Liberal Wacko, Montana Division


The Republican mindset…
July 2, 2006, 1:29 am
Filed under: Fear

“I hope our nation’s liberties won’t spell our demise.”

Headline from Neil Cavuto’s “Common Sense” of Fox News.

Nothing more need be said.

Advertisements

11 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Yes, they will. The fact that we give people the right to believe anything they want, even if that belief is about taking other peoples right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness away, then we just might. Perhaps we ARE too liberal. Perhaps we SHOULD draw a line somewhere. When folks decide that a certain segment of our population are here just to take a way the rights of other, perhaps we should stand up.

Examples:

Nazis wanting to be rid of the Jews
KKK wanting to be rid of the blacks
Republicans wanting to be rid of the homosexuals

Where do you draw the line? It must be somewhere.

Comment by Shane C Mason

Did they change the headline? Were you making a paridy? Now it says “Will Our Decency Spell Our Demise?”

Comment by Shane C Mason

Did they change the headline? Were you making a parody? Now it says “Will Our Decency Spell Our Demise?”

Comment by Shane C Mason

Yes, they changed it.

Must’ve realized how foolish it was.

Comment by Wacko Lib

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

This is the basic premise of Occam’s Razor. Though usually applied to Scientific research, the theory has found it’s way into all facets of life.

In this particular instance, the theory should be used to explain why the very liberties we have and protect will be our ultimate undoing.

Until the “rights movements” of the 60’s where challenging the law became sport, the law was taken at its simplest form. In today’s world the law is looked at, then dissected and rearranged to produce the desired equation. This is perhaps a knee jerk reaction to the heinous crimes committed in the name of the “law” in the past. It still should not change the basic precepts of the law, as we know it.

Gitmo aside- this total lack of concern for the basics has caused great concern in the legal communities. Until the The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination, any statement, at any time uttered by the suspect could be held against him.

While the law before the Miranda descion may seem harsh, it did cut to the heart of the matter. If a criminal confessed, he was adjudicated on this comfession and he was punished for the crime commited.

In today’s world, the leaving behind of the basic findings of law have provided an atmosphere of unpresedented “freedom” for the suspect.

A caae in point is the recent one involving John Cooey of Florida. Mr Cooey, a known and registered sex offender was in violatoin of his porale and did willingly kidnap, assualt and rape and bury alive his neighbors grand child. When comfronted with the crimes during his interigation, Mr Cooey did ask for legal representation and then did, before the attorney arrived, confess to the act, spelling out in great detail the horrors inflicted on the girl.
The confession was recorded and the process of his reincarceraton had begun.

His reincarceratioinhas now been mired as the confession must be thrown out. When Mr Cooey asked for an attorney the correct issue would have been to terminate the interigation. The officers did not and instead let Mr Cooey ramble on with his confession.

I know there will be those that argue that it is correct under the 5th ammendment to exponge Mr Cooeys confession, but I ask, does the lack of council present denegrate the fact that he commited the act and was willing to say so?

The Gitmo issue will be touchy as people are polarized on the “war” itself. I will not get into the legal or ethical variance in whether or not the “war” is or is not.

The simplest issue about Gitmo is that the people (enemy combatants) contained there have known conncetions to a group of people that have repeatly attacked us (see USS COLE, the embassy and Marine barrack attacks, and the two bombings of the World trades). This “enemy” enjoys none of the particualr restraints that we do, either morally or ethically. This enemy can not be attributed to any one nation so that nation could be held accountable for their actions.

For right or wrong, Gitmo is very much like the internment camps of the 40’s for the Asian popluation in the U.S.. The one striking difference here is that the people that were interned in the camps in the 40’s probably didn’t have much, if any, connection to anyone in Asia at the time. The people at Gitmo do have known ties to people involved with still trying to do us harm.

So I ask, though it may seem like paranoia, under the principles of “take the simplest form” don’t we have the right to protect ourselves more than they have the right to harm us?

Always, Miranda

Comment by Miranda mouse

We must protect ourselves. No question. But we have the obligation to set the standard to which other nations should aspire. There are several cases of men held at gitmo who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. One man was held for 2 years, told his captors (in perfect english) that he could prove that he was not a terrorist, if they would just give him access to legal representation. In the end, his story checked out and he was released. Two years of his life, gone.
We do not stand to fail because of our freedoms or decency. If we fail it will be because we give in to our fears.
Every time we lose a bit of freedom, torture someone, change our way of life, etc. to prevent terrorism, they have won.

That is why it is called terrorism.

Don’t be afraid. I’m not, and I am a whimpy little liberal.

Comment by Wacko Lib

Miranda,

You are missing a very important point about Occams Razor. We use it as a guiding principal in artificial intelligence programming all the time, so I have pondered on it a great deal. It is ussually stated as “All things equal, prefer the simplest”. There is a VERY important distinction here, ALL THINGS MUST BE EQUAL or Occams Razor doe NOT apply.

Losing our rights in order to protect a way of life? The simple act of giving up liberties has already changed the way of life you are trying to protect! This line of thought is equivalent to saying

“I am going to scratch my eyes out to make sure I don’t go blind”

Does that make any sense? No, it doesn’t.

Comment by Shane C Mason

My dearest Lib,
On this we partially agree.
A speedy trial has long been a soapbox for me.

The case(s) you speak of should have been quickly adjudicated and these men allowed to return to their lives. Anything less is indeed a travesty.

Unfortunately I have seen both sides in the legal world use “time” to drag out a case until it suits them. I take the scientific view instead of the attorney’s view, you either have the evidence or you don’t… if you don’t, no matter what you think about the person before you, he must be set free. Attorneys I have come in contact with (both for and against the accused) hate it when I pull out the “basic reasoning clause.” From the scientific side, we are very black and white, it’s either there or it’s not.
I would be curious to see why this case(s) was not cleared quickly…

The next point I must speak on is I believe there is confusion about my post. In reading Mr. Cavuto’s commentary, I derived he was talking about the way in which bad people will use our system of decency against us.

I was not speaking merely of the people at Gitmo, but the legal system in general. In today’s’ world we can see the bending of rules and regulations to achieve whatever the desired goal is.

This is why I brought up John Cooey. Even though he confessed and they had him dead to rights on the issue, his attorney used “a legal loophole ” to maneuver a change in the direction of the case.

We could also apply it (the changing of the rules to fit the question) to current members of the House and Senate that are under investigation in the wake of the Abramoff scandal.

In this case, there are laws that have been broken, but attorney’s for the accused (read Conrad and others) are saying that it (the law on the books) doesn’t apply to us because the law states X, Y and Z and we only did X and Y. Because all facets hadn’t been met, doesn’t change the fact these men are still guilty in their dealings with Mr. Abramoff.

Again, what I derived from the commentary was that bad people will use the system however they wish to get the desired affect. And in this, I believe he is correct in his basic argument. Bad people do not think as you or I do. The very system we use to protect ourselves has become their playground for wrecking havoc.

Shane, in considering your statements I did return to the actual clause and though I will not attempt to get into a war of semantics with you, I would suggest that originally Occam’s Razor was a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.

Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

No where in the original tenets does it say that all things must be equal- it is a minimalist theory and suggests that if we look at problem and make the answer to the question too difficult then we have not taken the simplest route.

Perhaps in the programing world there are added maxims that have changed the basic precepts of the original tenet.

In it’s strict form, it prohibits irrelevant assumptions in a given theory, and is justified by the fact that all assumptions introduce possibilities for error. If an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to make the theory more error-prone, and since error is undesirable in any theory, unnecessary assumptions should be avoided.

One of my professors used this analagy, if you have a dead body and a reasonable suspect, why should you think that the mob did the killing?

And again, I am not suggesting that we should surrender any of our rights, I was suggesting that the very rights and liberties that we enjoy will be used by those that seek to do us harm as they are not bound by the same codes of morals and decency that we are.

Ever Always, your Miranda 🙂

Comment by Miranda mouse

Miranda, well said.

I was suggesting that the very rights and liberties that we enjoy will be used by those that seek to do us harm as they are not bound by the same codes of morals and decency that we are.

Yes, this is correct. Decent people see their decency used against them all the time. Just ask Al Gore. We should remember that this happens all the time and is not a valid reason to give up our decent.

On the matter of Occams razor, we should remember that the full text of it is:

“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

or:

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”
“Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”

As you said, eliminating those (assumptions) that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

That means that if two possible decision-paths to problem solving produce equal results, prefer the simpler. Correct? I like this a lot and want to thank you for our brief discussion on it. 🙂

Comment by Shane C Mason

What do we have here? A Democrat and a Republican discussing their opinions? Without name calling, insults, or anger?

Progress.

Something you won’t find over at WoRM.

Comment by wacko

My dearest lib and Shane,
Indeed it was a grand discussion! I enjoyed it and we should do it more often 🙂
I wish both you and Shane a Happy and safe 4th!
Looking forward to more of this!
Ever always, your Miranda……
PS….. I did see conservative colors in you today my dearest…… Hippies….. you made me laugh! Mouse

Comment by Miranda mouse




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: