.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 |
| Hear no nerds, see no nerds, no speaking to nerds. |
I bring you two VERY different stories today and will attempt to make a cohesive thread from them.
Now if you didn't bother to run those links, lemme brief you. Item one is a lady in S. Carolina who got a ticket, and is getting a jury trial over the ticket, for her display of a set of fake testicles hanging from the rear of her vehicle. As I grew up on a working farm that was also a working cattle ranch, I got to see plenty of sets of hanging testicles on the various animals that roamed the farm. I'll leave it at that.
 |
| Apply to heads as necessary |
Item 2 is Warren Jeffs, the Texas polygamist accused of child molesting. Jeffs has repeated fired his defense attorney team and told the court he intends to represent himself. After explaining his action to the court, Jeffs remained silent, despite repeated requests by the judge for him to comment.
Aside from being in court, what links these two items?
 |
| Your right to challenge government. Guaranteed in writing. |
They are both challenging what they see as an injustice. I am not defending either of these people (although I could work up a great defense for the lady with the wedding tackle on the back of her ride). I'm just telling you what I see.
A lot of people are going to say Jeff's position is indefensible, something I shall not dispute. I do note the vast majority of the media covering the case is stymied by Jeffs' actions and his refusal to speak.
I ain't, and I is the media. (and I am again driving my favorite high school English teacher around the bend with my syntax). I know exactly why he's doing it. There's two methods to his madness. I shall leave you to wonder about one of the reasons. The other is: By ignoring the court and refusing to answer questions, Jeffs is proving that he does not recognize the court has authority over him.
You can call that a stupid idea, as many of you will, but it is a moral stand for him. This is also intimately linked to the other reason he acts the way he does in court.
Unless I'm missing something, that is. Which is entirely possible considering Jeffs is likely more delusional than a baboon on moonshine. But that doesn't matter. Our judiciary allows people to be idiots and still have a day in court.
A lot of people are going to say Jeff's position is indefensible, something I shall not dispute. I do note the vast majority of the media covering the case is stymied by Jeffs' actions and his refusal to speak.
I ain't, and I is the media. (and I am again driving my favorite high school English teacher around the bend with my syntax). I know exactly why he's doing it. There's two methods to his madness. I shall leave you to wonder about one of the reasons. The other is: By ignoring the court and refusing to answer questions, Jeffs is proving that he does not recognize the court has authority over him.
 |
| Possibly madness to his method. Possibly just madness. |
 | ||||
| Faster than a... Um. Able to leap... Ahhh, forget it. Again, I am not defending Jeffs (although I will be accused of doing so). I am merely pointing out that he and the lady are both exercising a fundamental right in this nation. Our Constitution sets up guarantees to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority. For as much as I pontificate on the "Will of the People" I am extremely glad the Constitution has that provision and I am more glad our court system upholds it. Just because you get what you want, doesn't mean it's what I want or need.
I am most glad that the provision is both adhered to by the people and challenged by the people. Challenges are necessary. That which does not face opposition grows stale, weak and eventually dies. Whatever does not kill me, makes me stronger. We need people like the lady and her fake cojones on her vehicle. We need people willing to put themselves forward to be an example. Myself, I hope she wins.
As for Jeffs, well dammit. We desperately need people to challenge the system. But when you start abusing others, especially children, in order to make your point and issue your challenge, no, I just can't support that at all. I will, in fact, oppose it with violence of my own. That said, if Jeffs is convicted of the molestation charges, I will be glad to strap him to an onager and hurl him into a cliff. In closing and because I'm that kinda guy, I'll drop you a hint to the second part of Jeff's defense strategy. Go read the New Testament. That's all yer getting hint-wise 'cause books are the most dangerous things around, only if you read them. |
I am pleased to have reconnected with you, Mr. Baker. I have missed reading your writings!!
ReplyDelete