How low can we go on the ‘new human low’ scale?

Published on July 11th, 2009

I want to talk about ‘hard news’ for a moment.
Actually, I’d really rather not, but my gut tells me I should.

Not the hard news, the hateful, awful, ridiculous and disreputable voice-squealing-table-pounding verbosity of the pundits, preachers and partisans that clog our radios, TV’s and Internet inboxes. Perhaps we should, as torturous as it is to take in, but that is not the topic of this post.

I want to talk about the truly hard news.

The hard news, reflecting just how low a human, or a group of humans, can crawl and slither.

This hard news is about the heinous, abhorrent, reprehensible, despicable human actions, at home and abroad, that we read about or witness everyday.

A Florida couple shot dead in their own home. Investigators make arrest and may have a substantial lead in case.

The South Carolina serial killer that tormented a small town, and 5 victims, last week.

The Taliban buying children for suicide attacks.

Americans beaten, shot to death in Mexico, and they are far from the only ones. The Police are not even safe, hunted down and murdered for simply for upholding the law.

We can, almost indefinitely, continue adding to the list of human depravity with each report of mass graves, beheadings, sexual predators, deadly home invasions, hard-liners brutally oppressing their people, terrorism of all kinds and other senseless acts of violence and homicide.

With all this hard news, does there not come a time to make some hard choices?  When do we draw the line on the new human low scale?

Should we continue to cower and capitulate to the criminals, barricading ourselves behind fenced yards, dead bolts, and fear?

Does forgoing vigilantism destine us to victimization?

Does our correctional system (laughable in many cases given the recidivism rate) and parole system serve to protect us?

As municipal and state employee budgets are targeted, will the numbers of those payed to effectively “serve and protect” us continue to be a concern for you?

Have you ever heard of the term “Return to Vendor?” I first learned of it a few years ago in the outdoor adventure and gear industry. It references a malfunctioning product. Once identified, the faulty product needs to be removed from the market by returning it to the vendor. Got to get it off the shelves!

I’m a big fan of pulling weeds. Do you leave dandelions grow unchecked in your yard? You find a bad apple, you certainly don’t leave it in the bunch, do you?  When I found a skin tumor that was cancerous, I listened to my doctor and had it removed. You have a piece of defective gear, you return it to the vendor. If we find some bad DNA running around our streets, our country, our planet, should we not remove it from the potential gene pool?

Now this is not an attempt to sway you one way or the other in a Second Amendment discussion, nor is it a pro/anti death penalty debate. Incarceration or capital punishment, you decide . All good in my book, or on my blog, as it were.

In the days ahead here at Buried Logic, I will be launching a new section entitled “Return 2 Vendor.” Each week I would like your help in identifying and nominating your pick for the person or group most befitting the title of “defective.” I will tally the votes, and we will have our own “winner” every 7th day.

When it comes to a ‘new human low’, where will you draw the line?

Comments

  1. Posted by Legalize on June 16th, 2011, 21:06

    Do you think marijuana should be legalized?

  2. Posted by glen on July 13th, 2009, 15:03

    Man, you are slipping past the “politically correct” threshhold. I happen to agree, but it may be dangerous in today’s climate to go around saying that. I have long believed that today’s medicine and “just talk to ‘em” attitude has contributed to contaminating the gene pool. We are keeping alive and encouraging to procreate individuals that natural causes and irate victims would have probably eliminated from gene competition a few years ago.
    Example: Artifical Insemination has allowed individuals to create progeny that a merciless mother nature would have eliminated. Not only that, but they are having multiple birth of 3, 6, 8 etc. while ordinary healthy people have one at a time and rarely 2.
    Ever wonder if the increased medical costs might come from keeping diseased and genetically unfit beings around long past thier expiration date?
    Or perhaps I am just one sick puppy.

Reply

Tell me what you think! Post a comment below.