This comment rates better treatment than HaloScan would give it:

Probligo said: "In view of your sometimes scathing opinion of the ACLU one can only assume that perhaps they are acting to support the "wrong rights".

Well, I would say, having read a portion of Old Whig, that Al recognizes that the ACLU is not really acting to support inherent, individual rights, per se. They are acting to support privileges (aka constructed rights) and then misleadingly calling them rights. Which, I must admit, most people steeped in neo-liberalism (as opposed to classic liberalism) do. The problem, of course, is that neo-liberalism is, in reality, derived from the socialist view that the group is more important than the individual, which, in turn, derives from earlier republican and monarchist theories (see Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution or Montesquieue). Since none of these focus on the rights of the individual, only the privileges (because there is a base assumption that the individual's rights must be subordinated to the group's needs), you can see why an individualist, whether an "Old Whig" such as Al, or a rational anarchist (aka Jeffersonian Liberal) such as me, would have a major problem with the ACLU.

The reality is that if you fully defend every individual's rights to life, liberty and property then things like free speech, religion, privacy are taken care of, because those are privileges constructed from those inherent rights. But, you first have to accept that the individual's rights trump the group's desires. Otherwise the privileges the ACLU so ardently defends can be changed at will when the group wants them changed.
Eric | Homepage | 08.18.05 - 4:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Erkki... I mean Eric (that's just Norwegian/Swedish/Danish for Erkki--don't forget the "k" is long) deserves a link from me. I like anarcho-capitalism, I just don't think we'll get there any time soon.

Update: Eric, ya flamin' hairhead! That link's no good!

People should use this one.

Well, anyway...

I was meaning to blog my weekend, but I had some ISP problems (probably as a result of the new worm) and then I had to deal with the backlog of emails.

Anyway, my cousin came down to visit us. The two Mrs. Erkkilas had a great deal of notes to compare. [One of them should have a Mrs. Erkkila confab. I suspect they'd be shocked at the diversity of Mrs.es who had such a lack of diversity of experiences. The diversity of solutions to our problems... Well, that frightens me a bit.]

Anyway, we brought them to the Mall of America. I wore my "Enjoy Capitalism" T-shirt, that I got from Bureaucrash.com. Seemed like an appropriate venue. The wife, baby and I could only stay for the Camp Snoopy part; then we had to leave for a combination housewarming/baby shower party of one of our friends. Rosie stayed. Brian's daughter is her age almost exactly. And she's almost exactly the same size too. Quite a rarity. Rosie's pretty big for her age, but the other girl is a little bigger, though she's a couple months younger.

Brian and I, sadly, have a lot in common in our life experiences. My Dad died of cancer at 59, and his Dad died at 55. Both had so much practical genius to offer the world. I've seen both perform mechanical miracles... I continue to mourn the world's loss. As well as my own. I miss Dad. I miss Uncle Jimmy.

I've described my Dad as a mean-assed bastard. And he could be one. Especially right after he got off The Boat, when he was used to dealing with the usual cast of criminals that Steinbrenner's Kinsman Marine Transit usually hired. (You see, I understand now.)

I fear that my brother didn't get to know Dad after his conversion to Christianity. Or reversion, since Grandma and Grandpa sent him to a Baptist Church, pastored by Cliff Peterson, who was a wonderful guest preacher at our Wesleyan Church (a conservative branch of Methodism--our Founders broke away from the main branch over the issue of slavery... Our branch were on the Abolitionist side. May God forgive me for taking pride in that.) Dad was so glad to hear about Cliff Peterson preaching at our church that he gave his life to Christ himself.

A "witness" may travel many pathes.
....

I'm taken aback myself. I never thought of it that way before.

Anyway, Dad was vastly more kind, loving and funny during my teen years than he was during Ron's. I wish I could do a Vulcan mind-meld with Ron and share that with him. He was still tough as nails. Ron saw that. But he learned, through his personal experience with Jesus, to be tender with us younger kids.

...

Well, jeepers! It seems like I started out to say something completely different.

My cousin's daughter is trying to sleep behind me as I type. She wanted to stay with us for a week, at my wife's suggestion. We're planning to camp at Pattison Park Friday night, and meet with her parents there on Saturday.

It's 10:30 PM. They just informed me that they're hungry. If you can guess what I told them, you get a prize.

It was raining during my lunch hour today, so I drove over to the nearest BN Bookstore

to see what they had to offer.

When I wandered in, I asked God what he thought I should buy. Then I strolled through the store looking for whatever seemed most inspiring.

Oddly enough I found myself looking at a book called The Kama Sutra Guide to Hot Sex. (If I remember right -- my analytical mind shut down when I opened the front cover.)

Hooooooo-IIIEEEEE!!!!!

Holy Frijoles, Batman!

Mama mia!! That's a spicy meat ball!!!

Sittin' there, right at a ten-year-old boy's eye level!!!

.......

The analytical mind cut right back in when I looked at the price: $16.95.

Hmmmm...

Should a Bourgeois Philistine ... Christian ... part with the bucks for ... this sort of ... artistic endeavor?

..........

When I mentioned it to The Accountant, she seemed to think the price was negligible.

.........

"Ah'll be back!" methinks.

Well, I'll be GDed!

I turned 42 yesterday while I was at Grand Portage. Didn't feel a thing. Apparantly it's not one of the big ones.

The most important thing about the day was that we had to pack up and leave.

I snitched a handful of the neighbors' apple pie to celebrate.

I enjoyed the slow cruise through Duluth immensely. I love those old houses on London Drive and the cool breeze off The Lake.

Where the Hell did Leif Erikson Park go?!

On the way up last Wednesday, I insisted that we stop at Canal Park. And I insisted that we stay until at least one boat went under the Aerial Bridge.

When we were kids, we used to climb up on the walls of the Canal and run out to the lighthouse. Looking at them now, I can't believe how stupid we were, or that Mom allowed it. (Though, it seemed like they were at least 3 feet wide back then. They're only a foot at most now. I'm bettin' they've rebuilt them with the idea of making them look scarier to kids. ['Look,' Hell! They're a lot scarier than they used to be!])

I mentioned in the comments to the last post, that I left the camera at the in-laws' cabin on Lake Vermilion. Sorry about that.

We had great times at Deer River's White Oak Rendezvous and the Grand Portage Rendezvous. Deer River is the place to go to learn about Voyageur reenacting, and Grand Portage is second only to Old Fort William (Ontario) for learning about Voyageurs in general (although Fort Folle Avoine in Danbury, WI is a close third - I won't be missing that Rendezvous again!).

I must admit a preference for Rendezvoux that have a "Traders' Row" where you can buy stuff that's missing from your regalia. I had to beg a thong from the neighbor to replace a broken one on my mocassin at Grand Portage. (No, I don't run around in a thong! Get your minds out of the gutter!)

Oh! I still have this pic of Grand Portage Bay!

And, yes, I did see pretty much the same view from Mount Rose this year. Rosie made me climb it again later the same day, though I didn't have to carry her half way up like I did last year. This year we read the brochure as we climbed and learned about the plants and geology of the area along the way. I was happy to see how her interests had developed since last year.

I bought a CD from a folk singer who played for us at Grand Portage, Rodney Brown's The Big Lonely. "Hauntingly beautiful title track" they say... When I heard the guitar riff on that song, I knew I couldn't stand to live without it. Talk about capturing the essence of the sunrise of a crisp, cool summer morning on the North Shore of Lake Superior!

Of course, I don't know that the beauty of his vocals and guitar work, as it was sung and played within 50 feet of the shore of the great Lake that was the focus of much of The Northwest Company's activities for over a century, can quite be captured on so small a medium as a CD.

The whole album [yeah, I'm a geezer - I meant to say "CD"] is the result of two years of research into the history of the fur trade by a guy who makes his living as a folksinger. A labor of love from a native of Fort William, which has merged with Port Arthur to become the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

He'd like it if I gave this name to you to google: Pierre La Verendrye. If you get the chance to hear him sing, knowing the story of La Verendrye will enhance the experience.

I wonder if he knew my buddy Ed S., who is now a Mountie up in Alberta. Ed got his Bachelor's degree in Sup-town. Ed liked to talk about how much Thunder Bay politics resembled a hockey game, with plenty of anecdotal evidence. If they got together, they could probably write another album.

Excuse me, "CD."

I should have mentioned that I'm vacationing in the 18th Century this week.

Internet connections were rare then. It was tough to get your computer to stick his finger into any electrical devices of the time, even though they were the most gullible of people.

I see Walter Williams has an article on

the unity among Human, Civil and Property Rights. [Individual Rights, I calls 'em.]

I got mine at The Atlasphere.

He begins by quoting Carolyn Lochhead's July 1st San Francisco Chronicle article:

"Elliot Mincberg, the [People for the American Way's] legal director, said the case [Kelo v. New London] had been brought by the Institute for Justice as part of an effort by conservatives to elevate property rights to the same level of civil rights such as freedom of speech and religion, in effect taking the nation back to the pre-New Deal days when the courts ruled child labor laws unconstitutional."

To posit a distinction between civil or human rights on the one hand and property rights on the other reflects little understanding.

...

My computer is my property. Does it have any rights — like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are there any constitutional guarantees held by my computer? Anyone, except maybe a lawyer, would agree that to think of property as possessing rights is unadulterated nonsense.

So where do property rights come in? Property rights are human rights to use economic goods and services. Private property rights contain your right to use, transfer, trade and exclude others from use of property deemed yours. The supposition that there's a conflict or difference between human rights to use property and civil rights is bogus and misguided.

Professor Williams is an educator with a passion for his topic, Economics, so he makes sure his writing is understandable to everyone. RtWT.

Which [Al fumblingly segued] leads me back to Probligo's complaint about the Adam Martin article I quoted a couple posts back; that all the guy said, in what I quoted, was that Society is composed of individuals. At first, I found that complaint perplexing: I know that's all he was saying. But it's an important thing to say. Perhaps I should have quoted these paragraphs instead, from the discussion of Austrian moral individualism:

Moral individualism is not the same thing as egoism; even if one believes in absolute altruism towards one's fellows, those fellows must be recognized in their value as individuals rather than as an amorphous social blob. The precondition for treating another person as a person is to recognize his individual worth. The deadly flaw of collectivism is to replace concern for man with concern for mankind, which is nothing but a pattern resulting from the actions of individual man. This shift of focus can only come at the expense of the welfare of individual men.

It is always in this light that the value of subsidiary institutions should be understood. Voluntary associations are important not for their own sake, but because they fulfill man's nature. True partnership and community can only come about between distinct individuals. When we fight for our families, we must not fight for family in the abstract but for the flesh and blood people that we know and love. The efforts of those in the conservative movement to pit the community against the individual as opposing values is thus theoretically baseless; in an attempt to emphasize man's social nature they forget that such a nature must inhere in a man.

Probligo's complaint does point out that this isn't how the average guy talks - Martin is obviously heavily steeped in Mises, Rothbard and, maybe, Rand. In this latter quote, I'd eschew "man" and "mankind" for "the/an individual" and "society," but this would have been better to quote, as an enticement to read the article, because it's clearer and shows the practical social ramifications the two worldviews. But I still think the other quote is more important, because it deals with the nature of individuality and the need to consider the rights of individuals before setting up or rearranging institutions.

The path to social happiness goes through there.

Ach! Another book meme!

As if this one didn't cover it!

1) How many books have I owned?

I estimated c. 3500 a while ago.

2) What was the last book you bought?

Confessions of a Self-Made Millionaire: 422 Personal Success Secrets, Tricks and Unconventional Techniques You'll Never Learn in any Business School.

3) Last book that you’ve read.

Same.

4) 5 books that have meant a lot to you.

The Bible, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, The Walking Drum, by Louis L'Amour, 101 Dalmations (the pre-Disney version).

5. We'll see in any of them bite on doing this meme. ;–)

Ron
Any or all Burris
Any of the 25 for Freedom guys who haven't been zapped yet.

Since I found myself rereading this article,

What We Mean by Individualism, by Adam Martin, at the Mises Institute site, I thought I'd share the high points with you:

There are two senses in which Austro-libertarians consider themselves individualists: metaphysically and morally, with the latter being drawn from the former. A proper understanding of these senses immediately dispels the conservative objections to libertarian points.

Metaphysical individualism means that man is metaphysically prior to any social network, be it a subsidiary institution such as the family or a whole nation. That is, social phenomena have no existence apart from the actions of the individuals who participate in them. Subsidiary institutions are real, but they are real in a derivative sense: it is only because the individual man has a social nature that the institutions have being at all.

This point is often confused for a historical one, especially in economic and political theorizing. It is an obvious myth that man's "original condition" is isolation; the mere fact of his biological reproduction is enough to dispel this fantasy.4 The economic story of Robinson Crusoe, however, is not a story about historically isolated man, but rather one about metaphysically distinct man, who, because he has free will, must take the center stage in any social theorizing. This is the root cause of the Austrian adherence to methodological individualism, which recognizes man's action as the cause of social institutions and thus relates all social phenomena back to the necessary formal structure of the choices of individuals.

Yep.

Tara Smith, author of Viable Values

and other great books, says this in an ARI op-ed:

The charge of "judicial activism" typically condemns proper activity on the part of judges along with improper activity. It has become dangerously commonplace to equate a judge's support for overturning a law with pernicious activism. Prevailing wisdom holds that we can identify "activists" simply by counting up the number of times a judge rules against existing laws or government practices. Notice that by that logic, the only way for a judge to avoid overstepping his authority is to engage in no activity--to simply rubberstamp whatever the legislature and other agencies of government serve up. What, by this reasoning, is the point of having a Supreme Court? Some laws should be struck down. Because the United States is a constitutional republic, we are all bound--private citizens and government alike--to abide by the Constitution. It is precisely the role of the judiciary to strike down laws and prohibit government actions that fail to do so. Judges who so rule are acting responsibly and fulfilling their function.

With this important proviso, often ignored by Conservatives:

In doing their job, judges must be mindful of the 9th Amendment. The Constitution does not provide an exhaustive catalog of every right that citizens possess. The 9th Amendment explicitly instructs us that those rights not named in the Constitution are retained by the people. It is thereby laying down a principle to guide Constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, judges must apply the law in a way that respects all the rights of the citizens, unenumerated as well as enumerated. It is no more legitimate to subtract from the Constitution, by ignoring this provision, than to arbitrarily add to it.

Copyright © 2005 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

I admire Miss Smith and encourage everyone to read her writings.

At first glance, these look to be

the Muslim leaders we were hoping to hear from. I haven't delved deeper though.

Pray for them.

Walter Williams recommended them. I don't think I've ever disagreed with Walter Williams. Though I think he's about 1% more statist than I am.

OK, I'll define "statist" for you: it's the tendency to want to expand the role of the guys with the LEGAL right to shoot to kill. (Note that I didn't say "moral.")

Williams wants that reduced. I want it reduced more.

Of my other idols, I think Tom Sowell is about 2% on the other side of Williams from me, and Larry Elder splits the difference. John Stossel; I want him for President.

They're all publishing at Townhall.com these days.

Praise the Lord!

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice.

On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD.

--William Lloyd Garrison, The Liberator [January 1, 1831]

Anybody know what he was talking about?

This quote is beautiful to me.

But, then, I was raised by my brother.

FFF is doing their Bio on Garrison today, though they don't have it up on their site yet. These are the articles they link, or will when they post them. You'll have to go there to get the actual links. (I'm mean.)

FREEDOM BIOGRAPHY:
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON

William Lloyd Garrison Short Biography
Spartacus Educational

William Lloyd Garrison Short Biography
by Bob Ellenwood
BlountWeb.com

William Lloyd Garrison Short Biography
Online Library of Liberty

The Abolitionist Adventure
by Wendy McElroy
Future of Freedom Foundation

[What the heck, they've already got this one there. McElroy's great.]

The Liberator Inaugural Edition
by William Lloyd Garrison
America's Civil War

On the Death of John Brown
by William Lloyd Garrison
The History Place

On the Constitution and the Union
by William Lloyd Garrison
TeachingAmericanHistory.org

Garrison Bibliography
California State University

25 For Freedom folks need to check out the resources in FFF's Freedom Bios.

Speaking of "The Other White Meat"

[We were... Trust me. A couple posts back... In the comments.]

I was playing at being a porkeater over the weekend. That's what American fur-trappers called French-Canadians who otherwise lived the same lifestyle they did (generally we prefer the term "Voyageurs.") Because, I guess, when they could get it, Voyageurs preferred pork over bar, catamount 'n' buffler.

I forgot my camera [because the lady-who-has-the-whole-summer-off said she'd have us all packed and ready to load when I got home on Friday... I think she started about 4:00, so it was a big hullabaloo to get out the door by 7:30] so I didn't get any pictures for you.

Okay, I've blown off that steam. Let me just say, to redeem myself a bit in the eyes of those who'd accuse me blaming my wife for my own failings, and to defend my wife from those who wonder why I "put up with this crap," our twenty-month-old daughter is a bit of a hellion who requires quite a bit of supervision. She doesn't wreck stuff for the fun of it, like little boys do, but she's pretty fearless: she'll head right down a flight of stairs with no concern about proper technique, even though she's made that mistake twice already. ["What the heck's the big deal, anyway?! It's only a little bump!!"] My wife refers to that as The Flying Wallenda. I wonder if they're taking applications.

Anyway, we get to Forts Folle d'Avoine in Danbury, WI and our paperwork is screwed up somehow. Well, actually, we got there Friday night after dark, threw our stuff out on the ground, covered it with a tarp, blew up the airmattress and slept in the back of the truck. Then we got up at 6:00 the next morning, found our friends, pitched our tent next to them and got dressed up in our gear before we found out about the snafu.

So, we all march down to the park headquarters to straighten things out. Since Laurie sent in the paperwork, she was handling the business while I watched the kids in the little gift shop/museum there and we found ourselves, sitting there on a bench, adding color to the setting (in our Voyageur clothes). A guy sat his squalling kid on a neighboring bench, adding color of a different sort to the scene, and went off to coral his other kids. Pretty soon the kid's mother came and talked quietly to the boy and he calmed down. I was pretty engaged with Rosie and Aliina, the tourists and the stuff on display and payed them no mind. "Minding my own business is a full-time job," as that great philosopher, B. J. Honeycutt, once said.

With that all squared away, we headed back down to the tent to enjoy our primitive camping experience. Naturally, it immediately starts raining. Kind of a wimpy thunderstorm, really, but the rain continues long enough to finally drive all of us into our tent.

I'd just pulled out some reading material I'd brought along - call it home work - when a voice calls, "Al? Al Erkkila?"

I open the tent flap and look out at this tall, good-looking [I say, for descriptive purposes only - and, to be strictly accurate, I have to add the word "stunningly"]guy and a passel of kids. The tall guy is the one calling my name, so I focus on him to help settle this kaleidoscopic scene.

"Are you Al Erkkila?"

"Yeah?"

"I'm Lance Burri!"

Now I know what the expression, "You could have bowled me over with a feather" means. We did introductions all around, although, still in my stunned frame of mind, I told my wife that Lance was Mr. Pterodactyl. I was quickly corrected.

They explained the train of decisions that had led them to be there. (As the kaleidoscope settled, I realized that one of the "kids" was his wife - sadly, it will probably be ten years before she can appreciate that as a compliment). They seemed like a pretty neat family. The kids patiently endured probably the oddest conversation they'll ever witness: their Dad and an old geezer in 1790's French trapper garb talking about the internet and blogging.

If it hadn't been raining, I'd have taken them on a little tour of the neighbors' tents. Deb didn't bring her tepee to this Rendezvous, but she had all her other stuff, and she's a serious student of the Sioux. Dan and Stoni got us into this game and can explain a lot more than we can about the characters they're portraying.

After they left, I got to thinking about the series of coincidences that led to that meeting. Our own presence there was kind of a deviation from any plan as well. We've got plenty of events to attend as it is.

And how the heck did they find us?! We were way on the opposite end of the field, and only a few people there even know my name! We were long gone before they started looking.

I insisted we go to Sunday Services the next day.

And I won't even begin to get into the topic of the service!

This Conservative blogger writes in a way that makes me think:

Slant Point.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind me posting a sample of his work:

Wrong Approach
The problem with "good" Muslims looking to distance themselves from the extremists is that they're taking a "we're not all bad" approach. This is simply wrong and, well, not enough. (Hat tip Hugh Hewitt)

What we need to see is a few signs that say, "Yeah, we have bastards among us, and we're going to find them. And expose them. And bring them to justice."

These signs are a complete lack of understanding, and merely a self-preservation tactic meant to solicit sympathy. But the only ones needing sympathy are the victims of terror.

I discovered him via Omni's Technorati link for Nietzsche (type that 20 times for practice). I left a comment on that post. Unfortunately it's in limbo right now. And I didn't realize that would be the case or I'd have copied it and posted it here before I hit 'post' there. I write my best stuff in comments.

Omni explains Karma better than any prof I've ever had. If they had I might have become a convert.

As it is, I just think its Natural Law and coincidence. Though, of course, coincidence is just what Ayn Rand would (or, rather, might) call a manifestation of the benevolent nature of the Universe.

Are there miracles for pagans too?

I said this, in response to my brothers post

here:

Relativism refuses to understand or respect the actual relations. Concepts are hierarchically organised in the mind of the rational person; if some seem to conflict, it's because you're failing to understand their places in the hierarchy. They go from broad and deep to concrete and shallow: from dirt to Reality.

We go from individual particles to complex Human Beings (made of many trilliions of particles, and more importantly, many hundreds or thousands of ideas, to the collective of human beings - tribes, communities, races, nations; which comprise various combinations of all of the above.

Western Civilisation focuses its policies on allowing various people's ideas to reach fulfillment. Failed attempts at social organisation focus on controlling physical combinations.

The emphasized word is one I meant to say, but didn't.

I must add that not all ideas will succeed in reaching fulfillment, nor will the majority, having reached fulfillment, succeed in achieving their proclaimed goals. Their goals would be the long-term happiness of their adherents, in this life or the next, or (for atheistic ideologies) among their descendants (as long as they adhere to The Plan).

Our Founders never expected us to achieve a permanent state of Utopia or Nirvana. They only hoped to create an ideological framework within which we could find solutions to our problems.

Departures from that framework - communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, oligopoly, theocracy and totalitarianism - have proven to be marked failures.

As has, I suppose, Atomistic Individualism, though, within the Framework of a Constitution which respects individual, natural rights, I doubt that it would.

Tribalism has yet to prove to be a failure within that framework, except in the cases where it oversteps its bounds (shown by a tribe, or clan, inflicting harm on another). The Nuclear Family certainly hasn't proven to be a failure...

Well, I need to cut this off. What, though, is the goal of political theory?

So President Bush has chosen to nominate John G. Roberts, Jr.

to replace Justice O'Connor... Wikipedia says he's a moderate. Which worries me some, as I said while signing Townhall.com's petition.

That makes anyone who opposes him an extremist, right?

Update: Welcome TMV visitors! I have to add this question to my post: I wonder if John Roberts would have delivered the scathing rebuke on the Kelo case that Sandra Day O'Connor did. The contradictory vibes I'm getting from the web say otherwise. But TMV has all that. Nobody does roundups better than Joe Gandelman.

I tried to post a comment there, but I seem to have lost my password. If anybody finds it, you know where to turn it in.

HEY!!! Pudgier E. Delights AND Sexless H. Fallout

Have BOTH emailed to tell me about CIALIS!!

:O :O :O I'd better read both of these messages!!

Why --- That last guy has the same middle initial as Our LORD!!

The Old Whig Quote Machine putters on

Tom Sowell delivered a couple good ones the other day in one of his Random Thoughts columns:

Many people are so preoccupied with the notion that their own knowledge exceeds the average knowledge of millions of other people that they overlook the more important fact that their knowledge is not even one-tenth of the total knowledge of those millions. That is the crucial fallacy behind the repeated failures of central planning and other forms of social engineering which concentrate power in the hands of people with less knowledge and more presumption.

Why do we keep pretending that we know how to control child molesters after they are released from prison? How many more children must be killed before we face the plain reality that, if it is dangerous to let child molesters out of prison, then they should be kept in prison.

Those two things go together. I see on the news that MN State Corrections is planning to spread out the concentration of Level 3 sex offenders that they now have in Minneapolis and St. Paul out into the suburbs.

...[T]he state's sex offender capitol, by far, is Minneapolis, with 55 level threes.
...
The state wants to eliminate the clusters in the inner city by moving sex offenders to the suburbs, where there currently are very few.

There are three in Brooklyn Center, two in Bloomington, and one in Apple Valley. The rest of the 'burbs are untouched.

But that's about to change. Lawmakers gave the Department of Corrections more than a $1 million to help find sex offender housing in suburbs and smaller towns.

Glad to know "we're" doing our part, Al said drily.

"I don't think anybody wants them in their neighborhood," said Ken Carpenter.

Corrections officials hope to change their minds.

"Unless we can make sure that the whole state is safe, they're not necessarily going to be safe just by keeping them from living in their community," said Harley Nelson of the department of corrections.

I see here we have three rapists and a pedophile within easy walking distance of our house.

"They have to live somewhere," you say. Well, I beg to differ with that logic, but, since I'm not planning to lead a Vigilance Committee (or follow one either), I'd say we need to pressure our legislators to make sure these people aren't on the streets at all.

You might want to check out your own neighborhoods at The Child Safe Network

or

The National Alert Registry

Surprise!

WIDTH="88" HEIGHT="130" ALT="Want to Get Sorted?">

I'm
a Gryffindor!

The wife and daughter, the one who's old enough to answer the questions, were both
WIDTH="88" HEIGHT="130" ALT="Want to Get Sorted?">

I'm
a Ravenclaw!

To Heck with it!

You people want pix of Sabrina Ferilli!

Christmas came early this year!



And here's the pic I thought was going to get me in trouble:

My friend Smichael says I can post

this (scroll way down, he's having some kind of Blogger issue):


BTW, check out that alternate 'skin,' eh?

Just don't do it at work.