Perhaps this will teach politicians not to pretend to oppose something that they are actually in favor of just because it was proposed by a member of the other party. First they asked the President to go to Congress before bombing because they thought he wouldn’t do that, even though they actually tended to agree that presidents should act in situations like this without congressional approval . So when the president said OK to that they couldn’t criticize even though they didn’t like it. Then they pretended that they didn’t want military action because the president did. So now that it looks like he will take Putin’s deal to avoid it the Republican’s have to once again hold their tongues when they would otherwise be screaming.
Even though Syria is lying when they said they didn’t do it, that lie is important. Because it implies that they admit that the use of chemical weapons is wrong. If they said otherwise it would be terrible if Congress still voted for the military not to punish them. But with that admission by them, it is probably better if a vote not to punish them this time, wins in by a very close margin and Obama doesn’t override it. Such a result would avoid the complications a military strike would bring while at the same time making it obvious that Congress would reverse itself if there was one more transgression. I wonder if Congress is capable of colluding to bring about that outcome.
A nasty head of state is a lot more worried about himself thanr his people. Wouldn’t it be more effective to offer a twenty million dollar reward to anyone who kills a tyrant if he does obviously terrible things than to spend ten times that to bomb innocents? Even if he is well protected that’s bound to make him think twice before doing terrible things.
Although I agree with the verdict I think that George Zimmerman was probably guilty of a behavior that I don’t think is illegal but should be. Namely pushing a person into possibly attacking you when only you know that you have a lethal weapon (or even possibly professionally trained fists) that can kill under the supposed legal excuse of self defense. In other words I believe that there should be a law that specifies that someone with this lethal capability, especially if it is hidden, should take more than the normal amount of care not to entice someone to strike you. The mere provocation, if it is clearcut, should be a crime and of course if it results in the use of the weapon it is worse.
Hopefully in six weeks I will be able to claim that they worked well. With so many good new players studying standard strategy and counterstrategy, I’m thinking that the best way to thwart them is to make some plays that, while theoretically a little suboptimum, are so different from what they are used to that they won’t adjust properly. We shall see.
Now we all know that one of the main reasons the authorities quickly identified them is that they reacted abnormally to the blast. I guess they wanted to show how smart they are. Even if it meant that future terrorists will now certainly not make that same mistake.
Why do people make a big deal about any of it? It’s totally insignificant to any president or ex president. Money will never be an issue in any way shape or form.
Now he can conceivably be found Not Guilty by reason of insanity and after years in a mental hospital, get out and possibly kill again. And this risk was taken to achieve what.? To try for a punishment that is illegal in most countries and many states? The only good justification for the death penalty is as a deterrent. People who commit crimes like Holmes aren’t thinking about the punishment.
I think it is sort of unfortunate that the capture of Christopher Dorner can be traced back to a phone call from one of the two people he tied up. It is true that if she had not made that phone call many more might have died. Then again one fewer might have. In any case thats not my issue. My issue is that I hate the fact that criminals may have noticed that Dorner might have paid a price for sparing his victims.
I have twice written about my idea that there should be a significant reduction in punishment for those criminals who choose not to kill their victims when committing crimes that usually come with very long prison sentences whether they kill or not. The first time I wrote about it I referred to the kidnapping of Steve Wynnn’s daughter (who was spared). The second time it was about my own home invasion.
I wasn’t suggesting this punishment reduction because I felt sympathy for the criminals. Rather I suggested it as a way to save the lives of future victims of such crimes. I wanted to change their risk versus reward equation. I hope the Dorner outcome isn’t changing it back.
They have some things in common. The public is upset that they cheat to help them succeed. And that they portray themselves as somebody they are not. But because the public also gets some upsides from them (entertainment, cheap labor) they are often willing to be lenient. Except that these cheaters are not actually as benign as they appear. They might not hurt the public that much but there are some victims much more seriously hurt. I speak of those who lost out big time because they wouldn’t cheat. The player who gets his name wiped out of the record book. The player who doesn’t quite make the big leagues because his place is taken by a cheater. The Mexican citizen who has to wait longer than he would have normally to work in the US. Plus all these honest citizens have to figure out a way to tell their children honesty is still the best policy in spite of the obvious evidence that it isn’t.