Gamso and Moral Relativism

Does Jeffrey Gamso believes that at any moment we could slip into sharia law since we once lynched black people? Or is he making the case that what is moral and decent is all relative, so we can't condemn the medieval killing of a young girl in Africa? Is he saying that we can't condemn this punishment because we have blood on our hands? Look, the story of our last 100 years has been one of making progress in the treatment of people who were previously marginalized in our society. (And yet, even as we were making this progress more people were being killed in wars, by far, than in any other century) I don't see any danger of a slippery slope taking us back to a less enlightened age. Or at least enlightenment as Jeffrey Gamso sees it.

The danger I see is that our elites in taking us to this better place are sewing the seeds of the breakdown of civil society and our representative republic. Take Roe v. Wade, for instance. (no, this isn't going to turn into a pro-life post) At the time Roe was decided the country was moving, in fits and starts, toward a more liberal abortion regime. The Supreme Court took abortion out of the legislature and imposed a radical right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months of gestation. (btw: If you don't think our abortion law is radical take a look at the supposed liberal continental european abortion laws) Lots of people felt disenfranchised by this pre-emptive legalization. For the most part the pro-life movement has been a model of restraint but I would argue that the murder of George Tiller - let me be clear, completely wrong and without any justification - is the logical result of such disenfranchisement. A people who feel they have no voice in the democratic process will become either apathetic and disengaged or radicalized. Either result is highly undesirable.

Jeffrey Gamso posted a comment on my blog about my comment on one of his posts - if you can follow that. Anyway, another post by Gamso got me thinking about why I am so cynical about politicians. I used to work at a DA's office that allegedly had no plea bargaining, except there was. It was just done by the probation office rather than the prosecutor, the elected voice of the people. Now, saying "I don't bargain with criminals" is shorthand for saying you are tough on crime. I get that. But the effect of doing that is to give away your voice in the courtroom and to allow another arm of the state, one controlled by the judge (and probably against the canon of judicial ethics), to do exactly the same thing you were railing against. Steve Simmons was one dishonest bastard. There, I said it and I feel better. Thanks Jeff, for bringing that out of me.

You see, there's this guy, Gamso. He's apparently against any law that is based on the violation of someone's moral sensibility, like murder, I guess. He thinks a drunk woman breastfeeding a child shouldn't rise to the level of a criminal violation. Well, I wonder, is that really a view that most people hold?

I guess all that liberal B.S. about speaking the truth to power is really shown for what it is when our congress starts getting pushback on the healthcare "makeover."

I am dubious about claims that if we lost weight we would have lower healthcare costs. If we slim down whose to say whatever eventually will kill us won't cost just as much. I mean, we all gotta die sometime. And if we live longer because we lost weight, what about all those other ailments we get along the way to our eventual demise?

First Post