If you enjoy what we do here at Booman Tribune, please consider making a donation. Your support is what allows me to continue blogging.
Thank you. And if you can tell me why the Oakland Raiders are allowed to play in the NFL, let me know. They’re pathetic.
because they couldn’t make it in the PAC10…not to mention that they wouldn’t take them.
I’m not qualified to comment on football. I don’t even know how the game is played or scored. How pathetic is that? But I love Baseball.
It’s been such a nice day. I just wanted to mention that. Cool temps, windows open for a change, AC off. I woke up late and have been listening to HDNet’s concert series all day (right now watching a DVR recording of a Coldplay concert from 2006 in Toronto – Really really excellent,) while catching up on the blog-reading. Since I don’t have to go anywhere today, I’ve had a couple drinks and I’m feeling alright.
How about your-own-selves? Feels like family here, so I ask.
Booman- I just sent a little contribution. Thanks for all you do.
The Raiders have simply quit. Their D was playing ok the first few games, but after seeing how JaMarcus Russell plays they’ve finally thrown in the towel. It’s too bad because I know they have some good players on that team (Michael Huff, Darren McFadden, Louis Murphy etc.).
If you are a college player, you’d better pray you don’t get drafted by the Raiders.
So, let’s revue:
I made some comments about the lack of defensible judgment in the case of Roman Polanski–criticizing in the main the apparent inability of much of the public so ready to see him returned to the U.S. to face anew a court concerning his 30 year-old case. The discussion went along to a certain point and was dropped.
But, I revisit it with this news-brief for reference because, dear readers, when a society can no longer exercise common sense in the application of its laws, rules, then the obvious (for some) result is idiocy of the following sort–more and more common:
Some may object, in effect,
“Oh, no! This is the sort of thing we advocate. There’s no comparison. In one case, a boy the age of 6 years in concerned and in another, a man, then in his forties. Not the same things!”
But, sorry, yes, the very same things are involved in each case: the idiot-application of “the rule”, “da law”, without common-sense regard for the actual particulars involved. In each case, the idiot results were only possible because those people in authority (and where do they “come from”? from the pool of the public, with its morals), those on whom the decision depended, thought it not just “best” but, rather, inescapable and of supreme importance to apply the rules “impartially”, that is, in the same manner no matter the particulars—just as some of you do in the case of Roman Polanski. All that matters are the bare essentials: he had admitted to a crime and, prior to ultimate sentencing, he fled the jurisdiction. Period. End of argument, end of thinking, end of judgment, etc.
That is why, despite predictable objections, the two cases, and so many others like them, are indeed comparable.
For some, it’s so much easier to blindly apply a rule, a law, than to do something as difficult as exercise judgment.
Pardon me, but that is what gives you the fucking lunacy found in the cases mentioned.
You’re free, of course, to miss the point or even ignore it. That’s a “blessing” but it’s not a blessing of liberty, for to have that, one is obliged to think, to use reason, judgment, discernment. When you can’t, you eventually lose liberty and the blessings which go with it.
correction:
the above, you’ll have understood, should have read,
“Oh, no! This is not the sort of thing we advocate.”