Just a note to say I won’t be posting anything new this week.  Taking some time to concentrate on some other things.

Over the past several days I have been pondering the issue of individual rights – civil rights – and how we determine that these rights are viewed as being fair and proper.  My thoughts primarily came about because of a discussion on a blog about individual rights.  The premise of the discussion is that as long as one’s rights do not impose/impact another person’s rights then those rights of the first person are just and proper.

My thoughts concerned the determination of impose/impact on another person.  There are clear examples of when one’s rights would do this – for instance in the denial of the right to vote.  But what about when the imposition or impact is not so clear cut?

I thought about what would be a good example of an unclear rights issue.  I came up with an example that may be good to help us look at this.  This example is in the area of education – specifically the funding of public schools.

Suppose you live in a mid-sized town.  This town has two K-12 schools, one on the north side of town and the other on the south side.  Children attend the school in their “district” (side of town).  The north side of town is the affluent side of the town and the less affluent are on the south side.  Now the schools are given the funds gained through property taxes to operate the school itself.  The north side of town, being the more affluent, has higher value property and therefore generates more property tax revenue.  When all the monies are gathered and split for the schools the north side school ends up receiving a greater percentage of the funds because the north side of town generated more revenue.  Because of this the school is more capable of utilizing the monies to keep the most updated and new materials/equipment available to use in educating the children attending the school, as well as pay higher wages to the staff.  The south side school struggles to maintain what they have to teach with, plus the staff are paid less.  The south side school is also more crowded since the less affluent population is larger.

Now, since the government and courts have decreed that all children are entitled to a primary education and that “separate but equal” is discriminatory the questions I have are:

Are the children in the south side school being given equal rights with the children in the north side school?  Why or why not?  How do we set an objective standard for determining whether rights impose on another person’s rights?  When is it permissible to have “unequal” rights?

I’d like to hear your thoughts on these questions.

Note:  Today’s posting is my opinion and my opinion only.  I believe it to be a realistic and reasonable opinion, but feel free to disagree with it if you choose to do so.  There are no links to data supporting my opinion so, really, any argument against it can no more likely be “fact” than mine can unless the inevitable happens.  So, with that said….

I have read at various places on the web, over a period of time, about the thoughts of the need for another revolution to a) overthrow our government that has become repressive, socialist, oppressive, etc., or; b) restore our government to the founding principles of our Constitution.  I’m not going to show links to where I’ve read this as I refuse to publicize, or help spread, this kind of extremist silliness to anyone else.  But, I do want to speak to two obvious issues to such an idea of a second armed revolution in America.

First, I believe it won’t work.  Supporters of a revolution against the government of the United States will never get the unity of the vast majority of citizens (or inhabitants) of the United States to go along with such – pardon the intended pun coming – a revolutionary course of action.  I don’t believe such a course of action will have a chance of succeeding for the following two primary reasons.

1 – While the United States is one nation we are not a nation of one people.  Yes, we call ourselves Americans, but we are a nation of many races, cultures, religions, and backgrounds.  People that have come from just about every type of governmental system throughout the world – republics, democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, oligarghies, theocracies, you name it.  Vast numbers have left their countries where governments were in stricter control over their peoples, giving the immigrants (both legal and illegal) arriving here the feeling of more freedom to carry forth to live their lives without the oppressiveness of the country they left.  Whether it is for economic freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, or just the desire to live their lives peacefully without interference, they have come.  This has given us a nation of diversity of peoples and that diversity is not going to be overcome unless every one believes that any armed revolution will maintain the freedom they came for in the first place.

Which, in my humble opinion, isn’t going to be achieved short of a complete collapse of the United States government as it stands now.  While this nation faces a tough immediate (or longer) future I don’t see that total collapse happening.

2 – While the government stands it has the strength of the diversity of the people of this nation to keep itself in power over the people.  The primary muscle of the government is manifested through the strength of the military forces maintained by our nation.  I have, over the years, heard it postulated that if sent against Americans any US forces would not fire on, or attack, Americans.  I believe this to be an unreasonable position to believe in.  US military forces will, as long as they believe they are supporting and defending “the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” comply with any orders given them – as they should.  That very belief will be promoted by the government (of any flavor) to the troops sent to put down any armed rebellion against the government.  If you fail to believe so let me remind everyone of the Civil War, in which Americans fought Americans designated as being in rebellion against the Union (the United States).  One should also remember the use of the Army to disperse the WW1 veterans of the “Bonus Army” in Washington D.C. in 1932 as another example.  While the Army, as far as I know, did not fire upon the veterans, the troops none-the-less carried out the orders of the government.  There is no reason, considering also the first point about the diversity of people in the nation (which also brings diversity into our military), that any military forces sent to end such a rebellion wouldn’t carry out their orders as well.  They may not do it happily, but do it I believe they will.

So lets be realistic.  While there is need for reform in our government and it’s rule over this nation it will not be achieved by any type of armed revolution.  Change must come lawfully or it will not be accepted, either by the government or – more importantly – the diverse peoples of this one nation.

This morning I read a CNN.com article about four teens charged as adults in Tampa, FL.  These four teens, three aged 14 and one aged 15, allegedly attacked and sodomized a 13 year old student in the school gym lockerroom, using a broom handle and a hockey stick to sodomize the victim.  According to the prosecutors the assaults occurred on more than one occasion and some where witnessed by others (and not one of them reported the incidents).  The full article can be read here.

Should the teenagers be convicted they could face up to 120 years in prison.

Presuming the crimes occurred and the teens are guilty of them, my question is whether it is the right course of action to charge minors as adults?  I know that sometimes I think not, and then cases come along where I think – heck yes.  But, I wonder if we – society – are doing the right thing with these kids?  Don’t get me wrong, the alleged crimes committed on the victim are disgusting and heinous.  The young victim will be carrying scars of these attacks for the rest of his life.

It makes me wonder what is wrong in our society that could bring four young teenagers to the point of even being able to conceive of acting out such behavior?  How could they decide their actions could ever be acceptable to allow themselves to do on another person?  Did they know what they were doing was wrong?  What kind of value system have they been taught, and by who, that would cause them not to stop themselves from acting in this manner?  How do we, if we do, change society to teach our children better values to prevent this or similar behavior from our kids?

And, will punishing them as adults accomplish anything or should they be punished as minors in a system that would essentially hold them until they were 18 then set them free to live life?

What should be done?  Are more laws the answer?  Have we moved forward beyond the point where we can only continue deciding kids need to punished as adults when their behavior reaches a certain threshold?  If so, how do we determine this threshold in an objective and consistent manner?

I know I don’t have the answers.  What should we consider doing?

I wrote a post today titled “We Are?” in reference to the comment that President Obama made about Muslims in America.  It’s clear to me now, after the discussion carried on with one reader (Chadwick), that I did a really poor and confusing job of expressing my thoughts (fully admitting I was in a snarky mood today and it flowed into my little rant on the topic).

I am removing the post from public view for that reason only.  Certainly not because of any comment made to the post.  If nothing else Chadwick did me the service of showing me how confusing I was.  If I can get my thoughts clearer on the topic I may repost about it, expressing myself better and more accurately saying what I am thinking.

Chadwick, thanks for your comments – it is always a pleasure to read and consider what you say.

Okay, so with the murder of George Tiller we have been able to read and listen to how the radical right/conservatives/Republicans/Hannity/Beck/O’Reilly, etc…are “responsible” for causing Roeder to actually commit the crime because of all the extremist rhetoric they spout.

Now, not long after we have the case of the killing of one and wounding of another US Army soldier outside a recruiting center in Little Rock by an American who converted to Islam.  So, should we now be hearing how the radical left/liberal/Democrats/Daily Kos/Maddow/Olbermann/Schultz, etc…crowd is responsible for Muhammad’s actual commission of the crime?  Was it their extremist rhetoric from the left that caused this to happen?

Should we hear that all these entities on the left should be silenced, which the left is implying (or in some cases saying) the right should be?

Haven’t you extremists of either side figured it out yet?  None of you are doing one dang thing to aid in changing the problems this country is facing in all facets of our existence as a nation and a society.  So let me, yet again, say it:

EXTREMISM BEGETS NOTHING BUT EXTREMISM!

As long as you’re locked into your extremist behavior you are worthless for helping in creating positive change for our country.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

And for the same reasons I pointed out in my post “Listing Two Blogs Worth Checking Out” it is also now my privilege to add another blog, Democratic Populist, authored by NG Lynd and company.

Thank you NG for consenting to being added to the listing.

Tonight I have added two more blogs (making the enormous total of three) to my “Points of View” Blog Roll.  Joining the link to Jonathan Simeone’s American Reality blog are:

The Loadstone Rock, authored by Sidney Carton, and Stand Up For America, authored by USWeapon.  They both graciously consented to letting me place links on With Forethought and Intent to their blogs.

There are so very many blogs out there with just as many points of view.  They come in all flavors of thought and philosophy.  What I look for in a blog I want listed on my blog is one which deals with issues and points of view that are conveyed informatively, with respect for all.  I take the time to read them consistently for a month (at least) so that I know I am recommending quality blogs.  These blogs meet that standard well and are worth your reading time.

While I do not necessarily agree with all that is written on any of them, I will say that the posts on these blogs give me pause for thought and challenge me to examine my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions.  For that I thank the author/owners of these blogs for their diligence in their writing and sharing.

There are other blogs I am still considering or working on getting the author/owner’s consent to add to the list.

So please, take some time and visit them if you can.  I see no reason why you’d be disappointed.

Randall Terry’s comment on the murder of George Tiller is as troubling as the murder itself.  Terry stated:

“George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

“Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”

(Source: Media Matters for America)

I’ve got problems with the comment by Terry.  First, where is his condemnation of the murder?  It was a heinous act against a human being.  If unborn children are human beings and you stand in the belief it is wrong to kill them, you MUST also stand in the same belief about the unlawful killing of any human being.  I don’t see that in Terry’s statement.

Second, the killing of Tiller is not an incident that should be used to stir political concerns, as this statement does in referencing the “worry” that the current administration may use this incident to somehow restrict the rights of the pro-life movement.  That’s just further devaluing the sincerity of beliefs of the pro-lifers.

Calling abortion murder is, at this time, a moral condemnation – not a legal one.  While the pro-life movement can believe abortion is murder it should not, by inference or otherwise, be utilized to condone or justify the murder of Tiller.  Since it is a moral belief that violates God’s law it is for God to punish, just as murdering Tiller is a violation of God’s law too.  We can only punish violations of man’s law, and doing so (against the accused murderer) does not nullify God’s punishment.

Last, the “tone” of the words of Terry’s comment infer, at least to me, that Tiller “got what was coming to him.”  That’s wrong to imply, in any way.  Terry should have soundly, without mitigation of any kind, and clearly condemned this killing.  Grieving that Tiller didn’t have “time to properly prepare his soul to face God” doesn’t.  Plus, how does Terry know what Tiller had time to do, since only God can know?

I am a pro-life believer.  I believe – morally – that abortion is murder.  However, Terry – and Operation Rescue – do not represent me and never will, exactly because of flaws in their views that statements like this protray.

George Tiller was murdered in Wichita on Sunday while ushering at his church.  The killer, a lone gunman, was apprehended several hours later and the investigation into the case continues.  There is nothing that can be pointed to that would in any way condone Tiller’s murder.  This was a heinous and cowardly act, just as all murders are.

Tiller, a practicing late-term abortion provider, was murdered because…?  We don’t know yet, but hopefully it will come to light during the investigation and trial of the accused.

This lack of knowledge though has not stopped the blog world from jumping to conclusions based on – well, really nothing more than the idea that since Tiller was an abortion doctor his killer must be a radical extremist, right-wing religous, anti-abortion terrorist.

According to a Time article we know the “suspect was identified as Scott P. Roeder, 51, by the Johnson County Sheriff’s office. Police were investigating his links to the anti-government group the Freemen in the 1990s; he was also reportedly a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated a justifiable homicide position on abortion. “He was on the radar screen” of the FBI, an officer said. In 1996, Topeka police found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, gunpowder and other items that could be used to make small bombs. He was sentenced to highly supervised probation for two years. He was expected to be charged Monday with murder and two counts of aggravated assault.“

Some blogs are also blaming the pro-life movement for somehow inciting this individual to commit murder, making the movement complicit with, and in, the killing of Tiller.  That’s about as far fetched as blaming the homosexual movement in California for inciting, and being a complicit to, the invasion by Bash Back of the church in Michigan.

It may well turn out that Roeder is anti-abortion and that his motivation for killing Tiller was because of Tiller being an abortion doctor, we just don’t know yet.  Either way that is no reason to use this incident to smear any group that stands in opposition to your beliefs.  It just makes your side as extremist as the side you’re pointing a finger at.

Stop the unsupported rhetoric.  You know what you make yourself into when you assume.  Get the facts first, then speak to the point – but even then do so without demonizing anyone.  Extremism begets nothing but extremism – and that is useless regardless of which side it comes from.