Czech This:
The Czech Republic surgically castrates convicted sex offenders, if these offenders request the procedure, according to a 1966 law. At first glance, this seems rather reasonable. But it always goes deeper. Investigators from the Council of Europe have found that many of those castrated were pressured into the procedure under fear of long-term incarceration. Offenders are being told that castration is the only option available, and that refusal could result in their detention for life. Even first-time, non-violent offenders are being castrated, and investigators found that those castrated in at least five instances were mentally handicapped. Investigators also state that offenders received information too technical for them to understand or no information at all about the procedure.
The Czech government insists that it is a voluntary procedure, with proven results in reducing repeat offenses, and performed on men who "cannot manage their sexual instincts and are sexually aggressive." The Council of Europe, however, debates castration's reduction in recidivism, pointing to three instances in which castrated offenders had committed serial rapes and other crimes.
The Czech government states that the Council of Europe failed to convince the country to cease castration.
In principle, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders opting to be castrated, so long as they're able to make an informed decision that they believe will help them live a more normal life (i.e. not rape or molest people). Clearly, there is no guarantee that the procedure works in the manner it is intended to, but the option should be there. However, a punishment should not be optional if authorities coerce criminals into it by threats of life in prison. Further, it isn't clear whether or not those who are mentally handicapped can make an informed decision. It isn't even clear if those who weren't mentally disabled were able to make informed decisions. For first-time offenders of a non-violent nature, such as exhibitionists, I do not think that castration is a viable punishment.
There are, I think, various degrees of sex offenses, and some are more vile than others. For example, in the US, an 18 year old male or female could be a convicted as sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female or male. Some will argue that the 16 year old cannot give consent legally, and this would be true. But is this 18 year old in the same class as a serial rapist or a pedophile? In many cases, legally he or she is. The law often has no categories, as it does with murder, and that 18 year old will forever have to register as a sex offender and be shamed forever.
But the issue here is castration. To make it clear, I am not against castration as a punishment, provided that it is viable for rehabilitating some offenders, but against the application of castration in the Czech Republic as described above. Some might wonder if I would be a proponent of forced castration. I would say no. Being as though there is no guarantee that castration would work as intended, I could not be for forced castration. We as a species generally hold reproductive rights in very high regard. To suggest that someone is so capable of heinous crime that he must be forcibly castrated is saying a great deal. And since castration, forced or otherwise, does not guarantee that the individual will not commit another crime, I posit that the individual must be incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole or release. Further, since we require sex offenders to register wherever they go, it seems that we view sexual crimes as more offensive than even murder, and reasonably so. With that being the case, I have no problem with the death penalty being applied to cases in which the offender shows a propensity for violent sexual crime and no potential for rehabilitation.
Cher = Absurd:
With a mom and a dad like mine, both audiophiles, I grew up listening to a lot of different music. My mom was always a big fan of the female singer Cher, who allegedly retired in 2005, but has since announced that she's working on her 26th studio album and is presently performing in Las Vegas. I usually liked the songs she sang, and was awestruck by her 1989 video for the song "Turn Back Time" in which she cavorted semi-nude around the battleship USS Missouri. While the whole album, Heart of Stone, was pretty good, I was a boy of 9 at that time, and was far more taken by the massive 16 inch guns of the Mighty-Mo than I was of Cher's fishnets. I suppose my point here is that even though Cher made some good music and forever imprinted in the mind of a young boy the image of one of the most impressive pieces of military gear in history set to music, it does not mean she's not an idiot. (Sorry Ma.)
Example: "Republicans almost killed me." She wasn't specific in how exactly Republicans killed her. As far as I can tell, she did pretty well for herself the past eight or so years. Having a deal to perform 200 shows over three years in Vegas doesn't usually mean that you're being slowly killed by the political party in power at the time. Perhaps she was being dramatic. Still, it makes her an sort of dumb. Especially when, after asked to explain her comment that Republicans almost killed her, she says,
"You know what? I have so - I try to be charitable and there are some really good Republicans, but I just don't understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can't figure it. I don't understand. If you're poor, if you're any kind of minority - gay, black, latino, anything. If you're not a rich - I don't know. If you're not a rich born-again-Christian, I don't get it."
Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm not entirely sure Cher is a leading expert on what a Republican is. She probably doesn't even know what makes up Liberal ideology, presumably her political bent, let alone the ideology of the party she clearly despises. I wonder how many "Republicans" she knows...It's almost like a racist saying, "I'm not racist, there are good black people; I have black friends." Good try, Cher. Stick to singing and rolling around in your massive treasure trove of cash...provided to you by many a Republican, to be sure. Some not even born-again-Christians.
The Issue You've All Been Waiting For:
The Economic Stimulus. It appears that our elected officials in the Senate, in their supreme wisdom and 19% approval rating, have come to an agreement on the stimulus package and are set to vote on it early next week. For all the uproar from them that this is a national emergency, which is the crux of their argument that this bill needs to be passed RIGHT NOW without going through all the normal procedures, it seems odd to me that the vote on the bill would be put off until early next week, whenever that might be. Presumably Monday through Wednesday sometime. Regardless, Democratic leaders hope to push the bill to Obama by the end of next week. The fact that these officials have been telling us for weeks that this is an emergency, but are willing to wait to vote shows the hypocrisy and ineptitude of that elected body. How so many members of a political body sporting a collective approval rating of below 20% by some polls got reelected I do not know. Perhaps this best illustrates the ineptitude of the American voter.
Certainly, my fellow Americans and loyal Coffee drinkers, you realize that it's best to rush through the passing of a bill worth $780-819 billion. Do I need to tell you why? Easy, because then emotions take over, and the majority can batter down any opposition before that opposition might begin to make sense to some of the more easily swayed members of the body. Also, less oversight. When you want to push through a bunch of frivolous spending that has nothing to do with stimulus, the faster you do things, the better.
Much has been written about this stimulus bill, and by better qualified people than I, so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. But there are a few things that perplex a mind as simple as mine. Other than the comments made by many regarding the amount of money actually going to stimulus (12 cents for every dollar) and how wasteful the bill is, one thing that sticks out to me as evidence of a fraud being committed by our elected officials is the comments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding how much of this stimulus will be spent and when. In addition to saying that this stimulus bill is harmful over the long haul, CBO states that only 15% of the funding will be spent in 2009. Only 64% will be used during the next 19 months. This is contrary to Obama's proclamation that 75% will be doled out in the next 19 months. For something that allegedly needs to be done immediately, with limited discussion, it seems strange that much of the "stimulus" will not take place until at least 2010. And we're told daily that Americans are struggling and need relief now. And for all the good it will allegedly do, like create three to four million jobs at the cost of $275,000 per, the CBO projects that it will actually lower the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next ten years.
But Obama says, "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs, and do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth." I love how Obama uses a variation of hendiatris, a rule of three, to sell this to the public. "Right this, right that, and right the other thing." But that's not the point. The point is, this is somewhat contrary information than that presented by the CBO. A lower GDP does not indicate growth. Perhaps he's talking really long-term, as in 40 or 50 years. I don't know. He goes on to say, "These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual while millions of Americans are being put out of work. Now is the time for Congress to act." Let me clarify for those who those who don't speak Politician: "Get bogged down" = closely scrutinize. "Distraction, delay" = have public discussions. "Politics as usual" = anything contrary to my own wishes.
I should point out that Obama ran a successful campaign largely on the premise of Hope, while denouncing the use of fear and "politics as usual." But fear is a useful tool, and I don't see how anyone can deny that he is using it in order to get this stimulus passed quickly. He said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." This isn't hope. This is fear. He is telling you that if this bill isn't passed right now, then your life is going to be worse in the future. This from a man who told us that "we have chosen hope over fear." Maybe hope only belongs on the campaign trail. If so, you've been bamboozled yet again by buying into his rhetoric. (For a fun side trip, check out the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact.com. You can see how much horse sheisse our politicians are selling you. Some of them actually tell the truth.)
Remember, Obama also recently said that his administration will "save or create" some-odd million jobs. Well, technically, as a candidate Obama was all about creating jobs, and now he's largely content with just saving them. Saving jobs. Ignoring the fact that the US will lose 500 million jobs a month, according to Nancy Pelosi, how can anyone say with any degree of seriousness in their voice that they've saved any number of jobs? One would think that, at the end of the day, everyone who has a job at that point - job saved! If you thought that the market created and/or saved jobs, you were wrong. It's Obama and his team of government that does that now. Obama is saving my job right now! Yours too, if you have one. If you don't, well, stand by for the creation of four or five or six million of the little buggers! They'll be yours for the taking. (Brewer Comment: In July 2008, the US population was estimated at 303.8 million people. Thus, every man, woman, and child in America has, if Pelosi's facts are straight, at LEAST four or five jobs at any given time.)
See Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post for more on Obama's urgency. Also, see Read The Stimulus so you can, well, read the stimulus.
I Forgot to Pay my Taxes:
For those looking for me to comment on the inability of some of Obama's appointees to pay or remember to pay their taxes, I will point you to my friend and fellow blogger Publius' recent article about that very issue. We both agree on this one. I think that all members of Congress, the Cabinet, and Directors and senior staff of government agencies should be audited, just to make sure they're in compliance.
And thus ends another Cup of Joe. Tomorrow, the Logician will present to us part one of his "Barney-style" explanation of the current economic environment. Look forward to it and give him some feedback.
Word of the Day: Denigrate (verb): To attack the character or reputation of; defame. Our faithful public servants have denigrated Common Sense to the point of our abandoning it.
On This Day in History: The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution is ratified (1795). Charles Dickens was born (1812). Laura Ingalls Wilder was born (1867). The last heavyweight bare-knuckle fight takes place in Mississippi City (1882). The Mud March, the first large march organized by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) took place (1907). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). The Beatles arrive in the US for their first tour (1964). The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power (1990).
No comments:
Post a Comment