it isn't about you john q. victim, real competition in health care, and the prison asylum...

recently the self-styled "victims' rights movement" has decided that absolute regression is the way to go and have convinced many legislators that it is necessary to add a "victims' bill of rights" to the law books. (ironically, the movement gathered steam right around the time that the republican party decided it was time to scare the crap out of white america that the brown and black boogey man was going to come into their home and rape their daughters and shoot their sons...coincidence?). they have honed what they put out as a stable argument that victims need to have significant roles in the criminal process...and they base it all on devolution of the criminal justice system back hundreds of years. they claim victims always had a significant role in prosecutions, including privately prosecuting crime, and that it is only returning to the way things should be from what they claim to be only a very recent abberation of public prosecutions wherein the victim is relegated to witness status. they want you to believe that until very recently the trend in the anglo-american legal tradition was for greater participation by victims. they lie. their arguments are at best profound misunderstandings of the historical significance and evolution of the criminal justice system and at worst complete intellectual dishonesty. what they don't want you to know is that about 1000 years ago public prosecution (i.e. the sovereign prosecutes based on the theory that crimes are a wrong against the public) for the worst offenses was already strongly established in the anglo tradition while victims' were basically relegated to seeking redress privately in civil courts (apparently they are the only lawyers in america that don't know blackstone). connecticut made it official right around the turn of the 18th century and by the time the american revolution happened public prosecutions were dominant. as soon as the revolution was over the victim (alleged) quickly became nothing more than a witness...afterall, punishment of crime was designed based upon redressing wrongs to society, not the individual. within a few generations, private prosecutions were anomolies.

but the victims rights movement wants us to ignore how the law has evolved. they want to ignore that the bill of rights was concerned more with protecting persons accused of crime than anything else. they want to ignore that they retain the ability to seek redress in civil courts for private wrongs. they want to ignore that a system with a personal interest in the prosecution of another for a crime is a frightening prospect (afterall...how many "terrorists" were turned over because their neighbor was pissed at them?). they want to ignore that the framers got it right and that we have worked over a couple centuries since towards perfecting their system to ensure that the government does not overstep its bounds. and some of their lawyers just want money because they got canned at the district attorneys office after being popped for DWI (cough, cough...barbara romo...cough, cough). but then maybe they have something right...because recently nothing says "american" like historical ignorance and regression. my only request is that if we are going to regress...let's get fucking serious about it. trial by ordeal.

somebody has to help me out on the health care thing because I am having trouble understanding how it is that more competition in the marketplace scares the free-market crowd. ok...that was a fib. I am well aware that what they are scared of is actual competition and they really don't give a shit about "freedom" in the marketplace, they just want freedom to rape, pillage and extort. me...I want an actual choice in health care, and I would prefer that one of those choices be efficient and as inexpensive as possible while providing better customer satisfaction than others. wait...that already exists in the government run health care program of medicare and medicaid? I'll be damned. and why the hell should I not be allowed the choice to opt into such a program that would undoubtedly be more responsive, cheaper and better than the crap I get from blue cross? oh yes, that's right...because as a corporation blue cross is concerned with only one thing...making money. they don't give two shits about healthy populations and preventing and curing illness...they care about making money. if they cared about anything else they would be breaking the law. which is probably why my premium just jumped about 30 percent for my 30th birthday. never mind that I am in better shape now than I ever was during my 20's. but god forbid my choice be limited by someone that does not have a financial interest in denying me care. that would just be awful. (side note - don't be fooled by the AMA coming out against a public plan...they are one of the most conservative groups in the nation and tend to be rightfully villified by AMSA (medical students) - the ones that still have a heart).

a teenage kid in texas just got sentenced to 100 years for kiddie diddling after pleading guilty to five counts. yea yea yea...we all hate kiddie diddlers and they deserve no rights (I have heard it all before and it is all paranoid crap). here's the thing about the kid that just got 100 years...his IQ is 47. no, I did not forget a digit...his IQ is 47. that pretty much means he has the mental capacity of a preschooler. now imagine a preschooler diddling kids...not nearly as horrifically blame-worthy is it. but we have left ourselves with no option because prison has replaced every other program for the mentally disabled. maybe it's just me, but there is something very uncomfortable about giving 100 years to someone that cannot possibly understand their conduct, let alone the system. but hell...as long as we are regressing the criminal system, might as well I guess...

when the sixth veil falls, the desensitizing, corrupting illusion of bullet-train history and its apocalyptic destination will surely dissolve...