There are things that I just don't understand about the law.  I mean, some of it just seems so freaking stupid.

  In the most recent episode of Boston Legal that I saw, the facts were that a black man was in an all white neighborhood.  He did not live there, but he was standing and staring at one of the homes, admiring it, thinking about how he would like to have one of his own.

  Okay, cool.

  A police officer, who covers the neighborhood, sees a stranger, who is black, in and all white neighborhood, and who is standing and staring at a house.

  Now the fact that he's a stranger standing and staring at the house is reason enough to find the person suspicious, but race was a partial factor.

  I don't recall whether or not the officer asked him his name first, but he did ask to see his I.D., which is full well within his rights, regardless of his reasons.  The man refuses.  After continued refusal, the officer begins to place him under arrest, and the man resists.  He has factually resisted arrest.

  In court, there is questioning, and it is discovered that race was one of a combination of three factors which was the officer's reason for suspicion.

  The trial continues, the jury deliberates, and then they come back to say they find the defendant not guilty of resisting arrest.

  Exactly what sense does that make?  I mean, if you find his arrest unjust then why not dismiss the case or something?  It is completely assinine to say a person is not guilty of something they so obviously did and are therefore guilty of doing.

  Crap like that does not help encourage strength and a sense of responsability for ones own actions.  This country is way too soft.

  For anyone choosing to read INTO that instead of just READING that, I am NOT saying the defendant should have been punished.  Far too many people are seriously lacking in a sense of personal responsability, and crap like that is not helping, and that is an example of something small.

  Legall illogic aside, this country's open-handed policies are, and have been, rapidly decreasing this country's citizen's integrity.  People are given, for nothing, what others have to work for, and it's supposed to be in the name of fairness.  Money is taken from the pockets of working citizens and given to non-working ones, and it's done so without any time-limit.  There is no outward incentive to try to get a job and start supporting oneself.

  And furthermore, the more children they have while on the dole, the more is doled out to them, so, not only do those particular people continue to happily suckle, they're increasing the population, further draining the country's resources, and raising what may easily become more adults who believe it's okay.

  Most people would concider it bad parenting to just hand a child whatever it wants all the time, so why is it considered good by so many that its okay for the government to do it to its citizens?

  Some people claim it's compassion.  These are short-sighted people who believe way too much in instant gratification.  If you truly have compassion for someone, and you truly want to help THEM, and not to just feel good about yourself, then you will take steps to help them become stronger in ability and character.

  If you want to help someone, then give them freely only that which they genuinely need to survive, and only when they are genuinely physically or mentally unable to get it for themselves under any other providable condition.

  It's like the lesson: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

  There's thousands of homeless people on the street, and people are just handing them money on sidewalks.  I'm sure those people feel very self-satisfied by giving those hand-outs.  I want to know how many people have truly helped a homeless person by helping them get their life back together?

  It's not compassion to just hand them change or a dollar.  It's ego and/or guilt.  It's not helping.  It's enabling.

  Here's a charity I want to see.  Apartment buildings, built to the absolute minimum standards, whose purpose is to provide a temporary address and shelter to homeless people so they can clean up and get a job, and the charity will also help them find jobs, but there will be limits.

  This is just a rough idea, but however long it takes for them to find a job or be found a job, they have three weeks starting with their first day of employment.  If they maintain the job for three weeks, then they must leave the shelter.  If they loose their job, the reasons will be evaluated and noted, and then they will be given a second chance with an additional three weeks.

  If they cannot hold that second job, then the reasons will be evaulated and considered with the first time, and if it is determined that they are not truly making an effort, then they will be kicked out and unable to re-enter the program for a minimum of one month.

  While they are living in the apartments, the charity will teach basic job skills, and the tenants will be expected to help with the upkeep of the apartments, building, and property.  Any refusals to do what is fair will result in eviction for the one month minimum.

  As I said, this is just a rough idea, but the purpose is to actually help the homeless regain a basic degree of self-sufficiency.  And I think a similar policy whould be applied to the welfare system, though only with the time limits, and the job-finding assistance, which would be available only upon request, and which should be something for which they would later have to pay a fair market price.

  And little to none of the funds for it should come from income tax.  It should be private and commercial donations.  Let us find out just how much the bleeding hearts really care about truly helping people, and companies can even offer to help groom the "homeless" people to become their future employees.