Disclaimer: although I agree with the author, it must be noted this is an opinion article, therefore does not assert any definitive authority on the legal or constitutional status of the Hate Crimes Act itself, rather it asserts a general view on it. Showing some potential flaws within its form.

Looking for Hate in All the Wrong Places
Opinion Editorial   by Jacob Sullum - May 10, 2007

"Hate crimes have no place in America," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi boldly declared last week, "no place in a nation where we pledge every morning 'with liberty and justice for all.'" Pelosi was urging her colleagues to approve a bill aimed at violence motivated by hostility toward members of certain designated groups.

According to Pelosi, then, the "justice for all" mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance means equal opportunity to be a crime victim. It certainly does not mean equality before the law, which the hate crime bill sacrifices by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs.

The bill, which the House passed and President Bush has threatened to veto, expands the federal government's involvement in prosecuting bias-motivated crimes by eliminating the requirement that victims be engaged in a federally protected activity such as voting.

It also adds four new bias categories (gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability) to the existing four (race, color, religion, and national origin).

Religious conservatives warn that the bill, combined with existing federal penalties for anyone who "counsels," "commands" or "induces" someone else to commit a crime, could be used against a pastor who condemns homosexuality if one of his congregants later assaults gay people. This seems like a stretch, especially in light of the well-established First Amendment rule that speech can be punished in such a situation only if it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so.

But it's not a stretch to say that hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.

The rationale for such unequal treatment is that crimes motivated by bigotry do more damage than otherwise identical crimes with different motivations because of the fear they foster. Yet random attacks arguably generate more fear, and hate crimes cause anxiety in the targeted group only when they're publicized as such. In any case, judges can take a crime's impact into account at sentencing.

Even if states were justified in punishing bigoted criminals more severely than merely vicious ones (as all but a handful currently do), the case for federal action would be weak. Unlike the situation in the Jim Crow South, there is no evidence that state and local officials are ignoring bias-motivated crimes.

The hate crime bill, which authorizes federal prosecution whenever the Justice Department perceives a bigoted motive and believes the perpetrator has not been punished severely enough, continues the unfortunate tendency to federalize crimes that are properly the business of state and local governments, just so legislators like Pelosi can show they care.

Although the Bush administration claims to be concerned about this trend, the details of its objections to the bill (not to mention its history of supporting unconstitutional expansions of the federal government) suggest otherwise.

In federalizing bias-motivated crimes — potentially including every heterosexual rape, a crime that arguably is always committed "because of" the victim's gender ¯ Congress claims to be exercising its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

But the connection can be as tenuous as a weapon that has crossed state lines, interference with the victim's "economic activity" or anything else that "affects interstate or foreign commerce."

The president's complaint is not that such a broad definition of interstate commerce leaves nothing beyond the federal government's authority. It's that Congress neglected to include the all-purpose Commerce Clause boilerplate in one section of the bill.

Contrary to the impression left by the Constitution, Congress evidently can do whatever it wants, as long as it says the magic words.

Here's the thing.  For crimes against us, many times there is no real effort to find the perpetrators.  That's where bringing the Feds in can help. 

And besides, those who are complaining the loudest already are covered by hate crimes bills... .usually under the religion or race cards.  If they feel so strongly about it, they should also be fighting to repeal existing hate crimes legislation.  So, let's be equal under the law!

You, mister white Christian guy (in the generic) are protected under hate crimes legislation.  All I want is the same protection.

Cindi

I don't want any hate crimes laws for the fact that all crimes are equal in their harm. Hitting someone because they're a jew or hitting someone because you're piss drunk is not different at all under any observation. It still produces the same harm, all that matters is that harm.

-- Brede

The judicial process in this country takes into consideration many things, such as the intent of the perpetrator, in sentencing. This legislation is of a piece, to the letter and to the spirit, with that tradition.

Quote from: Attis on May 12, 2007, 02:37:39 PM
...It still produces the same harm, all that matters is that harm.

I don't agree, Brede.  Hate crimes are committed against groups, not individuals.  Against "homos" not against "that rich looking person" so their negative effect on society is greater.

I had this discussion with my wife.  A "hate crime" is committed against a group and is driven by prejudice.  Other crimes are against individuals for any number of other motivations, primarily need or greed.  Our culture has decided that crimes motivated by prejudice are more heinous than other crimes so attacks based on gender, orientation and gender identity should be covered by the existing laws.

hugs & smiles
helen

Quote from: Attis on May 12, 2007, 02:37:39 PM
Hitting someone because they're a jew or hitting someone because you're piss drunk is not different at all under any observation. It still produces the same harm, all that matters is that harm.

-- Brede

    Ideally, but not in actuality.
    There are courtrooms where a punch is a punch no matter who it is directed at, but there are also court rooms where a punch is more excusable because the victim happens to be someone who is of a group whose existence somehow ignites an irrational emotional response in the perpetrator. I'm not even picking out states because you can get different verdicts in different courtrooms. I'm sure there are even still districts where the DA doesn't even bring a case to trial because the victim is just too unimportant, or, who is perceived to have brought the violence upon themselves.

    There are still crimes where the police don't work too hard because the victim was just a "deviant", or the jury is more sympathetic to the criminal than to the victim.

    It hurts me too much to think about it right now, but if you'd like, I can try to find specific recent cases (within the last 3 years) that show my point. I'm just saying that ideally, there should be no difference in the vigor with which all cases of violence are investigated and prosecuted, and in how the punishment is meted, but there is such a difference sometimes. It's something that needs to be addressed.

   Also, I think I need the government to show that it cares about about me a little. It's been a damned ugly century so far and there is no reason why it had to be that way.


Respectfully,

Rebecca

Can anyone show me where a fist by a nazi skinhead plugging away at a black person is any different than a silicilian mobster plugging away at a store owner for not paying his/her "protection money?" The metaphysical and epistemological facts are the same no matter how many judges think it so, and no matter how many politicians think it so. If A is A, being that the law of identity does not fundamentally change from one state of being to another, then it follows that all states are equal in measure with regard to their impact on other states of being. In short, any act of violence is exactly the same in regards to the metaphysical and epistemological measures such that the causes of actions are not inherently important as to measuring whether harm is done or not.

When you say, well the judges measure the malice of the crime or the intent of the crime, that may be true to a degree, but the law must follow its form, otherwise why have the law when it is suspended arbitrarily? The law has an objective reality, that which is measured by our senses, which is there are two kinds of evil, and they both must be initiated: force and fraud against one's person. And there is no other crime, all crimes are derivatives of those two forms. When that is accepted as the foundation of common law, then justice prevails, but when you try to say that someone who uses the N-word or the K-word, or any word in hatred while committing an act of evil, that some how it's worse with no tangible proof to back that assessment, then you are pleading to Platonism. Worse than that, you're diluting the nature of evil and crime, making anything an evil and a crime.

Also, this plead to groups being harmed is an error of metaphysics and epistemology, groups inherently cannot be harmed. I cannot harm the group called Matter, just as much as I cannot harm the group called Female. All I can harm are the members of such groups and that is where the debt is accrued, otherwise people of other groups magically owe debt to people of other groups even though no crime was committed by the members of group associated with the perpetration of the crime. In essence, this the claim that "sons inherit the sins of the fathers." I will not hold people to ransom for the crimes they did not commit. If you see such laws as necessary, then I really think liberty in this nation and this world is finished. Even our liberty as transgendered and transsexual people is finished if we abide by such errors in logic and morality.

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 12, 2007, 11:33:26 PMAlso, I think I need the government to show that it cares about about me a little. It's been a damned ugly century so far and there is no reason why it had to be that way.

Governments cannot care, they are not persons. Nor should they do anything beyond the scope of their contracts. The Bill of Rights is all I need, but not socialized medicine, not hate crime laws, and definitely not invasions of my property and person. When the government gets out of the way and lets me be myself, and lets those bigots live as they want away from my person, my safety is assured. The more power you give the government, the more it will have for bigots to use against you and your property. Don't give them that power. The government needs to be hog tied and blind folded in matters of the person, otherwise one could argue that one has no rights to be apart from others.

Don't make the mistake as to thinking that your life is less than that of others.

-- Brede

    I understand what you are saying.
    I only disagree in that once a principal such as justice is in the hands of people, the rules  no longer apply. People are random elements in all things. There is little logic in the manner in which 5 different people will interpret the facts before them.
   
    An example is this from the U.S. Bill of rights:

QuoteAmendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

   I take this to mean that states not individuals are guaranteed the right to form militias in order to defend their principles and their liberties from an unjust federal government. For me, the statement revolves around this - A well regulated militia, meaning that the militia and how it is regulated is decided by the state government. For me the term people means a collective entity.
   Other people think the important part of the amendment is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To them, the term people is interpreted as meaning every individual.

  I'm not arguing for gun control here. I'm only using it as an example of how a simple statement can be interpreted in different ways. Just because I believe something, doesn't mean it's right.

   Imagine a person punching another (I have seen violence, so I don't have to imagine it). On the surface, one person punched another and that is assault. No doubt. Bring it before a jury and you would think that just the fact that one person punched another  and that there are witnesses and the act cannot be disputed would mean a simple punishment. A punishment that would apply to every single person equally, however, it really does not work that way. It should not matter who was punched (unless it's a child because it's worse) or who did the punching, but it does. People receive different punishments for performing the same crime every day. Sometimes, the victim is ignored or even mistreated because of who they are.

   For me, a hate crime law is not meant to add punishment to an already reasonable sentence or judgment which falls into the average for the crime committed, but is meant to be a kind of net for punishing violence that may not have been punished in a way that meets your criteria for the same punishments for the same crimes. There really are times when a person who commits a violent crime is dealt with less harshly because the victim is of a 'disapproved' or 'unimportant' group.

  I am not trying to lecture or to convert you. I understand both sides of the argument. Right now, I'm in a place where I believe that 'hate' crimes are not always punished with the same zeal that an ordinary crime would be. I say 'not always' - there are good people out there who try to do the right thing, but there is still a contingent or subclass of haters who will work to undermine justice and the law.
  I am in a place where I believe that for now (maybe 2 or 3 decades?) we need to ensure that punishment is meted to those who commit acts of violence or even intolerance.

  I have a real life example of the weirdness in how the law is applied.
  This took place 30 years ago. I understand that the times were different then, but this may work as an example in the context of protecting people who can't stand up for themselves.
  I have an uncle who got a 12 year old girl pregnant when he was 24 years old. He received 2 months in county for statutary rape.  The girl slept with him willingly. They even had an openly public relationship. Why did he only get 2 months? Part of the reason is that the girl dressed and acted older. I was 15 and I thought she was 17 years old. But what the hell kind of reason is there to take the girl's looks and behavior into consideration? A 12 year old is a 12 year old.
  That's how the law works. Of course, in the last few decades, people had to work at getting the law to think of children seriously. Nowadays, 12 years old means 12 years old. My uncle would be jailed for a lot longer now. He would be branded as a sex offender and have to follow a strict regimen upon release. To be fair to him, he is not interested in children and has never done anything like that again, but who would know that? Most people who behave like that do it because they are messed up and they never stop. We know more now and we treat perpetrators of child molestation in a far more serious way than before. However, this punishment had to be lobbied for and fought for by victims and their parents.

  If someone stabs me (less likely now then a few years ago -I hope), I want them to be prosecuted for attempted murder or even attempted manslaughter, but they will probably get prosecuted for aggravated assault or some other lesser charge that insults me. If the perpetrator is prosecuted with the same vigorous energy that others are for similar crimes, I'd be fine. But if they are prosecuted on a lesser charge because of my 'proclivities' then I want to be able to advocate for another trial based on why I was attacked because the why in this case is not only the reason I was attacked, but also the reason by which the attacker received less harsh treatment by the system.
  Haters and bigots are like child molesters, in that, if they feel free to do so, they will gladly commit the same crime against another person.


  I apologize for the speech, Brede. I am not arguing, but only trying to describe my point of view. I have lived a weird life. Because of my lack of family structure, I have associated with child molesters, rapists, murderers, bigots, and other crazy people. There is little to no consistency in how laws are applied. I have known the most violent of people to get tiny little punishments that were insulting at best to the victim. I wish every violent crime was handled in a more cookie cutter fashion. Hurting someone is hurting some one. No excuse. No matter in who the victim is. I don't expect the law to ever work fairly while it is in the hands of people. I just would like to see it handled with consistency.

Break. I have to actually do some work since I've been here for 90 minutes already.

  Catch some sun and have some fun,

Rebecca

QuoteI take this to mean that states not individuals are guaranteed the right to form militias in order to defend their principles and their liberties from an unjust federal government.

Um no, militias in the Black Law Dictionary are individuals, not state armies. It's very clear in this case. So, your interpretation according to the terms of that amendment is easily disputed just by that point alone. And as for how it applies to the issue of hate crimes, let me see the rest of your argument to assess that...

QuoteFor me, a hate crime law is not meant to add punishment to an already reasonable sentence or judgment which falls into the average for the crime committed, but is meant to be a kind of net for punishing violence that may not have been punished in a way that meets your criteria for the same punishments for the same crimes. There really are times when a person who commits a violent crime is dealt with less harshly because the victim is of a 'disapproved' or 'unimportant' group.

I put bold on this particular phrase, add punishment. By what logical inference does any institution have the right to add punishment to what exists as a singular instance of a crime, whether or not that crime in itself can be construed as heinous? I ask this in the context that although there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances, they are easily identified within limits to what they entail. For example, a person that murders in the heat of passion may not get the first degree of murder, but the person still murdered and that person will be charged and accused of murder. In some states, no matter if it was a spur of the moment murder, or a well planned out murder, that person may still be up for murder in the first degree. And so on. That means by metaphysical and epistemological fact, the crime is murder, the sentence is either execution or life in prison with no parole. You can't add more to a harm, it just is what is it.

Take a case of a dispute over property damage, if it's found that the owner of the damaged property is trying to 'pad' off extra costs beyond the legal fees and the actual damage to the property, a judge can easily throw out the case as fraud, even if the person has just cause, because all you can sue for in a civil case is identifiable damages. And why? Because it's measurable, if it's not measurable, therefore it's not identifiable.

This also follows in logic for crimes, if I cannot measure what damage malice did in a case, but I can measure the physical damage and identify what specific crime it is, then I prosecute for that crime. And that's the issue here. I do not believe in the addition of platonic ideals in the nature of crime. I am an Aristotlean in respect to law. No addition beyond the objective, and no dilution of definitions will I accept.

QuoteI am not trying to lecture or to convert you. I understand both sides of the argument. Right now, I'm in a place where I believe that 'hate' crimes are not always punished with the same zeal that an ordinary crime would be.

That's because you got a whole legal system that focuses on non-victim crimes like drug use and prostitution. And on top of that you got IA departments that do not do their job, especially since both police and the DA have no competition for their jobs. If there was some performance grade they had to maintain to keep their jobs, then they would at least try, but in our current system what is the incentive for them to help a minority? None. So, that's natural. Adding laws will not make the lazy monopoly on the execution of laws any more pro-active in the execution of the current laws that apply to crimes which happen to our own. If you want them to work, take away their pay cheques. Tell them, no more nice bonuses until X sort of crimes are resolved on the books. And they go on strike, hell hire professional security teams, I know one gal that's sniper trained that would be a better officer than these 'tards that walk around even my city.

But that's all a criticism of the system itself, and not the hate crimes issue here, and I just leave that point alone as I've commented on it.

QuoteI have an uncle who got a 12 year old girl pregnant when he was 24 years old. He received 2 months in county for statutary rape.

As you stated in the paragraph she willingly slept with him, to me this is not a crime. It's stupid, but not a crime. It's also why I'm against such laws as well. We're not talking about funny in the head grampa Tom 'exploring' little girls. We're talking about a 24 y/o and a 12 y/o, although quite far apart in age, but in biological terms quite close enough that in other countries this would be considered the norm rather than the exception.

QuoteHe would be branded as a sex offender and have to follow a strict regimen upon release.

I'm against this too, because the crime you commit, the time to me is the punishment, you're free afterward; period and end of story. Call me evil, but if a law punishes beyond its scope, then that law is wrong.

QuoteI apologize for the speech, Brede. I am not arguing, but only trying to describe my point of view.

Actually I found it refreshing, but on much of it I'm in disagreement since I'm a very peculiar person in the matters of law. I'm like a blend of Lawrence Lessig and Robert Bork meets Ludwig Von Mises (and Ayn Rand too.). So my views are very particular and rarefied, but none the less I preface them on logic and metaphysics over traditionally held views of law for the fact that it is our logic and our metaphysics that defines the rest of our responses to the world around us, specifically in relation to humankind. Hate crimes in this context are metaphysically impossible, and should not be allowed, but equally lazy police forces and lazier prosecutors are unacceptable under my definition of justice. And that many things we hold as crimes as well (Statutory rape) are valid as crimes unless lack of consent in the matter. So, I leave you with this thought. If everything is labeled a crime, then everyone is a criminal, therefore is it criminals policing other criminals then? I ask that question and leave it unanswered for you, because that is the current state of our laws and our courts. I, for one, am ready to tear it down, and make it anew, brick by brick.

-- Brede

Quote from: Attis on May 14, 2007, 10:52:45 AM
So, I leave you with this thought. If everything is labeled a crime, then everyone is a criminal, therefore is it criminals policing other criminals then? I ask that question and leave it unanswered for you, because that is the current state of our laws and our courts. I, for one, am ready to tear it down, and make it anew, brick by brick.

-- Brede

   Strange. I'd like to burn the constitution and reconstruct it word by word. Maybe we should form a joint organization with the intention of completing these tasks.


Damn it, I have to work again,

Rebecca

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 14, 2007, 12:24:59 PM
Strange. I'd like to burn the constitution and reconstruct it word by word. Maybe we should form a joint organization with the intention of completing these tasks.

You say you want a Revolutio-on, we-ell, you know-oh-oh
We all wanna change the world...
You tell me it's the Constitutio-on, we-ell, you know-oh-oh
We all wanna change the words...

The constitution is workable.  What we need to do is to stop the dominionists from wanting to change it!

Cindi

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 12, 2007, 11:33:26 PM
There are still crimes where the police don't work too hard because the victim was just a "deviant", or the jury is more sympathetic to the criminal than to the victim.   

OR work at all because of this distinction.
That in my view sums up this proposed legislation and its raison d'etre.

TMW

Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 14, 2007, 04:43:45 PM
The constitution is workable.  What we need to do is to stop the dominionists from wanting to change it!

Cindi

You mean the interpretationalists that think you can make the word apple into orange, that "society's context changes the meaning of words." That's my problem with the current atmosphere in the government.

-- Brede

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 14, 2007, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 12, 2007, 11:33:26 PM
There are still crimes where the police don't work too hard because the victim was just a "deviant",  

OR work at all because of this distinction.

Yep.  It's been almost 10 years since my friend TerriAnne was found face down in her driveway with a bullet in the back of her head.  This was shortly after she had organized a protest at Winn Dixie headquarters because they fired someone for crossdressing off the job.  The Jacksonville Sheriffs Office still think "it was a robbery gone bad" even though her purse and everything was still there.    They basically didn't give a sh*t.

Beverly

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on May 14, 2007, 06:50:36 PM

Quote from: The Middle Way on May 14, 2007, 04:45:21 PM

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 12, 2007, 11:33:26 PM
There are still crimes where the police don't work too hard because the victim was just a "deviant",  

OR work at all because of this distinction.

Yep.  It's been almost 10 years since my friend TerriAnne was found face down in her driveway with a bullet in the back of her head.  This was shortly after she had organized a protest at Winn Dixie headquarters because they fired someone for crossdressing off the job.  The Jacksonville Sheriffs Office still think "it was a robbery gone bad" even though her purse and everything was still there.    They basically didn't give a sh*t.

Beverly

   This is the type of thing I was referring to. It's sad.
   I want to say that I understand Brede's point of view. I went through similar beliefs when I was a teenager, but then came to realize that there is no way that the world around us will shape itself in order to make such high ideals work. I think it is a top down approach. I've come to believe that the place to create just a facsimile of order and justice is to begin with the masses and to form some root laws that cannot be bent, and then create some 'living' laws where reasonable restrictions are created in order to account for weak points that will always be there. I call it a living law because the laws can be removed as well as added.
   People are the important issue here. People are the most valuable resource of our society. It's not guns, funny stickers, television, circuses, or even the standing congress.
   Life is messy and there is no way that we can ever expect perfection. It's something to be strived for. We must adapt. And we must take care of the people who are most in need of it. I am including the mentally ill, the transient, and the learning disabled. When I think of "us" I think of GLBTI & these others too. I think of everybody who's had a bad break or whose back is just broken from trying to carry a load that people weren't meant to carry.

   And so, if you elect me as your...
   Oh, wait! I'm not running for anything. Sorry.

   I'd like to start a thread in which we rewrite the constitution. I will begin by posting the present constitution, then we can pick a section and try to recreate it in modern terms that address modern issues and that, if it is possible, will allow for social changes that we can't even see coming.
   Maybe we can add a poll in order to allow for voting upon final drafts or something.

Just a thought,

Rebecca

Quote from: RebeccaFog on May 15, 2007, 10:57:57 AM
I want to say that I understand Brede's point of view. I went through similar beliefs when I was a teenager, but then came to realize that there is no way that the world around us will shape itself in order to make such high ideals work.

It's not a matter of being high ideals, it's a matter that it is the truth. You can't operate a society based on group attribution. If you want to see the result of it look to the continent of Africa. Tribes versus Tribes. Ethnicities versus ethnicities. And so on. That's what you get when you attribute guilt based on groups, instead of the individuals acting. It's also the foundation of fascism, and nationalism, which both are in operation in some form in our nation today (primarily in the last six years). That is what I am fighting against, pure and unadulterated destruction of the Constitution and liberty on this continent. Time may be shorter than it seems, before we all shares chains of the same kind; friend or foe. Hate crimes laws are just one step in that march toward tyranny. I, for one, will not take that step nor will I sanction it. If that's idealistic, then I guess an engineer who says that an engine can't take anymore weight for its effort is also equally idealistic. Things happen according to Nature, and follow in a form which reason is the corollary. What you call ideals, people in science call *laws*, things that cannot change, things that are the bed rock axiomatic principles by which we derive all the resultant actions. There is no idealism in my statements, only facts. And only facts can be so rigid and never break.

-- Brede

QuoteCan anyone show me where a fist by a nazi skinhead plugging away at a black person is any different than a silicilian mobster plugging away at a store owner for not paying his/her "protection money?"

The mobster is going after money in his own neighborhood.  He will focus only on the business people... specifici individuals which will pay him.  The skin head will attack anyone who is black or looks black.  There are great differences in the scenario you present.  The end result may be the same but the crimes are indeed different. In one, you have extortion and you don't in the other.  Would you also disallow extortion as a crime? The shopkeeper can pay the mobster and he will go away. The black person can't shed his color to make the perpetrator change his mind.

The facts are different.  The thing is, you'll never get anyone to agree on what "the facts" truly are.  You can't even get anyone to agree on fundamental physics on this board! 

Okay, I'll give in and agree with you that having two sets of laws covering acts of violence is redundant.  We can agree on that point. I've long thought that this presents a problem in creating a situation of double jeapordy. But we do need a way to prosecute the perps. When local law enforcement refuses to go after violent offenders, how do we have justice?

Does it make sense to elevate laws against violence to a federal level?  That might work. But even at that level, we do need to have language in those laws that specifically mentions the illegality of harm against persons due to faith, race, sexuality, and gender.  For the fact is, if it isn't spelled out, it won't be enforced.

Cindi

As for elevating violence crimes to the federal level... No, because the constitution does not have that sort of scope. It's meant for two things: to stop the government from interfering with individuals, and to ensure individuals are given a means to seek restitution for crimes at the local/state level. So if you want say X state to have a hate crimes law, I would say it's legal to do so, but I would caution it is flawed. That's the bright line for me as well, because the more power you give the federal government the less power you as an individual has in deciding the fate on your life.

I prefer liberty over safety any day, but that's just me.

-- Brede

   I don't really accept that scientists know the truth about much, if anything. Time is always finding flaws in scientific reasoning because it comes from flawed human beings.

   I don't accept what you said about engineers either - "If that's idealistic, then I guess an engineer who says that an engine can't take anymore weight for its effort is also equally idealistic."  I have the horror of working for a company that depends on engineers. They are all good people, but they never seem to understand that reality does not always meet their "studied" expectations. Sometimes the floor people, who have no schooling, can look at a proposed solution and tell immediately that it's not going to work or that it is a long way around a simple problem.
   People are always taking machines that have specific specifications and pushing them beyond the expected limits. So, if an engineer tells me that an engine won't do something, I'd just say, "oh yeah"?

   This is why I say that reality will make a mess of the best laid plans. I also happen to have the belief that we the people will overcome the slimy mechanics of today's corporate government. I'm not talking in terms of scattered tribes, but in terms of massive organization that incorporates consensus and community.