LOGIC (n.) from Greek 'logikos': 1. Anything posted on this blog. 2. Anything that drives a liberal crazy

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

If pro is the opposite of con......

What is the opposite of progress?

Have you heard that our esteemed (read, retarded) members of Congress are all afire over the William Jefferson incident? Catch up here if you haven't. (Story of the raid) (congressional reaction)

Now they're claiming that offices of legislators should be exempt from these types of things. They're invoking the constitution (Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 1) which says,

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a thinker. (Thank you Mr. Beck) It seems to me that this clearly states the following:
1. Lawmakers will get paid
2. The amount they are paid will be determined by law (don't get me started!)
3. Their salary will come from the US Treasury.
4. Unless they commit treason, a felony, or a breach of the peace, they can't be arrested while going to, being at, or returning from a legislative session.
5. Except for the exceptions noted in (4), a lawmaker's words during a speech or debate in session can not be used to arrest them.

As far as I can tell, most constitutional scholars agree that this provision exists to prevent the executive branch from preventing a congressman from doing something "displeasing." i.e. President Bush doesn't want a Senator to vote for this bill or that bill, so the President has him arrested on his way to the Senate.

Insofar as the FBI is part of the executive branch, I can see where the senators and representatives might have a problem. The similarity ends there, however. First, the FBI obtained the necessary warrant, and it was stonewalled and ignored by House counsel and Rep. Jefferson. Second, they took great pains to avoid confiscating documents related to legislative matters, concentrating only on those related to the bribary scandal.

Some members of Congress have gone so far as to say that their offices should be absolutely immune from inspection/raid/etc by law enforcement. Isn't that a little ridiculous? (For those of you who reside in Stupidville, yes, it is ridiculous.) Imagine the possibilities! Driven off a bridge and killed a hooker? No problem! Stash the body in your office.

Here's to term limits!

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Is there a sophomore jinx on blogs?

If there is, I will avoid it with my superior blogging skills. That, and my modesty.

I've got to tell you, I've about had it with this click it or ticket campaign. What a way to hemorrhage the taxpayers money. Ughh. Here's my take on it. (If you want to read another great piece on this subject - oh, there goes my modesty again - check out Walter Williams' take)

If you breathe, you are quite familiar with the phrase "Click it or Ticket". In case you're one of the hermits among us, the phrase refers to the Department of Transportation's safety initiative to encourage people to wear their seatbelts.

If you live near Cleveland, you've heard about the seatbelt law for a long time. It actually originated in Brooklyn, a suburb of Cleveland with a population of about 11,000 people. Brooklyn Mayor John Coyne introduced the law in 1966, and ever since, you can't drive into the city without seeing a "Welcome to Brooklyn, Ohio, home of the Seatbelt Law" sign. (Incidentally, Brooklyn was also the first city to enact a cell phone ban, which prohibits drivers from talking on their cell phones unless they have both hands on the wheel. For complete text, click here and scroll down to section 331.45)

Here's the problem with the seatbelt laws. It is hardly the government's place to get involved. A person is perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves.

I should stop here to note that I personally do wear my seatbelt, from the moment I turn the car on until I turn it off. Any monkey can look at the statistics and know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, you're a moron. And, frankly, though I may sometimes act like a birdbrain, I'm actually not.

That being said, it's my decision. If I decide to endanger my life by not wearing my seatbelt, that's up to me. I do not bring danger to others by not wearing my seatbelt. If I have a predilection for flying through windshields and other such exciting events, I can. The government should not be telling me not to. Frankly, it's rather communist of them to do so.

So, should we abandon the DUI and cell phone and other such traffic related laws? After all, it's a drunk's choice to drive and maybe kill himself. Right? Wrong. These laws are different. A drunk can (and they often have, sadly) hurt, maim and kill many others when he gets behind the wheel. An idiot who can't talk on a phone and drive at the same time could easily hit someone. (Which, incidentally, was the impetus for Brooklyn's cell phone law.)

However, I'm not going to be more likely to hit someone or cause an accident just because I don't wear my seat belt. I am more likely to hurt, maim, or kill myself. So what? My choice.

Do I tell my kids to wear their seatbelts, and in fact force them to? Absolutely. That's because it's my responsibility to protect my kids. Not because the government tells me to. The onus for keeping my children safe falls on my wife and me.

So shouldn't the government tell and force me to wear my seatbelt? Nope. The government is not responsible for my safety here. I don't and shouldn't have to or want to depend on the government for much more than defense (military/police). Not to tell me to wear my seatbelt. Not to support me. Not to school me or my kids.

The main problem here is the government mentality of lording over it's citizens is wrong. The government stems from the citizens, not the other way around. Any politician who thinks so is, admittedly, normal, but way off-base.

And again I say, ughhhh.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Welcome, welcome, to me

OK, so I suppose this is the exception to the rule. I'm giving in and jumping on the band wagon.

I've found that following the crowd is usually a bad idea, but then, the crowd I'm following is good people.

Wow. That had to be the best blog opening EVER.