“But,” you might say, “most of the people are helping the cops catch the criminal. Don’t you want criminals caught?”

“Sure,” I’d reply, “but now consider the same show if only the criminal refused a search or refused to answer questions using the techniques described in the website.”

“But then they wouldn’t get caught!” you might exclaim, “I thought you wanted criminals caught!”

“Certainly, I do,” I would calmly retort, “but it’s a television show. All it depicts is a couple of cops with poor investigative skills and extreme social belligerence. A real investigation, arrest and (depending on the show) conviction doesn’t wrap up in an hour. It takes time. Smart criminals do know their rights and exercise them freely. Yet, somehow they still get caught.”

A court case can be won in one of three ways. The first, which most of us know, is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. This is typically used in criminal cases, but can also be used in civil cases. The other two ways are “Preponderance of Evidence” which means you basically have a moutain of evidence that drowns out all opposition and “Clear and Convincing Proof” which means you basically have solid evidence that any reasonable person could not fail to see as proof. These last two methods are how most cases are won on television shows like “Judge Judy” or “The People’s Court”.

A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No other standard can be applied. In almost all television cop shows, the case is won by confession. Not exactly how it works in the real world. Watch the movie 12 Angry Men. While fiction, it does demonstrate the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” very well.

But, getting back to my original point, if people actually exercised their rights in these stories, there wouldn’t be much of a story left. So, I leave it to you to refute the last argument of the terminally ignorant:

“But, why should you refuse a search if you’ve got nothing to hide?”

Are you sure you have nothing to hide?

Two police officers smashed a car window to save a dog they feared was overheating – to find it was only a cuddly toy.

The PCs became concerned about the “sleeping” animal after being alerted by a member of the public.

When it would not be roused, they smashed the window of the Mercedes coupe fearing it would be harmed in the 18C temperatures.

It was only when they reached inside to rescue the pooch that they realised it was merely a stuffed cuddly toy worth £4.50.

Owner Gordon Williams, 80, has now told how he returned to his car to find the backseat covered in broken glass and an official note, reading: “Smashed your window re concern for animal on rear seat.”

The police force has agreed to pay to the damage to allow the retired mining engineer to replace his window.

Mr Williams, from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, told The Sun: “I guess they felt like idiots.”

Nottinghamshire Police said: “The call was made in good faith by a passer-by.

“In this case officers believed a dog could be suffering due to the heat of the day and its life was potentially at risk, so felt there was no other option but to enter the vehicle.

“This is a perfect example of why drivers need to think about what they leave on view in their car, both in terms of other people’s perception of the objects and in a bid to deter opportunist thieves.”

A “Good Samaritan” is what people would typically call this “member of the public” who “became concerned about the ‘sleeping’ animal.” I suggest that this “member of the public” may be a lurker, an over-reactive busybody or a thoughtless idiot.

1. Why a lurker? This person was skulking about peering into people’s cars for reasons that are yet unknown. Yes, this person could have just “happened to see” it and actually been a morally upstanding person. Or, they could have been a potential thief casing the area for targets. They found a car with an animal inside and thought this would be a great way to measure police response time.

2. Why an over-reactive busybody? This person was blithely walking down the street when they suddenly spotted what seemed to be an animal sleeping in the back of a car. Obviously, they know that with no windows cracked, the animal could suffer heat exhaustion. So, instead of waiting a few minutes to see if the ownwer emerges, they immediately assume that the owner is either ignorant of basic pet welfare (optimistally) or a careless, thoughtless and/or malicious person who likes to torture and possibly kill their pets (pessimistically) and call the police. They took no other actions to verify their assumption of a pet in distress, assumed true the owner’s guilty behavior and acted immediately. That either sounds like the foundation of a typical American sit-com or the definition of a busybody.

3. Why a thoughtless idiot? Two reasons. First, instead of calling an $80 locksmith to open the car in about an hour, let’s break a $300 window that takes three days to replace. Second, let’s take a moment and convert 18° Celsius to our good old-fashioned American Fahrenheit. 18° C = 64° F. Even in bright, direct sunlight the inside of a car is not going to get much hotter than 80° F when the temperature outside is 64° F. That’s hot, but not hot enough for a dog to suffer heat exhaustion. It is a frequent natural occurrence for daily temperatures to be 80° in the summer. The real question is do these thoughtless actions lie with this so-called altruist or the police?

Now, I’m not trying to bash altruism. Personally, I think it’s a good thing. But like all things, there is a time and a place for it and there are right and wrong things to do. There are good samaritan laws¹ out there, but most of them are flawed. Laws that force you to be an altruist are wrong. You should not be forced to take action in situations with which you may not be familiar or, in fact, out-right ignorant. For that matter, you should not be forced to expend your resources for someone else’s benefit, but that’s another discussion. Laws that protect the altruist against retribution are good, but only if they protect altruist from retribution against the failure of the altruist’s actions. An altruist who does something clearly harmful should not be protected by these laws.

It’s not altruism itself that’s the problem though, nor is it the altruist. Even though I have excoriated this altruist top to bottom, it doesn’t change the fact that their actions may still have been genuine and that there was not a real animal in the car. The problem is the reversal of blame. The altruist was wrong. The police were wrong. Those are facts and they are indisputable. Instead of admitting fault and taking responsibility, however, the police blame the owner for the actions of the altruist and of themselves.

“This is a perfect example of why drivers need to think about what they leave on view in their car, both in terms of other people’s perception of the objects…”

This is wrong. The owner is not the one at fault here. He is under no obligation, neither legal nor moral, to examine the contents of his car and consider the infinity of possibilities where people could mistake something in his car for something else. Nor is he under any obligation to modify the contents of his car “in a bid to deter opportunist thieves” as the rest of the police statement goes. Just because the altruist acted in good faith does not exempt him from judgement. The law may exempt him from responsibility, but not from judgement.

The police, however, are a different story. They are not altruists. They are fully responsible for their actions. Yet, even they do not take full responsibility. Their only action is to leave a note in the car. The owner has to shoulder the cost of filing a complaint, manufacturing a temporary window, getting the window replaced and finding alternative transportation during the replacement period. A whole heap of time and energy costs for this person who – may I remind you – did nothing wrong.

This isn’t the only case. There are plenty of other examples of altruism gone bad. It’s not the responsibility of the common man to look out for everyone else. We are already forced to do too many things for the benefit of others. It’s not just domestically, either. I have to think of starving people in Africa every time I buy my coffee from Starbucks.

This attitude of blame-shifting needs to go. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. Take your lumps, do the right thing and move on. Let’s not poison altruism by making the victim the perpetrator. We all make mistakes. We all have to pay for our mistakes. Failure is an option, it’s just not the preferable one. But, when we fail, our character is revealed in our response.

¹ This is provided as a link for more information, not a reference. A good journalist never references Wikipedia.

So, here’s the dilemma. I know the incumbent. He’s terrible. I know the new guy. He’s worse or just as bad. This set of choices is unacceptable to me as a voter. Here’s my proposed solution:

A vote of no confidence.

One year before the “real” election, everybody has to get up and vote again. I know, I know… such an inconvenience. But this time we’re not “wasting” our vote. This time we are voting as to whether or not to let the incumbent run again. Just think about the implications – don’t like the incumbent? Disallow them from running again! Like the incumbent? Make sure they get the chance to run again! Let whichever the party know your satisfaction with who they chose. They’ll have a whole year to figure it out, and in the meantime you’re not looking at the lesser of two evils. Instead you’re looking at two unknowns which has a lot more potential!

Additionally, whoever is given the vote of no confidence cannot run again for the same office. Ever. They are out. They were branded such a phenomenal failure that the American public said, “Hell no!”

I think that this provides serious incentive for politicians to do the right thing and think about what’s good for their constituency rather than themselves. Bring the “servant” back to Public Servant. Also, they may actually have to live under the laws they have created, something that really doesn’t exist these days.

Everybody spouts the “truth”. Religions especially seem to think they have a monopoly on truth. We must put that all aside, though, and not consider what is the truth, but how we come to the truth. Knowing how we arrive at the truth is what truly gives weight to it.

A recent article in Science News (2010-08-28) by Harold Kroto says it best.

(Reprinted without permission)

My definition of science – and it’s an arid term, and almost no one really understands it as far as I’m concerned: The most important aspect of science is that it’s a philosophical construct, which man (and woman) has developed to determine what is true, might be true and can be true.

Once one [accepts] that, one puts science on a very interesting philosophical level, because truth must be universal and must not vary from country to country or planet to planet. Truth assumes that the experiment will always work the same way. That suggests that, basically, it won’t work differently if you pray to the experiment…

Truth is an intellectual integrity issue. I want to stress that… So for science education, this is an ethical issue. We should be teaching our children how to determine what is true. It depends on evidence. Without evidence, anything goes. And we must teach young people how to recognize the truth. And that’s why there is a conflict between science and dogma, both political and religious. Texas is desecrating science text books and thus the truth…

We have to weigh the evidence in the balance, and science therefore equals truth. John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”…

I have a four-out-of-five rule for scientific method. Here it is: If you make an observation, develop a theory you think can explain it. then design some further experiments to test the validity of that theory. If four observations out of five fit, the theory is almost, and I stress almost, certainly right. If only one out of five fits, the theory is almost, almost certainly wrong. We can never say it was wrong. But we can say it’s almost certainly wrong. We must leave the way open for that element of doubt…

This is a moral issue. Let’s get it straight. Science is about evidence and truth. And that’s why we have to think about these things…

The issue we face today is sustainability. Saving the planet – it’s a global citizenship project. We cannot do it by ourselves… I don’t know whether we can do it, but we need everybody in the world to recognize [that] this is our biggest problem. We’ve got to recognize science as the one community that is international. It doesn’t matter what color you are, what nationality, language you speak. Scientific language is fundamental… And that makes us different from ever other culture. We’re international, we’re global…

I want to make sure that you understand what science and what the responsibility of the scientist is. If you’re a scientist, you have a responsibility. We have created this world, this technology. We’ve done the science. And I think, and I personally believe, we should take some responsibility to ensure it is used for the benefit of mankind, and not to its detriment. If you’re a physicist, we don’t need any more atomic bombs. If you’re a chemist, we don’t need any improvements in napalm, and if you’re an engineer, w don’t need anymore land mines. There are people who really feel strongly. Leon Lederman, [who was] head of [Fermilab] and got the Nobel Prize in physics, said, “So many years have passed and the human race is still saddled with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. We must redouble our efforts to unify the science community against this huge stupidity.”….

Scientists have enemies now out there who are trying to destroy science… It’s not just against evolution. it’s about truth. It’s much more fundamental… It’s about science, it’s about your culture, it’s about how children and adults should determine what is true. And therefore you have an enemy, the enemies who want to undermine the ability of young people and adults to find out what is actually true, on the basis of evidence. Don’t underestimate that one…

Destroy the planet? It doesn’t look good. I look at the evidence. four out of five [indicators] suggest… that’s we’ve got a problem. Not only that, our children have a problem, and our grandchildren almost certainly seem to have a problem. I’m not sure. But I said almost certainly.

Harold Kroto, who shared the 1996 Novel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of buckminsterfullerene (the molecules commonly known as buckyballs), is a chemist at Florida State University in Tallahassee. His research interests extend from the microworld of nanoparticles to the chemistry of interstellar space. He also campaigns for a new vision of science education, emphasizing the responsibilities that scientists have for cooperating internationally to support efforts aimed at securing a sustainable future for the planet. He spoke on such matters recently at the Euroscience Open forum 2010 conference in Turin, Italy. Science News editor in chief Tom Siegfried reports excerpts from Kroto’s talk.

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values — e pluribus unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America’s values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English — but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the f-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as “Nigger,” even when used by one black student to address another black, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way — the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Newt Gingrich Statement on Proposed Mosque/Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero
July 21, 2010 6pm

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

The proposed “Cordoba House” overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to “symbolize interfaith cooperation” when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for “religious toleration” are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.

And they lecture us about tolerance.

If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13 story, $100 million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

No mosque.

No self deception.

No surrender.

The time to take a stand is now – at this site on this issue.

“They have not forgotten the Mysteries,” she said, “they have found them too difficult. They want a God who will care for them, who will not demand that they struggle for enlightenment, but who will accept them just as they are, with all their sins, and take away their sins with repentance. It is not so, it will never be so, but perhaps it is the only way the unenlightened can bear to think of their Gods.”

Lancelet smiled bitterly. “Perhaps a religion which demands that every man must work through lifetime after lifetime for his own salvation is too much for mankind. They want not to wait for God’s justice, but to see it now. And that is the lure which this new breed of priests has promised them.”

Morgaine knew that he spoke truth, and bowed her head in anguish. “And since their view of a God is what shapes their reality, so it shall be – the Goddess was real while mankind still paid homage to her, and created her form for themselves. Now they will make for themselves the kind of God they think they want – the kind of God they deserve, perhaps.”

Well, so it must be, for as man saw reality, so it became. While the ancient Gods, the Goddess, were seen as benevolent of life-giving, so indeed has nature been to them; and when the priests had taught men to think of all nature as evil, alien, hostile and the old Gods as demons, even so they would become, surging up from within that part of man which he know wished to sacrifice or control, instead of letting it lead him.

If you’re a Christian, think very hard about what your God has commanded that you do. Are you so sure it’s the right thing to do?

– Isaac Asimov

Faye Parrish

Dear President Obama,

I read of your administrations plan to re-define September 11th as a National Service Day. Sir, it’s time we had a talk.

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition. We noticed.

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states. We noticed.

When Senator McCain leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, you tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over. We noticed.

Every time you apologized to other countries for America’s position on an issue, we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. We noticed.

When your pastor of 20 years damned America and said that 9/11 was “America’s chickens coming home to roost” and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. When you later disassociated yourself from that church and pastor because it was politically expedient to do so, we noticed.

When you announced that you would transform America, we wondered why.
With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now. Prior to your election to the highest office in this country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a remarkable one. We noticed.

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions to which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special affection or respect for this country and her traditions. We noticed.

You are seven months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation. We noticed.

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American,” and “racist.” We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated. We noticed.

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans. And we noticed.

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation even more. In seven months you have done more to destroy this nation than anyone since 9/11. You have failed us. We noticed.

September 11th is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day.” While we know that you may not share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is…a disgrace.

When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office. You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you.

Faye Parrish is a concerned American citizen.