[Authors note: the rest of today's entry makes more sense if you understand that I am a very pronounced libertarian. I believe that all participation in any system should be largely voluntary and that there should be no stigma attached to those who choose not to participate and that government should only exist to regulate the "Free Rider Syndrome". However this would also mean that I oppose any artificial restrictions to participation, as well. That means, for instance, that anybody who passes Law school should be able to practice law even if they previously had a criminal record.]
There are three types of backgrounds. Which one are you? Those with criminal records, those without, and those without because their parents stepped in and cut a deal. I’ll wager the majority of “clean” folk fit into that last category. But I’ve always wanted someone to get up there and just say, “Yes, I did all those horrible things. But I’m still the best man for the job.” I believe that anybody should be allowed to be president if elected whether or not he was born American.
Would I vote for a groper, or a deadbeat dad, or a convicted felon? If he can convince me he’ll do a better job than the current crop of arskissers, yes people, I would vote for him. A convicted felon? Depends on the crime, you see, unlike you holier-than-thou types, I can make a value judgment. If the guy was convicted, he did his time and that is that. I see no reason why somebody who stole a car for a joyride 30 years ago can’t become a doctor, lawyer or politician. It’s called forgiveness.
[Authors note: in the news recently some dweeby-looking broad claim to Arnold had copped a feel on her on some movie set 10 years ago. He apologized and I wish he had stuck up for himself instead. And that's also why I'm a firm believer in statutes of limitation. The time for her to speak up was when it happened, not years later when he is running for state governor.]
There is also another item that isn't right. Who are these women trying to kid? To listen to that type of woman talk, they will try to convince you they got onto a movie set with a famous star or into the president's office by accidentally be stepping off the wrong bus. Like they had no idea about anything. Sorry, we're not buying. Plus, it's pretty easy to notice the ones who complain years later are the ones who didn't work out and are looking for a scapegoat.
While speaking of criminal records, I do have an opinion on those as well. I support the American Constitution that says when you punish somebody for a crime, you must punish them only once, that punishment must fit the crime, and the punishment cannot be cruel and unusual. By giving someone a criminal record you are continuing to push them over and over again into the future. The Constitution expressly forbids this activity.
I believe all records for non-violent crimes should be locked up after 7 years, and destroyed after 12. If you are stopped or questioned, unless you are convicted of the crime for which you were stopped, the entire record of the incident should be erased, including the record that you were “found innocent”. I believe if a person is not convicted, all evidence that was used against him should be destroyed to his satisfaction so it cannot ever be reused again.
Furthermore, all records of arrest or investigation should be destroyed unless there is a related conviction. I mean only criminal records should be kept 12 years all other police noncriminal records should be destroyed immediately. It has become too well known that the term “found innocent” is a code used by the authorities to tip each other off that the suspect has previously gotten off on a technicality. Yes I know somebody will always say that under such a system I propose, that our police system would work as it does now, to which I replied you are exactly right.
[Authors note: it is kind of curious that the ACLU is just now beginning to pick up on the ”one-time usage” records that I've been advocating most of my life. That is, whenever you give somebody information, they only have the right to use it once for the purpose which they declared, and then they have to destroy the information. If they want to use it again they must ask you again. Strange how these public watchdogs take decades to come up with a concept I had as a child.
To prove my point, there was a recent situation where an entire town in England were studied for DNA. These samples showed that the husbands were not the biological father for 30% of their children. When the police found out the study was being terminated over this fact they immediately seized all the DNA records and kept them on file. That's precisely the kind of thing I'm against, where people who've done nothing wrong don't have a criminal record but they now have a police record. You can pretty well imagine what I think of credit reports.]
