The Unexpected Virtue of Punishment

I hope Trump fails.

I know it's the popular, banal wisdom of the masses to say that they hope, despite everything, that he turns out to be a good President.

Some of these people say that it's too early to tell and we should just give him a chance, that maybe he'll surprise us.

Some of these people say that they don't want the ills of a failed presidency to be borne by the people.

Some of these people say that it's for patriotic reasons, that they don't want to root against America, regardless of who her leader is.

Most of these people are inclined to regurgitate any weak-hearted, feeble-minded ecumenical bullshit that neatly dodges any responsibility, accountability, or critical thought.

Not I.

First, let's be perfectly clear. Donald Trump is not going to be a good President. The people who elected Donald Trump do not want a good President. Nothing Donald Trump has said or done has given the slightest indication to the contrary. If your plan is to just give him a chance and hope for the best, instead of getting a passport and moving your investments overseas, then you're well behind the curve already and his administration is going to hit you like a gold-plated slab of marble.

These low expectations are, in large part, what propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP ticket in 2016. Every other candidate from both major parties was compared against a Presidential standard. If Trump, however, could make it an hour without using a racial slur or literally throwing his feces at his opponents, he was considered to have "done well" in the debates.

And that's the problem, here.



Nobody expects Donald Trump to be a good President. Nobody voted for him because he is Presidential. They voted for him, to borrow a metaphor, as a Molotov cocktail thrown through the window of the establishment. He will not surprise anyone except by virtue of the increasing obscenity of each successive scandal.

Because Donald Trump is a punishment, his administration is not going to be held up to a standard fitting the leadership of one of the world's most powerful and influential nations. The standard for a "successful" Donald Trump presidency is much, much lower: If there is still a country in four years, the conservative idiots on Breitbart and company will decry "liberal doomsaying" as "overblown", and we can fully expect Americans to shrug and pull the lever for four more years.

Anything better than an absolute disaster is not a success. Yet this is the handicap Donald Trump plays with.

Trump's policies are going to gut our industry, the dollar, our education, our health, our foreign standing, and our alliances, and he is guaranteed two years in which to work basically unobstructed. If this plan is fully enacted, America will lose her superpower status by the end and, given what the state of our workers and our education will be, it may be generations before we can dream of recovering it. NATO, the EU and possibly even the UN will be on their way to joining the League of Nations in the history books. America's enemies will be strengthened and emboldened by the decline of American and western power. We will be baited, by virtue of our thin-skinned and short-tempered and myopic Commander in Chief into unwinnable and unpopular conflicts across the globe. Trump and his cronies will walk away richer, the office of President will be forever disgraced, and the people of America will be greatly impoverished in nearly every way.

The real kicker is that these policies are going to hurt worst those people in the areas that voted overwhelmingly for Trump - which is to say, that there is only justice in the world if Trump does what any thinking person expects him to attempt.

This is the essential accountability to which the American voter must be held. As the rural south and the blue collar rust belt suffer disproportionately to the modest discomforts experienced by the liberal urban strongholds, the mantra must be "You asked for this. You wanted punishment." This must be internalized by the voters because it was the apathy of the voters that led to the failure of our institutions which installed this incompetent, unqualified, puppet of a leader. If we are to impress upon Americans the importance of voting and voting well, it is essential that Americans feel the full impact of their decision to vote out of spite, or out of ignorance, or with their gut, or to not vote at all.

The Constitution, the Electoral College, and the Congress which all contain measures to prevent people like Trump from achieving office failed, and these are deep flaws which must be corrected. They would not have had the opportunity to fail, however, had the voters themselves not failed in their civic duties.

Simply put, if you are throwing support behind Trump in the name of "unity" and "patriotism" you are mistaken. You cannot be both for the strength, security and welfare of this nation and your fellow citizens, and be for what Trump advances. There is no patriotism in hoping for a Trump success.

And so, in order to avoid eight years of the incredible and possibly irreversible damage even partial success will create, America needs a wake-up call. She needs the worst two years in living memory to get voters to remove the GOP from the legislature and thereby muzzle Trump. Given the high likelihood of outright, flagrant criminal activity from this administration, we must be prepared for the anguish of an impeachment.

Trump must fail. It is not unpatriotic to root against him, it is not unjust to expect the people to bear the weight of this failure, and it is not unrealistic to expect that he will fail though he has been President less than a day.

Trump's failure is the penance that must be paid to preserve this nation and her place in the world.

Trump and the Punishment of America

Throughout this whole Trump debacle, I've been fascinated by a prominent phenomenon among his so-called supporters: the idea of Trump as a means of revenge against progressivism and liberalism.

You see it in posts like "Share this picture to piss off a liberal" or "Trump won because of [political correctness/safe spaces/liberal stereotype of choice]". Never mind that Trump got the fewest votes of any Republican candidate in 16 years, meaning that his victory was not a reaction against liberalism, but a failure of Democrats to vote.

Emphasis added.
"It's time for things to suck for you" is the message here.

What's interesting about this mindset, and why I say it is held by "so-called" Trump supporters, is that it means that these people agree that Trump is a shitty person and will almost certainly be a shitty President.

In fact, they hope he will be a shitty President.These people do not want a good President. They did not choose a candidate who will be just, empathetic, intelligent, or measured. They did not choose to run the best conservative. They chose to run the worst.

They want punishment.

They want punishment so badly that they nominated a person solely on the grounds that he is regressive, infantile, puerile, crass, coarse, and conniving. They chose these things because to punish America for what it has become - for what progress has built. They don't care that, by punishing all of America solely to "get back" at liberals, they are going to punish themselves. They don't care that Trump's plans are going to be more disastrous for the red states than they will be for the blue. What matters is that the blue states hurt, just a little, and that conservatives hurt them.

Thin Blue Lifeline.

I saw one of those uplifting, good news type stories in my news feed today:

Police officer picks up tab for the groceries a desperate mother tried to STEAL to feed her struggling family

I re-shared it for a couple reasons.

First, it's awfully popular to hate on the police. I understand that what they do is often unpopular, and very few of us ever have or take the opportunity to have a pleasant encounter with the thin blue line. In a larger sense, this is true of everything we do. We can be model employees, but a single fuckup is what our bosses will tend to remember. So it is important that we take time to remember that these individuals have taken a job that they know is unpopular, that doesn't pay well, and is dangerous, almost universally out of a sense of service. It is also important to remember that most of them retain that sense of service and community; and to remind ourselves in positive ways why it is that such a profession exists. The watchman doesn't just repel dangers, but checks in to ensure our well being. Which leads to my second reason:

This is exactly what the police ought to do.

I'm not saying buy groceries for folk, that was an act of charity above and beyond the duties of an officer. But it is an indicator of how the officer ought to view their role and act within that role, and that role is as a member of the community.

I've heard people wax nostalgic about the days when the cops that walked a beat in your neighborhood knew your name. I am wary of nostalgia, but this is a worthwhile goal. It fosters a sense of connection between the officers and their charges. It enhances community appreciation of the police. It means that there are enough police to have them walking about and knowing their areas and the people within them.

I'm writing about this news item here for a third reason. A while ago I opined on nullification, and made the point that while the police ought not to have de jure powers of nullification, the realities of law enforcement give them such powers de facto. This good news story is an example of this de facto nullification: the law requires that the woman, a thief, should be arrested and punished; in most cases the law is perfectly logical and therefore should remain standing. However, the officer took the time to consider the situation and chose not to enforce the law, because in this specific situation the effect of doing so would have been beyond negative. This officer, rather than act without imagination, did the right thing without the waste of time, money, and paper that would go into legislating every conceivable exception that can or ought to be made to the law.

The Difference Between Retreat and Tactical Withdrawal

In a disappointing turn of events today, Brad Manning was acquitted of what was arguably the most important charge leveled against him: Aiding and Abetting the Enemy.

This means that he has dodged a minimum mandatory life sentence, though this could (and arguably, should) be a matter of semantics. The full weight of the crimes for which he has been found guilty carry a combined sentence of well over a hundred years.

This is assuming that the sentences are not served concurrently.

As my opening statement made abundantly clear, I have no love or respect for Manning. I remain hopeful that he spends the rest of his life behind bars. Furthermore, I am hopeful that his acquittal on the charge of primary importance was politically motivated to create advantages for the preservation of Information Security.

Edward Snowden is currently seeking, and has received a limited version of, political asylum. The Russians, who currently hold his fate in their hands, have so far protected him on two grounds: First, that they feel the United States have been unduly harsh on perceived whistleblowers (no doubt a reference to the trial of Manning). Second, that they have no extradition treaty with the United States. While this second point will require some considerable political maneuvering, the first provides the crux of whether or not Snowden will receive asylum.

By acquitting Manning, the issue of leaks has been depoliticized. Manning and Snowden are now simply at risk of punishment for crimes which the whole world, themselves included, admit committing. Intelligence is a sacred lifeline for all nations, and no self-respecting government can brook a threat to the security of their secrets.

This is surely not lost on the Russians, whose protection of Snowden has no end other than the pique of the United States. However, all nations have a public face to present, and so in order to be the guardians of order and righteousness which they proclaimed in their issuance of partial protection to Snowden, they will be put in a tough spot by the news that Manning is officially not a traitor. If they do not return Snowden, the grounds for asylum are also now clearly not present, and Snowden may have to find himself in places where less political power can be brought to bear in his defense.

A similar case may also be found in Julian Assange, who has managed to hide himself away in an embassy in London lest he face extradition. The whole of Europe, who fretted over the injustice of his possible fate as a spy in the United States, now has no reason to worry and therefore no reason to sour relations with the United States over a single muckraker, hacker, and thief.

All told, I am hopeful that my disappointment will turn into a greater overall victory as we are able to thoroughly and without hindrance persecute and prosecute these traitors and spies who proclaim "anti-secrecy" and once again establish the rule of law and order in our Intelligence communities.

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are."
-William Tecumseh Sherman

The Mad Jack Takes On Michael Shanklin

Collected from elsewhere on the internet, these were my comments to Mr. Shanklin regarding his naïve anarchistic beliefs. All anarchism is unrealistic, but his ideas regarding every person being subject to no law other than that which they choose for themselves was especially appalling in its sheer, blind idiocy.

---

"So what you are saying is that you are someone who would gladly force your will on others, murder for profit, and ensure that NO ONE is free just as long as you are getting something in return?" etc, etc, ad nauseam ...
I love how good you anarchists are at making stuff up. It must be wonderful to have such active imaginations and such a detailed fantasy world to live in.
In fact, I believe quite the opposite. Which is why I am no anarchist and I do not support a stateless society. Anarchy and Statelessness are only possible in a world filled with a type of person that is actually so rare in reality that it is almost fair to say that the advocates of such "systems" are experiencing an almost total disconnect from reality. The truly amusing thing is that for everyone to be "free" absent a state, all ambition, striving and competition will have to be somehow culled from the race: in reality, an anarchist or stateless society would collapse as soon as the first punch is thrown.
That is, anarchy is more dependent on "sheeple" for "success" (for what success is there to be had without striving and ambition?) than any other government concept in the history of man.
Until sociopathy is cured, until there are no jerks left in the world, until a way of imbuing each generation with a total and homogenous sense of morality is accomplished, anarchy and/or statelessness is impossible. And as the proud and rather arrogant owner of certain qualities, such as ambition and a general disregard for useless people; it makes me happy to say that there will be no anarchy or statelessness within my lifetime.
"Once people take the time to research dispute resolution organizations and competing law, they will realize how it is the future ..."
A person who attends Berkeley is more likely to have liberal ideas, a person who attends Georgetown more likely to have conservative ideas. I suppose if you spend all your time reading fantasies, you're more likely to be an anarchist.
Your arguments aren't arguments at all, Shanklin. Simply declarations. "It will NOT be as you say! It will be GLORIOUS!" and waiting for your choir to shout "Amen! Preach it Brother!" behind you. Which I suppose might be construed as an argument to popularity, but I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and not invent things whole cloth the way your friends, such as Mr. Mathewson, have been doing.
You say we need education? Educate us. But I don't believe your system has what it takes to suffer dissent and come out ahead. It takes a society full of anarchists to make an anarchist society, and that sounds like the very antithesis of freedom of thought to me.
Especially given what I've seen of anarchists and their intolerance and hysterical decrial of anything that's NOT anarchy ...since I support some form of a state, I must constitute a threat to your freedom, no? Does that or does that not make me a target for any "freedom fighter" out there who wishes to silence my voice? If it does not, what law will avenge me when cooler heads do not prevail?
If I and people like me are allowed to live, your statelessness will collapse. If we are murdered for the sake of your precious homogeny of thought, then statelessness never was.

---

The following was my next post in the discussion.

---

"Murderers would be sought much harder in a free society"
By what law or right? You simply declare it to be so when in fact you have no support for your declaration. They may be pursued harder, but will they be pursued fairly? Who is to guarantee that the right person is pursued? Who is to prevent the phrase "Dead or Alive" (or simply "Dead") from preventing a person seeing trial?
What happens when Posse X, hired by Grieving Widow A, encounters Posse Y, hired to protect Suspect B? With no law, there is nothing illegal about it. It might be immoral, but that hasn't stopped anyone's dollars from buying force, violence, and coercion, which will be valuable and highly sought commodities on an open market. What happens when Posse X is a group of folks who hunt as their day job and take bounties for the general welfare; but Posse Y is a company by the name of Blackwater? After the shootout, has justice been served?
By what law or right does the killing finally stop?
I'm a fan of Westerns, too, but I understand why the people of Texas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, etc, were glad to have real law come about at the turn of the century.
"Government is coercion, and unneeded."
More declarations. I've got one of my own:
Any reasonable study of human history and nature will reveal that total freedom and lawlessness are unsupportable systems. What then arises is the pragmatic issue of What and How Much freedom it is necessary to sacrifice in order for everyone to maximize the amount enjoyed by the largest number of people.

Jury Duty

Collected from my online exploits.

---

Jury duty's certainly a pain in the ass (I get called every year. No exceptions. And I usually spend the whole day there) but if we accept the premises that:

1) Some form and quantity of government exceeding zero is necessary to maximizing liberty;
2) One of governments legitimate functions is adjudication of disputes and the enforcement of law;
3) A government may take what measures are necessary to effectively fulfill its obligations and perform its functions;
4) A public trial before our peers is at least sometimes a desireable method of conducting such adjudication; and
5) People hate listening to other people talk about their problems;

Then the case becomes easy to make that jury duty is no misnomer and while we need not be happy to have to deal with the inconvenience, we are better off overall for it.

Jurors and Law Enforcement

Another short essay collected from my exploits on the World Wide Web, this time on the topic of whether or not the Police should be given the same powers of nullification granted to jurors.

---

I think that denying the police such license, which by corollary binds them to strict enforcement of the law, is in fact a desireable thing.

Our current legal system is constructed in such a way that we enjoy a number of very important boons.

First, there exist limits placed on the exercise of government. Namely, that all government, from the Fed all the way down to Buttsex, Kansas City Council are bound to conduct themselves in a constitutional manner. (Nevermind whether it actually happens 100% of the time, that's a different discussion)

Second, what laws are passed that are not delineated in the constitution are passed either by the citizens or their proxies; hence the designation of the United States as a Republic, as we all remember (or at least, ought to remember) from our civics classes.

Third, there are limits that apply to the powers held by the citizens and their proxies; these limits prevent mob rule from overriding basic rights or in certain cases using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. As Justice Walker opined in his ruling on California's Proposition 8 last August:

"The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives." It is within this construction that I frame my arguments. Less enlightened or fair systems suffer their own flaws which do not necessarily find their solutions in my argument, yada yada keep it in context =)

Our legal system is not perfect and has, at various times, been unfair to various peoples for various reasons. What it does offer, however, is a methodology whereby both the power-hunger of the leaders and the fanatical fear/greed of the populace are held in check. If we hold that such irrational or frankly malicious desires being held in check is a good thing, then it follows that nullification should not be the purview of police officers.

I will further argue that even if nullification is not granted, then to an extent it still is granted, nonetheless. This isn't a contradiction, it is just a juxtaposition of the legal/pragmatic reality vs. the real-reality, if that makes any sense. I'm getting ahead of myself, more on that later.

The idea of the police having powers of nullification is demonstrably different from jurors having that same ability. A police officer is one man; a jury is twelve. A crime is an act in progress, a constantly evolving scenario; a trial is a presentation of evidence on the past - understood to be immutable; a police officer is charged with the enforcement of the law; a jury is charged with its interpretation. From these differences, we derive that a jury nullification is built from a consensus of the citizenry, who are themselves a sort of representation of that same citizenry in much the same manner as a legislator. They are hearing facts and evidence and weighing the merits of a person, of a case, of a law and of a sentence and as such their opinion is neither the subject of whim nor of subjectivity.

Further, the decision of the jury is subject to review by additional courts and, often, additional juries. Appeal is a luxury of the courts that an officer does not have.

When such broad powers are granted to lone individuals, as police officers are, subjectivity once again becomes a factor. The case for nullification is easy to make when the law in question is possesion of a dime bag of marijuana. But that sword cuts both ways: what about the officer who opposes CA Prop 215 (which are plethora in my home county), or the officer who opposes the Civil Rights Act or any number of other liberty granting legislation?

What about laws regarding what weapons it is appropriate for an officer to carry; or when it is appropriate for an officer to use them?

By handing the power of nullification to single people, as you would be doing with police officers, you would, in reality, create tiny little dictatorships along every beat subject to whatever the whims and fancies of your local officer on that shift might be. And while some of us would be blessed enough to have our own local Tony Ryan, at least as many would be under the whip of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

If the power of nullification extends to individual precincts or departments, but not to individual officers, then you have simply created - or if not created, certainly augmented - a special interest group whose interests and powers would readily exceed those of the citizenry who are supposed to constitute their charges and employers. Bills that would increase or decrease their workloads (e.g. criminalizing or decriminalizing various activities) would be subject to their approval; as would budgeting and hiring.

It is in our best interests to have the officers bound to the laws as we, the citizenry, pass and interpret them. In such a manner, we have power over the exercise of force used in enforcing them.

I mentioned in my brief digression above that nullification would exist anyway, and here is what I mean: As it stands, many officers will overlook certain crimes in favor of enforcing more important ones anyway. Few officers will harrass a couple of teenagers breaking curfew when a bar brawl breaks out. This sort of prioritizing is a matter of course with police; the upside is that, should an officer take undue liberties with his judgement there is recourse for any negligence.

Moderate Justice for an Extremist in a Conservative State

Scott Roeder was sentenced to life-imprisonment today for murdering Dr. George Tiller, one of a precious few late-term abortion providers in the country. Dr. Tiller was killed while serving as an usher at his church.

Roeder defended his murder as "justifiable homicide," claiming that, by killing the doctor, he was saving the lives of countless babies. Had his argument succeeded, it would be arguably legal to begin killing hard-line religious extremists, because if they were permitted to live they would no doubt perpetrate many such murders of abortion and birth-control providers and cause even further suffering and death by forcing women to the nightmares of "back alley" services.

The Court and the citizens of Kansas who heard his case are to be lauded for not only rejecting his argument outright, but for handing down the harshest permissible sentence for this dangerous, fanatical zealot. While the issue of abortion is still far from resolved in this country, and especially in the Bible Belt, it is comforting to know that the abhorrent acts advocated and perpetrated by Roeder, the Army of God, and their ilk are unwanted and actively rebuked by their peers.

In the unlikely event that Scott Roeder should survive his sentence and be approved for parole, he will be released from prison at the age of 103, hopefully to a world where his hate and his cause has been wholly abolished and he can die alone, utterly defeated to the last.

Rest in Peace, Dr. George Tiller. Take what comfort there is in the fact that Justice has been served and the bloodshed is done.

Whatsoever a Man Soweth, That Shall He Also Reap

Evil is easy.

It is easier to steal than to earn, to force than to convince, to rape than to seduce. It is easier to look the other way when you see these things happening. It is hard to stay honest, truthful, and moral. It is hard to have empathy for strangers, a sense of duty to self and society, and integrity in the face of temptation. It is hard to turn and face evil and stop it.

Evil is the path of least resistance, the low road, a gently downward sloping path. Evil does not need proponents, advocates, supporters or proselytizers to thrive. All evil needs is for people to do nothing. Do nothing, and a serial killer can terrorize a neighborhood until he dies of old age. Do nothing, and gangs control whole cities. Do nothing, and corruption consumes the police. Do nothing, and we have Ayatollahs, Pinochets, Pol Pots, Kim Il Sungs, Idi Amins, and Hitlers taking power.

Good requires active dedication. Every day, good is presented challenges and temptations. To be good demands that we choose, consciously, every minute and every second, to do the right thing. It is more than choosing not to do the wrong thing. The right choice is often difficult, unpleasant, and unpopular.

And so, there will always be evil in this world.

Always.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared to deal with evil. A good person will not initiate force against people, but that means nothing to an evil person. It is said that "War is the result of failed diplomacy," and the axiom scales to a personal level, too. What can peaceful measures accomplish when peace is the last thing in your opponents mind? When evil people attempt to threaten us with force to their whims, the only appropriate response is the threat of force. When force is applied, the only appropriate responce is force. When that force is violence, the only appropriate response is violence. When that force is deadly, the only appropriate response is death.

It is necessary, then, to be prepared for violence. A good person will not initiate force against people, but it is a duty of all people to stop force and avoid escalation Violence must be employed to stop violence until the desire to act evilly and violently has been destroyed and not one iota longer. We meet force with force so long as the will to fight exists in our enemies. In this way, evil acts are met immediately with retribution. In this way does evil beget its own punishment.

This is no mean excercise, no abstract experiment. If you are approached by a mugger, surrendering your wallet is only certain of encouraging the activity further. That mugger will rob again. Surrendering your wallet does not even guarantee your safety. This is how inaction permits evil to thrive.

Rather, suppose you met the threat with appropriate force. At the production of whatever weapon accompanies his demand for your wallet, you instead reach for a pistol*. If the mugger's hands go up, call the police. No further violence is needed. If not, the mugger's life is forfeit. The right thing to do is to continue shooting until the mugger no longer has the will or ability to fight - whichever comes first**. It is paramount that you stop shooting once the threat is neutralized: to kill a wounded person in the heat of passion is no more excusable than to steal at gunpoint. On the other hand, at no point should you take dangerous cautions to preserve that criminal's life. If the situation appears at any point that, of the two of you, one will likely die, it is imperative that every effort be made that it is not your life given up.

And what of stumbling across the commission of a crime? We exist in a society, nothing happens in a vacuum. Evil anywhere is a threat everywhere, and it is therefore our duty to address and meet the evil of others, whether by police or vigilante action, where ever it is encountered. Some months ago I wrote of a series of violent episodes wherein I proponed the idea that we must all take a stand to improve the society in which we live. The same is true of evil and violence as it is of ill mannered people: their behavior is only rewarding if it is permitted, and it is permitted so long as nothing is done to stop it. We have a duty to confront evil. The morality of the victim is irrelevant: the commission of violence must be met with instant retribution whenever possible.

Further, there are instances, as I've also said before, of people who are irrevocably evil. Such people constitute a constant and looming threat, even when they are not actively engaged in their predations. Serial killers and rapists, child molesters and pedophiles - who, oddly enough, seem to have considerable overlap within their fields - constitute individuals who can be said to always be a danger. These individuals have no claim to the rights of life, liberty, or happiness: Their actions are a threat, their lives are forfeit. Their presence in society is a bane, they deserve no libety. Their proclivities are anathema to all that is good - their happiness is misery, violence and death. Should they be caught in the commission of one of their acts, summary death is appropriate. Should they be proved guilty of these acts, life imprisonment is the only mercy they should be granted.

Evil and violence will always be a part of the world. It is a foolhardy and dangerous naivete that informs pacifistic approaches to these problems. It is essential that good people are prepared, not only to deal with the personal consequences of their chosen life, but to deal with the darkness to which they have become opposed.

---

*While we are talking in hypotheticals, I feel it is necessary to express that life and death situations should be left to as little chance as possible. Therefore, I provide some small tactical advice, firstly: A pistol should be kept concealed in a location easily mistaken with a place you might keep a wallet whenever possible. To this end, Seecamp provides some excellent concealed carry options.

**It should go without saying that, in the event your opponent is also using a firearm, offering an opportunity to surrender is a foolhardy move almost certain to result in your own injury or death. Shoot first and shoot often.

On Pedophilia and Redemption

There are some types of evil in this world for which there is no redemption.

What I mean by this is the following: Some crimes, some misfortunes, some evils, are not inherent. A person can commit a crime without forethought, perhaps in the heat of passion, that is not inherent in the persons nature. A bar fight, a mugging, even most murders, can happen without forethought, even without malice. For these crimes, a person will serve their punishment and be truly remorseful.

Some crimes are not as justifiable.

There is, on occasion, a crime committed because such malevolence is inherent in a persons character. Sometimes, a person is simply morally wrong. Permanently.

Take for example, the crime of murder. We will take as granted at this time, that murder, defined as the unjustified taking of a life, is wrong. It is fairly common that a person commits a murder in the heat of the moment. There are many inspirations to such an act - witnessing your partner in the act of adultery is common, being cut off on the freeway another - but oftentimes it happens that a person is driven to an irrational rage that culminates in their taking of a life. It also often happens that this person soon regrets their actions, that they are so burdened with guilt that we can safely expect that they will check their behavior and that they will never commit such an act again.

There are those for whom such expectations, such leniency, is unmerited.

If we were to continue with our example of murder with an act outside of a crime of passsion, if we were to consider a compulsive killer, then we would have a different case. I am referring, specifically, to serial killers. These are individuals who have no control over their actions at any point in time. These are individuals who we can expect to commit murder over and over and over again, until the situation becomes such that they can murder no more. Would such a person ever truly repent? Even if they did, would such a person be trustworthy in society? COULD you trust such a person to never murder again after having "served their time"?

There is a similar case when we consider the sexual criminal. Surely, there are sex crimes of passion, wherein a person rapes in the heat of the moment, but much more common is the habitual offender, the serial rapist, or more commonly (as an inquiry to your local Megan's Law webpage will show), the child molester.

Pedophilia is not treatable. The assumption that one can be cured of pedophilia is exactly as ludicrous as the idea that one can be cured of homosexuality or of their race. It is inherent in that persons nature to be sexually attracted to children, as it is for the homosexual to be attracted to those of their own sex or for the masochist to derive pleasure from pain. It is the very definition of the condition. There is no "cure".

Where pedophilia differs from, say, homosexuality, is in the nature of the relationship. Sexual relationships, no matter how enlightened we attempt to be in our approaches thereto, always have an aspect of territorialism to them. A pedophile cannot help but be sexually attracted to those who have, by definition, no concept of the ramifications of a sexual relationship. They are not even remotely intellectually capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship. Therefore, there is no possible way in which a pedophile could engage in their preffered relationship without victimization. The child does not understand what is happening, and cannot say yes or no. Most often the child is AFRAID to say no.

This is why pedophilia is wrong. Where a sadist can engage in a relationship with a masochist, or homosexuals or heterosexuals can find their gender of choice, a pedophile has no option but to convince a person incapable of making such decisions to engage in a sexual relationship.

I will digress, at this point, to discuss the ancient Greeks, who will no doubt constitute a great portion of the debate.

It was considered ordinary for a boy and an older man to engage in a sexual relationship in that culture. What many people fail to recognize is that the ramifications of the relationship were made clear to the boy, and to the man, before it even began - before either was even prepared to initiate the relationship. It is further worth noting that the sexual relationship was secondary to the true purpose at hand. The older man was to serve as a mentor to the boy, to teach him the meaning of what it was to be a citizen and an adult. I will not pass judgement on the psychological health of such an institution. I do not believe it was entirely healthy as an institution, but a society develops ways in which to perpetuate itself, and such was the method of the Greeks. The relevant points are as follows: The relationship was primarily that of Teacher and Student; AND the ramifications and expectations of such a relationship were made clear to both parties well ahead of time. Further, there is little to be said of pederasty as an ORIENTATION in ancient Greece as opposed to it being an INSTITUTION.

This is NOT the case in the modern era.

The modern pederast is a predator. We take care in our modern society to educate our youth through different means. We create safe avenues for exploration. We do not place the stress of sexual relationships on our children. They are dangerous things. You would not teach a child to operate a firearm before you were certain of their maturity - as such do we appreciate the psychogical implications of sex.

A pedophile breaks these rules. A pedophile subjugates children to whims that they do not understand. A pedophile uses their superior knowledge of society to pressure children. A pedophile IS a predator, just as much as a serial killer is, above all else, a chronic taker of life.

We have created avenues in our society in which to discourage these acts, but it is my opinion they are not harsh enough. There are tendencies which surface occasionally in the human psyche which are undesirable, even detrimental, to the continuation of our species and culture. Had I my druthers, such persons would be executed publicly, without opportunity of appeal.

The American justice system, at least, is more lenient than I.

However, the American justice system and I agree on one point. There are certain types of danger which never fade, for which there is no repentance, redemption, or rehabilitation. The system would not, in theory, release Jeffrey Dahmer without informing those nearby that a person with such proclivities was nearby. Such is the justification for Megan's Law, which makes available to the public the image, address, and crime of those who have committed acts of sexual predation. These are individuals who are dangerous, and it behooves those aware of them to warn those at risk.

That such individuals are given the opportunity to squelch their abominable appetites and to reintegrate with society, I suppose, is the mark of a liberal and forward thinking society. That they are given leave to pursue ambition, free reign of their environments, to exercise their perverse desire for power ...such trust is beyond me. To trust such, knowing their nature is to victimize, galls me. The system says one is innocent until proven guilty, and these people have been proven guilty of such massive defects that any sort of freedom, even that of life, seems a mercy most undeserved.