1 This is not the hope and change we're expecting. Additionally, how does this help Michelle's kids?

1 O my libertarian friends: aren't there real estate developers against whom you harbor some ill-will? Ummm...no. I can always obtain a big spread and put my domicile in the middle, where I don't have to see anything other than trees. Problem solved. QED

2 Building codes, the ones that specify materials, design, and detail for the electrical, plumbing, space conditioning, and other systems are a good idea. As long as they're made for technical reasons, not to give union workers a job, or to prevent do-it-yourselfers from trying. Those related to appearance or aesthetics are starting to cross the line. I don't think people should have to beg a committee to paint their house a certain color, or choose a type of window--within reason. But reason and human beings are sometimes different animals. Views are other considerations are for the homeowners and their neighbors to work out. A reasonable, prudent person understands that things can change unless you own all of the adjacent and adjoining property. As for seeing others do better than me, I say "great!" As a loner, I don't appreciate company, even in misery. McMansions raise everyone's property values nearby over time. And maybe a rich friend and political beneficiary will buy my house to demolish it and improve the view of the owners of said McMansion. Barack Obama's pal, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, bought the vacant lot next to B.O's intended purchase for higher-than-normal value clearing the way for B.O. to offer some $300k less than asking price(from the same seller). An abutting private preserve that adds to the ambiance of your McMansion is always a "good thing"--or so Martha keeps telling me.

3 Yes, of course. But what if you lived in a part of the country in which vacant lots went for $500K? What if you'd struggled all your life to get into a particular town/neighborhood, and then someone built something that fundamentally changed its character?--wouldn't that constitute a type of theft? What if you lived in a housing market so blazing hot that getting a higher price for your your newly valuable home didn't really enable you to get something comparable to what you'd been living in before the neighborhood changed its character?

4 Change is inevitable. I know that I don't control all the factors with the resources at my disposal. So I would take the money and go somewhere else where that money would buy the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to and more. Next time every thing I want to see will be on my land. So many things are outside of my control that I consider that my steady-state condition. People in big cities are used to neighborhoods changing beyond their control. You are faced with two choices--sell now at depressed values or stay and hope/work for the best. Turnarounds sometimes take decades or more. Isn't this a form of theft? I've had relatives that chose both options, and they all wound up losing. Some had years taken from their lives by weekly robberies/beatings. The police told them they were crazy to live in the house they built forty years before. They also told them that catching the thieves would be their death sentence. All in all, these people would have preferred the McMansion dilemma.

5 Building codes and zoning restrictions are two different things. Both are generally more restrictive than I care for, although it is not the codes but the onerous process one has to go through to get the simplest things approved through official channels. As for zoning requirements I see the sense in keeping industrial areas separate from residential areas and having some buffers between residential and commercial, but when you read most zoning regulations there's inevitably *way* more restrictions than I am comfortable with. And HOA's are way out. Never, ever will I purchase a home in an area with an active HOA. Come on: admit it. When you walk out of your door and wander down your street or road on foot, you're not such a great believer in capitalism, are you? Sorry to disappoint you. And I live in a very mixed use neighborhood to boot. I get *far* more bent about loud music from my neighbors than I'd ever get from a non-compliant shed or porch add-on. Because that, to me, is an actual infringement on my right to peaceable enjoyment of my property. What if you'd struggled all your life to get into a particular town/neighborhood, and then someone built something that fundamentally changed its character?--wouldn't that constitute a type of theft? No. Because I don't own the "character" of a place. I only own what I own. And there is always the option of moving from a blazing hot real estate market to one less blazing hot to get what one is after.

6 Cool. So far, no one's taking the bait. (BTW, this doesn't happen to be about me: this is about the story I'm writing--the Phoenix mystery. Although I admit that I feel wistful about what happened to both Malibu and Santa Monica, which used to be earthy beach towns. That comes across in my Santa Monica mystery, of course. But in the Phonix mystery--at least, the way I have it outlined now--real estate development is central to the crime.)

7 To Desert Cat Keep in mind that Zoning Restrictions in this discussion would only apply to areas where there are such things. Houston, TX does not have Zoning. Instead, how land is used is part of land deeds. To the other assembled: This blog-cussion reminds of commentaries in a religious tradition known to us all. It was speculated whether a property owner who by ill will (e.g., revenge or greed) hinders another, such as by landlocking, could be stopped using legal remedies in a religious context. The resolve was that on earth, there were no such remedy and such a property owner could act "that way"; however, when that owner goes to the next world, there will be a warrant out for him. To you die hard Randians, [are you reading this Andrew B or Harry B? (2 writers of the Rand Institute)], when do courtesy and/or cariing for your neighbor; enter your philosophy? Or are those ideas always to be couched within a healty self-interest outlook? Just inquiring.

8 The Quakers, or the Amish?

1 The lesson is clear: Stick to robbing Code Pink loonies.

2 "Choose your victims carefully." That should be the lyric for a Crosby and Stills song. -B

1 I'll save you the bother. There is very little known so far. An ex-teacher confessed. He had contacted the Ramseys' in the past about writing a book on the killing. He also contacted Polly Klass's family. He has details wrong...(says he picked her up from school[she was on X-Mas break], says he raped herDarrell. His ex-wife says they were in Alabama when she was JonBenet was killed. There was 'foreign' DNA at the crime scene, and they took a sample from him and they are awaiting the results. That would go a long way toward making this something to discuss. Problems with the details are not unheard of with real killers. They like to play games. We had a murder in Chicago where one man was convicted of killing a child(before anyone gives him any sympathy, he bragged about it in a bar, and ex-cons dropped the dime on him)and another man, Brian Dugan, in jail, talked to police once, claiming he did it but wanted the death penalty taken off the table before he would talk again. Some of the details he gave did not match the crime scene. Until DNA testing came along, showing him involved, prosecutors couldn't take the chance letting the man they already convicted go free if they couldn't convict Dugan.

2 Here's as good a summary as any so far... http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003018974 From Editor and Publisher...

3 Thanks! Other bloggers bring the news to you. I, however, like the reader to feel more participatory

4 How do you think Glenn Reynolds gets a lot ot his stuff? You actually think he's spending hours a day surfing the web?

5 I'll save you more time by giving you the scoop on that woman that caused a disturbance on United Flight 923, forcing it to make an emergency landing at Boston's Logan International Airport under escort by two military jets on Wednesday of this week. Catherine C. Mayo, 59, a Vermont woman who also lives part time in Pakistan, was charged yesterday in federal court with interfering with a flight crew... Mrs. Mayo began pacing the plane from the front to aft lavatory and asked a flight attendant, "Is this a training flight for United Flight 93?" -- the flight hijacked on September 11, 2001, that crashed into a Pennsylvania farm field. Mrs. Mayo demanded to speak with an air marshal, saying the contents of her bag would be of interest. Her bag contained a screwdriver, body lotion, several cigarette lighters and a bottle of water. The affidavit did not say how she smuggled the items on board, despite being screened twice at London's Heathrow Airport. Mrs. Mayo "took down her slacks and started taking down her underwear, and that's when they got her. They were just passengers on the plane who immediately helped," I smell a lawsuit. Think passengers would have acted so quickly if Naomi Watts had pulled such a stunt? I think NOT!

6 Maybe this would be a better fit in your other post, but "Protesters calling for an end to recent violence in Sri Lanka found themselves brawling with hardline Buddhist monks Thursday, after a rally dubbed a "peace protest" turned unexpectedly violent." http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2006-08-17T181046Z_01_COL276316_RTRUKOC_0_US-SRILANKA-MONKS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 And.." A Chinese woman has appeared in court accused of transporting panties and long johns soaked in heroin, state media said on Friday." You can find a link at the previous citation. I had a mental image of Bruno, the drug sniffing G Shepherd, finding her at the airport....but alas! No need to buy the tape...

7 Posted: Aug 25, 2006 1:36 PM EVIL, THY NAME IS AMBIVALENCE Evil –thy name is ambivalence , thy name is ambiguity . Evil thou refuses to qualifty arguments —thou seekes the middle ground/ the balance . Evil thou has REFUSED to overnalyze . Thou hatest extreme precision /hatest clear boundaries . Evil, thou are known by refusing to be single-minded ! The voice of evil has a message and if we care about what Plato called :THE GOOD (and we should care) and if we care about Beauty (and Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder) if the beholder does NOT gaze rightly --i.e. does NOT think rightly) , then we should reject the message that tells us to embrace double-think . The voice of evil has a message and the message it tells us is : “Don’t be so single minded” and we should indeed always REJECT that message . The voice of Good (if I may use that rhetorical phrase) has another message. The voice of Good tells us , ‘ DO be so single minded ! Always be single minded ‘ . After all ambivalence–the tendency to balance what is intrinsically virtuous with that which is intrinsically crass –is the ESSENCE OF MEDIOCRITY . Intrinsic virtue we should always seek to take to extremes , ladies and gents ! And the worst sort of mediocrity —is respectible mediocrity ! Yet all such discussion ought to reflect on the particulars of what is happening in our neighborhoods –what is happening in particular to our civilization –lest it should seem like a mere “academic discussion “to be thought on found interesting for a while and then the same shuffle of people going back to their daily lives of day to day mendcaities where people ask , ‘what’s on t.v. ?’ WELL IT’S WHAT’S ON T.V. THAT’S THE PROBLEM FOLKS ! I .SOULLESS SPECTACLES AND TOLERANT SELL-OUTS What’s on t.v ought to show everyone who hasn’t come around to insight just how ROTTEN the sensisbilty of that weird, mediocre , pusiilanimous , pansy-effeminate thinking called relativism (or postmodernism, anti-foundationalism–or what funky new name they are calling it lately) which is that “conflicted” tendency of thought to respect beliefs or so called “points of view” regardless how crass , unfounded or otherwise skewed such beliefs are (i.e. selling out) …how pathetic it is ! What’s ON T.V.IS THE APPARENT MURDER AND RAPE OF A LITTLE GIRL IN COLORADO TEN YEARS AGO BEING TREATED *AS IF * IT WERE SOME SORT OF ENTERTAINMENT !! !! Hello people if there is anything that ought to show those who still have some shred of caring for some semblance of wholesome sentiment towards how life should be lived it is that , and hence if there is anything that should show people that the whole ever so weird insipid tendency to respect opinions — (or even partially respect them) no matter how crass those opinions are –and this present weird decade of might-boggling crassness –is TOTALLY WRONGHEADED AND WORTHLESS it is the disgusting news and entertainment media circus that treats the rape and murder of a child as something to have fun gossip about . If there is anything that show the stragglers that still want to be tolerant and respect points of view and “look at it from different perspectives”/ be conflicted –want a balance between the light and dark —and all similar insipid garbage ideology –who still have some portion of nurturing feeling towards other living beings left –to wise up and promote that nurturing feeling single-mindedly and with a robust intensity (and say politically correct tolerance be dammed ) then it should be that : seeing that so many have become tolerant of journalists gossiping about the rape and murder of a child like it were some entertaining thrilling spectacle to gossip about . These days the postmodernist/relativist crowd has tried to mislead us into thinking that we somehow shouldn’t have an us versus them approach. Well the us versus them approach is Good . The vindication of Truth, Beauty, Justice and all that is Good demands an us versus them approach ! Ladies and gents, news has become entertainment and entertainment has become news and that ugly sordid trend has been going on for 12 some years now and building and getting more and more sordid each month ! What we are seeing —and it is indeed totally contrary to the enterprise of philosophy and hence the concern of philosophy with the Good of civilizations is a trend that should be best called CULTURAL ENTROPY . Before the phrase culture entropy is explained –it is best to turn attention to the four golden axioms which sooner or later we should always return in thought to and keep in mind . These glaringly obvious axioms should have been fessed up to by everyone long decades ago . AXIOM 1 : *NOT* every belief –including not every belief regarding matters of morals and/or esthetics is mere opinion . There AXIOM 2 : NOT every opinion deserves any respect . (How unspeakably bizarre it is that so many people in this present era , speak AS IF the mere fact that some people –or even many people –express a belief is somehow grounds for giving a belief some ad hoc respect. Would you respect, say, the belief where someone expresses the notion that having an interest in sordid celebrity gossip is even partially okay ? IF SO that is pathetic !) AXIOM 3. The beliefs that a person expresses are NOT at all part of the person. Such beliefs are NOT at all a part of their identity. Merely because they have some relation with the self doesn’t mean they are a part of the person’s self . (Though if a person supports ugly beliefs long enough , they can take on a rather ugly demeanor though) . AXIOM 4 . Since beliefs are NOT part of a person –therefore, there is nothing at all un-compassionate or un-loving about telling someone that the belief they support is totally wrong, without a shred of merit , and worthless . One of the better acts you can do for a person is belittle the opinion they’ve expressed if that opinion is crass, lazy minded or otherwise murky . There is certainly nothing un-compassionate , nor rude (provided one avoids phrasing the terms in a personal manner) about doing that . If MTV told you otherwise then they told you wrong folks . (Always keep in mind that judging a belief that someone has /condemning the belief is NOT necessarily the same as judging or condemning the person who supports it . It is good to always keep that in mind –lest some relativist should quote the adage, “judge not that ye be not judged” *out of context* as I’ve often seen them do . Furthermore, the part about , ‘he that is without sin let him cast the first stone’ –applies to real physical stones–it does NOT apply to verbal criticism . ) Us versus them is good . It is helpful even to the them, as well as to Truth, Beauty, ect . II CULTURAL ENTROPY With those four golden axioms in mind let us turn attention to the term cultural entropy . By entropy I am NOT specifically referring to the thermodyamic context of the word entropy –but I am referencing what Webster’s On-line Dictionary apparently lists as 3. CHAOS , DISORGANIZATION Such chaos is NOT liberating . It is certainly not to be confused with the far separate creative ferment and unbouding energy of the freewheeling artist eccentric . Such chaos is NOT that –so its important that noone should equivocate , for such creative artistic ferment is NOT chaos –as some refer to it . By chaos I’m NOT referring to fractals so don’t equivocate off onto that tangent . By chaos , I’m NOT referring to the primordal stuff in ancient cosmoganies either–so don’t equivocate off into that separate topic . The CHAOS of cultural entropy is a meta-theme that subtends the various interrelated themes of death –and the glamourization of death , breakdown, dysfunctionality, polymorphous perversity, hype , fractious modes of living and thinking . In this present yuppie influenced, media -saturated era (and the yuppie subculture , by the way, is pervaded by the characteristics I just previously described and it is they who provide much of the supply and demand , in this present news and entertainment saturated state of affairs )…morbidity coupled with crass and tacky, sex- laced kitch has become the dominant motif . According to Erich Fromm , Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza once wrote of two contrasting/opposite dispositions (that a culture or a person could support). The good one to support was apparently called the biophillic . The biophillic disposition was life affirming it was enamored of living organic beings and was interested in the ferment of ideas –one would imagine vital ideas ones that were characterized by a mood of vigor of inclination . The necrophillic disposition , in contrast, was enamored of death . It was morbid …death affirming rather than life affirming . If memory serves righly, it was also pervaded by a venal liking for monetary wealth (the mystification of wealth) The collective pop culture mood fostered by the mass entertainment and news media–which has creeped into many households in this present weird yuppie decade and desensitized a lot of people into partially accepting vapid, unwholesome, dysfunctional modes of thinking and living)…is necrophiilic . After all –WHY IS THE STORY OF JON BENET RAMSEY BEING RAPED AND MURDERED FEATURED ON A PROGRAM LIKE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT ? Jon Benet Ramsey was NOT a Hollywood actress —and it’s bad enough they make sordid, weird unwholesome gossip about actual hollywood actresses that were killed or experienced tragedies –but she wasn’t even a hollywood actress nor was she a rock star ! Here is a social phenomenon so bizarre that so nmany treat AS IF it were some normal par for the course affair. Just 20 years ago , It’s a safe wager, that if Entertainment Tonight had aired a story about a little girl being raped and murdered — many of the media pundits would be dripping and spewing with shock and so would much of the general public ! 40 years ago if a t.v. entertainment show had tried to peddle lurid voyeuristic trash that gossiped about a little child being killed–it’s a safe wager that there would be so much outcry that it would be the last show such a program ever did –and the producers would have to look into chapter 11 pretty darn quick ! The proverbial frog in the kettle is already half cooked . Now creepy shows like that grotesque skanky yuppie-minded Nancy Grace Show on CNN go swimmingly in this present creepshow of a decade ! And don’t believe any postmodernist pip queak who even implies that that trend is some sort of progress it isn’t . III .THE MOST DERISIVE ADJECTIVES SEEM AN UNDERSTATEMENT . I could churn out derisive adjectives like , HIDEOUS , FIENDISHLY VAPID, SOULLESS, DEPRAVED, MEDIOCRE , SKANKY …and a host of other off the charts vehement adjectives enough to fill a giant almanaac and keep on deriding the worthless opinions of those that think it’s okay (or even almost partially okay) to bandie about sordid details of tragedies, like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, till what might seem like the 12th of never , and yet lately even the most vehement adjectives and descriptions at ther most caustic level seem like an understatement—even seem NOT nearly hard enough on these ugly worthless opinions of those that support the ugly society of the spectacle . IV .WARNING SIGNS No sooner than someone single-mindedly denounces the ugly opinions expressed by those that support the status quo of sordid sleaze and mediocrity of t.v. saturated suburbia –then all so often one or several people will play the pipsqueak and respond with these typical of this present era but no less weird, pod people responses , like saying …”well that’s just your opinion” or “don’t be so judgemental” or “look at it from another perspective” or “another side” —and similar limpwristed comments all of which are just euphemisms that try to get the person to sell out /to settle/ to accept/ to embrace the mediocrity by balancing light with a little darkness . Here are some warning signs that the person who is responding has gone over to the dark side …some tell tale phrases that evince the ugly worthless ideology called relativism . Some phrases , statements , and questions that are indicative of relativism are : the use of the term “self-righteous” to lambast those that aspire to be single minded about principles and, hence, REFUSE to sell out . Someone asking a person “are you ever wrong?”, when that person they ask is making a single-minded claim as to some value , is another warning sign of the ugly ideology of relativism being near. Someone who speaks or posts AS IF “always being right or always “having to be right” were somehow bad, is another warning sign ! Someone speaks of “finding a balance” or any sort of balance–if they speak or post of such balance with approval– on some issue where there is some crass tendency happening . Someone who speaks or posts claiming “that there is another side” on some issue or claiming that allegedly there is somehow more than one side –to an issue . Someone referring to being “preachy” AS IF being preachy were somehow undesirable is another warning sign . Someone referring to so-called “shades of grey” and claiming an issue is not black or white is another warning sign . Someone claiming that someone else is allegedly “arrogant” or “pompous” because that other person that they (falsely) accuse of being “arrogant” REFUSES to sell out/REFUSES to respect opposite beliefs , is another warning sign that the person communicating that is a relativist . Another warning sign is if a person uses the word “totalize” AS IF totalizing were something bad–which postmodernists often do . Describing people who are single-minded in outlook as “fanatics” or “fanatical” is another warning sign . Referring to being rigid AS IF it were somehow bad to be rigid (it’s NOT bad to be rigid) is another warning sign . Another warning sign is if the person accepts being conflicted as if somehow it were okay. “Learning to accept ” or “learning to adapt” or “adjust” –when people approve of such terms being applied to crass activities is another warning sign . Another warning sign is the weird tendency of some people, in recent decades, to claim “life is give and take” and apply that to even situations that are sordid, crass, or otherwise unjust. Another warning sign is the unwholsome weird tendency to refer to someone living a “sheltered life” AS IF living a sheltered life were somehow bad . Often the implicit message of speaking of the “sheltered life” AS IF it were somehow bad is to suggest that if a person hasn’t learned to accept and adapt sordid, weird thinking and ways of acting as “part of life” that there is allegedlyt something wrong with the person. The truth is those that have learned to accept sordid , arbitrary, coarse crass modes of acting –they are the one who has something wrong with them . The truth is: everybody ought to live a sheltered life. The sheltered life is good. It is weird that the sordid now has become treated as the yardstick for guaging what is tolerable . V .PEOPLE WHO DEFEND WHAT THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT . In this weird present era–there are a lot of people that don’t like superficiality , don’t like sordidness and want to foster a more nurturing , life -affirming culture , but weirdly enough among some of those people there are what might be called the ‘ambivalent progressives’ or ‘ambivalent humanitarians’ who have embraced the weird ambivalent “conflicted” outlook that is tolerant of ambiguity . Such an outlook doesn’t want to get rid of superficiality, sordidness in human affairs altogether but instead wants to settle for a sell out “balance” between what is noble/life-affirming ect, and the opposite: that which is sordid . They don’t want to get rid of the sordid altogether they just merely want to tone it down . Such a weird ambivalent ethos often wants to accept sordid modes of thinking and acting as “part of life too” . They want to ameliorate the intrinsically bad- but *not* try to get rid of it altogether . They want an ameliorated good and an ameliorated bad . They want a lukewarm , diluted middle ground between the inherently good and inherently bad . That ever so weird an weirdly automatic tendency to ameliorate the good and ameliorate the bad instead of maximizing the intrinsically good and getting rid of the intrinsically bad–that ameliorating middle of the road tendency- characterizes the spirit of this present weird age . Virtue requires that when it comes to intrinsic virtue WE SHOULD EITHER FISH OR CUT BAIT . Aside from the ownership fallacy which is also equally depraved and ridiculous , the most ridiculous notion in human history is the ever so bizarre notion that seems to think as if somehow a virtue somehow becomes a vice when taken to extremes . It does NOT ! Intrinsic Virtue when taken to extremes does NOT become a vice . Taking an intrinsic virtue to extremes means …MORE VIRTUE . It truly is that simple ! LET US THUS REFLECT ON TWO OTHER AXIOMS . AXIOM 5 : An intrinsic virtue when taken to extremes does *NOT* in any case become a vice . When an intrinsic virtue is taken to extremes it results in ….MORE VIRTUE ! The notion that an intrinsic virtue (and that is different from a mere extrinsic sort of virtue) when taken to extremes becomes a vice is a false cockamamey notion people . AXIOM 6 : Rigid consistency in mentally supporting intrinsic virtue in thought and belief is always right . That is concurrent with axiom number 5 . Yet these present days there are the ambivalent humanitarians/ the ambivalent sorts of caring people who defend what they complain about ! These people often enough often express a lot of passion and outrage and campaign for good causes —but then they wax weirdly ambivalent in thought and say stuff “well there’s another side”, and “let’s have a balance” and speak of going beyond the us versus them and want to sell out by respecting or partially respecting the opinions that are CONTRARY to good causes /contrary to an edifying society . Again an us versus them approach is GOOD –provided it is NOT based on illicit violence (and an us versus them approach does NOT always habe to lead to illicit physical violence ) Loving ones enemies does NOT to any extent involve respecting the wrong opinions they express ! i’m reminded of a young man I knew in the autum of 1997 who was a member of an animal rights group I was a member of –that in typical ambivalent MTV genration relativist fashion made the squishy namby-pamby statement to the effect of, ‘animal rights is right to us , (but for the person that supports killing animal for the sadistic fun of it ) that was somehow allegedly “right to them” ! IF SO then why bother . It is not just important that we have the right actions that support the right cause. We should also NOT be *duplicious* in belief towards supporting inwardly the right ethical causes either . Duplicious thinking betrays good ethical causes in a way that is far more fundamental in terms of meaning –then actions that do not fit the cause . Though hypocracy in terms of actions is bad–duplicity in belief is often ultimately worse –and a worse betrayal of the ethical or esthetic goal one is supposed to be striving for . The problem, by the way –is not in the complaining–the problem, by the way, is in people defending what they complain about . Complaining can be good–but don’t defend what you complain about . Be consistent . To respect the opinion of those that intentionally support that which is crass or murky , if one is disappointed by the situation supported by that opinion –is DEFENDING WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT ! (In deriding the ugly tendency of people to respect opinions they do not agree with , I am not by the way referring to the civil right of someone to express that opinion . There is a difference between respecting the civil right of someone to express an opinion no matter how worthless that opinion is –and the separate matter of respecting the opinion itself . respecting the right of somebody to express an opinion does NOT to any degree involve respecting the opinion itself . It is high time that the MTV Generation –by the way–stop glossing over that difference !) IIV .NOT A MATTER OF GOING “OVERBOARD” . Relativism is totally worthless and a culture that accepts the creepy portrayal of the rape and murder of a little girl as fodder for gossip and entertainment evinces that worthlessness . It is NOT a matter that relativism has gone overboard since relativism is intrinscally worthless and, hence, never had any good points to it to begin with . Another factor in this present era that is all so disgusting is even among some of the people that express some disapproval of relativism —there is an odd ambivalence where even some of these people want to find a middle ground between absolutism (with its high ethical and esthetic standards) and relativism.! Ladies and gentlemen, there is NO “too much ” absolutism . Such finding a middle ground between relativism and absolutism is selling out . An all or nothing approach towards the evil of relativism (and the pop culture soulless kitch it tolerates and often subtly fosters ) is long overdue. We should not talk like relativist pod people once in a while, or for a few minutes on Thursdays, and then be resolute about values the rest of the week . We should go the distance on high standards all the time. The author of this present text often is quite disgusted with himself in the past for not being resolute at times in the past, so don’t presume (as relativists sometimes weirdly do presume) that he holds himself above reproach . It is quite jarring to see even *some* people who are in the main absolutists weirdly enough make those weirdly automatic statements about so-called “different perspectives” and, occasionally (at odd intervals) get ambivalent and want to respect “points of view” …We should go all the way with absolutism go the distance . Ugly sordid opinions that endorse crass activities like media gossip , racism , wife-beating , watching something on t.v. “because there’s nothing else on” , and other murky tendencies should NEVER be respected at any hour of the day . All so many people these days have lowered standards /have “learned to accept” to be “realistic” in accepting sordid , crass situational reality . Like the men in the Dylan Thomas poem (who the poet with apparent sarcasm says and one would most likely imagine uses the term wise men –sarcastically) “know dark is right because their words had forked no lightening” , they accept /resign themselves a little …to mediocrity . We’ve got to ‘ RAGE , RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT .’ Piss on the tolerance and acceptance that allows tragedy as fodder for media gossip . Away with the respectible mainstream mediocrity of those who have learned to settle for the so called “different perspective” of duplicity .

1 I am ambivalent about drugs and drug policy, and believe that the two major effects of the federal war on drugs has been to 1) militarize law enforcement and 2) provide a sick parody of current agricultural policy by raising the street price of drugs and make the illict trade hugely profitable. However, I cannot subscribe to the "victimless crime" view of drug use, nor to the libertarian "my body" one either. Drug use is not victimless, it destroys people. If it were only the users, then I could shrug and say "you pays your money, and you makes your choice." Drug use harms and destroys people around the users as well, including people not even connected to the user by family or social ties. So while in favor of decriminalization of drugs, I cannot support any plan that would channel my tax dollars towards people's self destruction and mayhem, so no state provided fixes in my universe. Nor can i support any attitude that excuses acts committed under the influence of drugs, or in pursuit of them. On the other hand, if drug producers were engaged in a legal business, then the liability lawyers could have a crack at them.

2 But when one considers what we spend on this ineffective (and Constitutionally destructive) "war on drugs," we could pay for a hell of a lot of rehab clinics with the same number of dollars. Minimize the damand, and the supply will go down.

3 Or demand, either way. Let's minimize both. (Too lazy to go fix it!)

4 And here I thought you were making some subtle point... "damn demand?" And I don't buy the financial shifting argument (but if we spent the same amount...) I didn't like it at all in the early nineties when people were talking about the "Peace Dividend" because the same people were claiming we were bankrupting our children's future with a military we could not afford. Oh, so the money we can't afford on defense should be instead spent on social programs? If we can't afford it, we can't. Afford. It. My ex had a similar theory in her personal finances. If she decided against buying an item that we couldn't afford, that meant that she could instead spend the same amount of money we didn't have on something else. Anyway, that is not the whole gist of my objection, although not spending the money at all and letting taxpayers keep it, or else having it devolve from the Feds to state and local government is more appealing to me. Transferring the funds from trying vainly to stop the traffic and simply spending it on the results of the traffic doesn't appeal to me. And any social engineering solution is probably going to involve me subsidising a person's habit and another person's treatment. It'd be a lot tidier if hard drugs made you feel really great for about ten seconds and then killed you. And caused the corpse to diasappear. Oh well. Maybe we should set up an island somewhere for druggies, offer a free one way ticket to it to anyone on demand, and impose the death penalty on anybody distributing drugs anywhere off that island. And if anyone is going to accuse me of being hard hearted, yeah, okay. I've seen way too many people destroyed to weep for abstract victims. Right now my inclination would be a hands of, laissez faire approach. It isn't illegal, all other criminal penalties apply, and nobody spends a dime of tax money on it again. Which I know is unrealistic and unworkable.

1 At my office we have a custom computer application that gives a unique number to all cases we input (does not include traffic or direct file citations that go directly to court)... Yesterday the count rolled 62,000 for this year to date. The majority is pretty mundane petty and stupid stuff - DUI, petty theft, drug charges ... but way too much is the stuff that makes one want to build a cabin in the wilderness and barricade it against the world.

2 One of the reasons I always write about people defending themselves is that I want people to realize that they can take some action to ensure their own safety. There are no guarantees, but that doesn't mean that you should not try to defend yourself and your family. Too much of our culture preaches "you are not responsible." You are responsible for your actions. If you try and fail, that just means you are human, but if you fail to even try then have problems. And taking some action improves your chance of survival many times.

1 Hmmm. Seems a bit of an overreaction to say that the only reason people are criticizing the assignment of the particular court guard in question is because she is a woman. She's a grandmother. I mean, really. She has a child who has a child. I'm not in favor of refusing a woman a particular post because she is a woman. But if she's statistically bound to inadequacy? Sure thing. I prefer my rapists behind bars, and my innocent bystanders and civil servants bullet-free.

2 That's my point: gender is not the sole summary of a person's qualifications for a post, even one that requires upper-body strength. There were plenty of things that went wrong in Atlanta, and as some of Michelle Malkin's commenters have pointed out, a lot of them were procedural: many men could have been overcome in the situation in question.

3 Woman, man, or oragutan noone should have been alone with this violent brute. There should have been 2 other officers there as backup. I live just outside of Atlanta and fulton county is notorious for these kinds of screwups. They are so understaffed it's pathetic. Fulton county commissioners misallocate so much of the revenue they can't protect there people. It's beyond rediculous, it's criminal.

4 What is the gender, race and I.Q. of the watch commander and the Sheriff?

5 I have a few guesses about the first and the last. Don't care about the middle one.

6 Late to the party here but allow a few observations. Take a look at the Officers or Deputies on duty the next time you're in the courthouse. Notice how much older they are than the onces you see on the street? An unfortunate fact of life is that bugetary limitations mean that people who don't begin their law enforcement careers until their late twenties won't be eligible for their full pensions until they're near their sixties. Courthouse duty is one of the jobs that LEOs are put into when age, illness or injury make them unable to handle the footchasing and brawling that are part of policing. That Deputy could have been a six foot, once strong man. I worked with several that got relegated to court duty, one was all ate up with cancer, one didn't go into the job until his thirties, with 28 years in he was holding out for his thrity year pension. I myself worked the courtrooms a couple of times, once the county couldn't really afford to pay me through the full year's recovery from knee surgery, another after I broke more ribs than anyone ought to have totalling a county cruiser. Neither time could I have chased down or beat down a Nichols for love nor money. I depended on the Armed Deputies for that. The culprit in this case is Nichols. The jackasses that made the whole goatscrew possible were the clowns that were supposed to be watching those video monitors. It's worse than we thought, according to the best I can piece it together. Nichols didn't snatch Deputy Granmaw's gun out of her holster. He overpowered her, took her keys, strolled to the gunlocker, found the right locker, unlocked it, got the gun, strolled to the courtroom, blew three people away, waltzed out to the street, lit up another Deputy, all while the jackasses at the security desk ignored the monitors in front of them. Then he pistol whipped a reporter, took his car, parked it right there, walked to the train station and got away. Then, nobody from the law enforcement agencies looked at the parking garage crime scene and for thirteen hours, until a civilian found the green Honda, they were looking for the wrong car. Sure, blame Deputy Granmaw. Ask me, that whole crowd should be standing on the roadside with signs. "Will write tickets for food." Trouble is, the whole lot put together ain't worth a donut, without sprinkles. Bunch of waterheads set back the idea of law enforcement as a profession back about forty years. Oops. Sorry, LMA, those few observations turned into a rant.

7 That's the point. Procedures were lax enough in terms of how he was actually handled, and then the people who were supposed to be watching over things weren't. What do you want to bet no one gets fired for this, or only one person does? I like your image of them standing by the roadside. That would make me . . . well, almost happy.

1 Who is William Teach & what have you done with Attila Grrrl??

2 Pirates are proliferating throughout the 'sphere. We are boarding all the good ships and taking over. She asked me to guest blog a couple days.

1 Dang......I thought it was Freemasons & Women Voters...

2 No, but it was the same people who did JFK.

3 Well if I contunie using the Onion as my main source for reliable news that would mean Jack the Ripper was..."the CIA, the Mafia, Castro, LBJ, the Teamsters, & the Freemasons," with the prostitutes stabbed "129 Times From 43 Different Angles." What the Onion isn't credible?

4 By jove, i think she's got it!

5 Good thinking! It was 'enry 'iggins!

6 Sounds perfectly plausible to me. And how did she come by that time machine? It's a well-known fact that Mr Hainey sold several spacetime dimentional portals down in Pixley and he did call on the Douglas farm from time to time...