John Mirra's blog

The R Kelly verdict, thoughts?

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:38:20 -0700

I haven't followed the case that closely, so I don't yet have the information to make an informed judgement; However, I want to offer some congratulations to the jury for a courageous verdict. The girl in the video said it wasn't her, the state never should have prosecuted R. Kelly. No I'm not saying that 13 year olds should be allowed to "act," in piss fetish porn movies. It's just that I strongly believe in the philosophy of no victim no crime. This woman didn't want to come forward and say she was on the tape, even if it was her, she has a right to make that choice. The prosecutor should have respected her privacy and not dragged this case on for 6 years.

I have no idea why the state would go against the wishes of this girl/woman and her family and waste the taxpayers money doing it. To use an analogy lets say my roommate got me really drunk, and convinced me to do some gay stuff for money, then video taped it and put it on the internet. Technically it's rape, (I'm drunk I can't consent), but I don't want the world to know about it, why should the state press charges?

Sure my roommate might do it again; however, we don't (or shouldn't) prosecute individual offenders for the sole purpose of incarcerating them to prevent them from committing any more crimes. They should make a decision to prosecute based on what is just in each particular case, for both parties. The law is written partially for the purpose of preventing crimes directly through incarceration, but individual enforcement of the law should not be based on larger societal goals, if that makes sense. Thoughts?

WARNING: NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:22:12 -0800

"Counter Punch," takes on NBC's to catch a predator:

http://www.counterpunch.org/anderson02072008.html

I don't want to quote the whole article but it brings up some interesting points, Perverted Justices decoys are often the first to bring up sex, not to mention the decoys even go out of their way to push the "fish" (for lack of a better word) into coming to meet them. The article also points out that these men (almost all are men), are being convicted based on evidence collected by non law enforcement personel working for a private organization.

Interesting article, all should read it, thoughts?

Hi my name is John Mirra......and I'm not crazy about universal healthcare schemes.

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:16:36 -0700

First things first, I used to post a little bit over at dailykos, but I have been busy lately so I stopped. I was referred here by "ztn." I posted a little introductory post about myself over there:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/2/165851/6809

Anyway I came here because I wanted to bounce some ideas off of like minded people before going back to Kos. First of all I'm not as "conservative" as most libertarians when it comes to economic issues. I believe in road building, subsidized public transportation, and even the occasional use of eminent domain (when absolutely necessary). I also am sympathetic to government efforts to alleviate the plight of the truly destitute. We all know there are good honest hardworking people who are stuck in dead end jobs with no pay. And I truly sympathize with them. Of course the working poor aren't exactly being helped by the governments generosity. Many of the regulations make hiring employees much more difficult, and provide an incentive to fire them quickly, also not paying them a lot.

"Benefits," like employer provided health insurance discourage companies from keeping employees around long enough to qualify. Social Security takes 7cents out of every dollar an employer pays in salary. And a lot of the money paid into social security ends up paying for all sorts of things, such as tanks, statues, etc. If I understand correctly SS is an efficient program with almost no overhead, but social security money just goes straight into the governments general funds, and "extra" can get used for whatever they see fit. Bottom line we have a fairly expensive government that doesn't give us much back. We have a social safety net that cost us big bucks and doesn't protect us. So now most of the democratic candidates want universal health care.

I want universal health care too, but what level of care is everyone entitled too? The very best money can buy? There is always a point of diminishing returns, where do we draw the line on what everyone is entitled too? Also if your fellow citizens are footing the bill for your health care, shouldn't they have a say in how you take care of yourself? Whether you smoke, drink, ride a motorcycle, eat fast food, don't exercise, etc. Finally , what measures will this new program have in place to control the costs of treatment?

When I'm not working, one of my hobbies is playing basketball, if I tore my ACL (a ligament in the knee) the common procedure would be too either convert one of my tendons into and ACL or take an ACL from a cadaver. With rehab and proper surgery I would come close to regaining my mobility, and all the faculties I previously had. Now I wouldn't necessarily need a new ACL, it would greatly reduce the quality of my life, and prevent me from participating in most sports, but I don't need the ACL to live. A 92 year old man might need open heart surgery to live (if only for a year or two more), who gets priority? From what I've heard from Canada surgery that improves the quality of your life is low on the list of priorities.

I sometimes drink to excess, order to much food at a restaurant, eat greasy cheese fries just for fun, drive my car to fast, etc. Should my neighbor who never drinks too much, always drives the speed limit, works out everyday, eats all his vegetables, etc. etc. have to subsidize my reckless ways? Not to mention pay for lung cancer treatments for smokers, liver transplants for alcoholics, rehab for people who crash their motorcycles, etc.? Socialized medicine would mean that the government rightfully would have a say in how you lived your life.

Finally health care costs as a portion of the GDP keep going up, and they are already too high. Is there any reason to believe that the government would be better at maintaining quality while keeping prices low then the private sector. The VA has been successful at keeping costs low, as for quality of care.....

For something such as health care the free market offers many more incentives for efficiency then in a government run program. What's more people are free to chose what they want to be insured against, what risks they are willing to pay for, and make the trade offs in their own minds. I am the only one who would know how much ACL surgery would be worth to me, the motorcycle rider is the only one who knows how much not wearing a helmet is worth to him. A government program is likely to limit our freedoms and lower our standard of leaving.