries at all,
but only requires that Zimmerman’s state of mind was that at that specific time
he felt threatened for his life.
The police did not arrest Zimmerman because they decided
that it was a case of self-defense, and hence his arrest was not necessary. All
of the press hoopla, conniving, pressuring, forcing action by the law, avoiding
an empanelled grand jury, and moaning since that time has merely resulted in a
jury confirming the decision the police made a year or so ago at an enormous
cost.
Virtually every legal authority in the nation agreed with
the decision of the police and the jury that Zimmerman was not guilty by virtue
of self-defense, although several lawyers waffled primarily for their own
aggrandizement or that of the progressive left, which wanted a conviction
regardless of the facts and law.
This was a trial motivated by leftist dogma and racial
thinking, when race didn’t enter into the situation at all.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Mystery comments
Ananymous People must use a consistent name and website
There seems to be one or more commenters that are emailing me using the ananymous signature, with many websites indicated for replies. Some comments are done in a language or code I do not know. I would be happy to answer English comments from named individuals with a consistent website. Why they do not use the comment feature here on this blog rather than email, I do not know.
Mann
Ananymous People must use a consistent name and website
There seems to be one or more commenters that are emailing me using the ananymous signature, with many websites indicated for replies. Some comments are done in a language or code I do not know. I would be happy to answer English comments from named individuals with a consistent website. Why they do not use the comment feature here on this blog rather than email, I do not know.
Mann
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Objections to Natural Law
As I see it, there are several principal objections to
Natural Law. Foremost, is the sense that the laws are prescribed or revealed by God, and
are presented to us in the Bible. Obviously, any agnostic or atheist would work
hard to deny the existence of God, and thus the entire structure of Natural
Law, although most would also agree that some of the laws make sense from a
right reason point of view.
Another key objection is the question of morality: are
there moral absolutes, or are all morals really relative in some way? Modern Liberals tout the relativity of
morals, and hence reject the basis of Natural Law ethics and morality. Their construction
of law is therefore based upon particular reason alone, and uniquely for this
society only, and they find it impossible that there are such things as
universal laws, applicable over all mankind. This appears to be so in the face
of the fact that the Golden Rule, for one well-known instance, is found in
virtually every religion around the world in one form or another (there are
many ways to phrase the Golden Rule!).
Other lesser objections are that Positive or Common Law must not
violate Natural Law, which limits the degrees of freedom some seem to want in
manufacturing many types of positive laws to suit themselves. That Positive Law
must not do harm to Natural Law is eminently sensible and follows logically to
the Christian mind, which reveres the Decalogue in its entirety.
Then too, many Liberal thinkers do not fully appreciate
the US Constitution, and would love to make numerous changes to our Law of the
Land, which is almost completely based upon Natural Law. Notable changes
include, in their minds, repeal of the Second Amendment, and sanctifying
both same sex marriage and abortion in the law. The right of the President to wage war comes to mind also as a
change that has crept into practice.
Many of the centralization acts fostered
on the nation in order to place far greater power in the Federal Government and
less power in the States is also a major trend that has been apparent almost
from the beginning of the nation. This excessive centralization of power is
diametrically opposed to the original intent of the Constitution as established
by the founders, and it fosters ever closer adherence to the tyranny of
despotism.
Thus, this trend should be thwarted by every American that believes in this nation as founded.
As I see it, there are several principal objections to
Natural Law. Foremost, is the sense that the laws are prescribed or revealed by God, and
are presented to us in the Bible. Obviously, any agnostic or atheist would work
hard to deny the existence of God, and thus the entire structure of Natural
Law, although most would also agree that some of the laws make sense from a
right reason point of view.
Another key objection is the question of morality: are
there moral absolutes, or are all morals really relative in some way? Modern Liberals tout the relativity of
morals, and hence reject the basis of Natural Law ethics and morality. Their construction
of law is therefore based upon particular reason alone, and uniquely for this
society only, and they find it impossible that there are such things as
universal laws, applicable over all mankind. This appears to be so in the face
of the fact that the Golden Rule, for one well-known instance, is found in
virtually every religion around the world in one form or another (there are
many ways to phrase the Golden Rule!).
Other lesser objections are that Positive or Common Law must not
violate Natural Law, which limits the degrees of freedom some seem to want in
manufacturing many types of positive laws to suit themselves. That Positive Law
must not do harm to Natural Law is eminently sensible and follows logically to
the Christian mind, which reveres the Decalogue in its entirety.
Then too, many Liberal thinkers do not fully appreciate
the US Constitution, and would love to make numerous changes to our Law of the
Land, which is almost completely based upon Natural Law. Notable changes
include, in their minds, repeal of the Second Amendment, and sanctifying
both same sex marriage and abortion in the law. The right of the President to wage war comes to mind also as a
change that has crept into practice.
Many of the centralization acts fostered on the nation in order to place far greater power in the Federal Government and less power in the States is also a major trend that has been apparent almost from the beginning of the nation. This excessive centralization of power is diametrically opposed to the original intent of the Constitution as established by the founders, and it fosters ever closer adherence to the tyranny of despotism.
Thus, this trend should be thwarted by every American that believes in this nation as founded.
