Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Friday, December 02, 2016
President Trump's First Official Act Advice...
" The criminal power of Federal law, and the resources devoted to its enforcement, should be reserved for those acts we as a people agree harm us all.
It is clear to me that the people of the United States no longer wish the possession and use of Marijuana to be a Federal crime. I hereby exercise this office's powers under Article II of the Constitution to pardon every Federal conviction for marijuana crimes, whenever committed. I intend to issue a similar pardon to each person so charged as long as I am President, and to instruct my Attorney General and U. S. Attoneys to cease enforcing this unwanted prohibition until Congress votes to repeal it, which act I would sign immediately. I except from this pardon and instruction crimes of importing Marijuana into the United States. "
Just an idea.
Monday, January 06, 2014
The Easternmost Explication of the Second Amendment...
So, a little while ago I went to Eastport, Maine. It bills itself as the first place in the United States to see the sun each day, and it certainly is the closest to where God sets his watch. Well worth the trip, TheGirl and I made lobster pigs of ourselves at the Eastport Chowder House, which we closed down. Friendly real Yankees. Then watched a gorgeous Sunrise.
Eastport is a pretty little town, once a busy port but now they have tourists in the summer and the rest of the year just take in each others' washing. A pleasant, tasty breakfast at the Liberty Cafe and walking over the town. We ended up in front of the Peavey Memorial Library.
Before which stands, as one might expect,
a cannon.
Being from down South and always interested in artillery displayed, I thought I'd wander over to see if it was a trophy from Tredegar, or a Yankee veteran.
I was surprised to see that it was neither. Aside from a Boston founder's name and an 1836 date, the tube was devoid of any marks of State or National ownership.
And that got me thinking. Uh oh...
Our master's latest push to disarm his subjects concentrates on what he calls "weapons of war", which have "no business on our streets". Funny, that "our", coming from a man who will never again walk a street unguarded. And the Government's weapons of war seemed to be perfectly fine on the streets of Ludlow and Detroit, and for special occasions like Katrina and Kent State. Not to mention Libya and Syria. Or just riding around in ordinary police cars.
But I riot. Back on the line, weapons of war.
When our Republic was new, a bronze muzzle loading cannon was the most deadly weapon there was. Unlike an infantry musket, cavalry horse, or M-4, there was and is no use for artillery other than killing people and smashing their buildings.
This six pounder was the cutting edge and definition of a "weapon of war".
In pretty much every time in every culture with a coast, the ship of war is the most complex, expensive, and deadly thing a society's brains and technology can combine to make. Salaminia, Sao Martinho, Victory, Gloire, Freidrich der Grosse, Nimitz- all embodiments of the top end of an entire country's ability to do violence.
And in 1836 the killing end of the warship was artillery just like this.
What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Our Betters assert that the Second Amendment does not apply to "weapons of war" and they always advert to artillery as an example. They read the initial clause to mean that although "weapons of war" are not the arms referred to in the Amendment and are not protected to the people, the Amendment's purpose is to insure that State and Federal reserve forces are able to have, um, "weapons of war". Go figure.
'Ware riot again. Anyway, in 1836 the Second Amendment was 45 years old. Quite a few of the men who adopted and ratified it were still around. I'll submit that they knew what it meant.
And in 1836, someone- some private citizen- maybe a few yards away at America's oldest ship chandler- (still in business today, with a lovely line of yellow leather gloves) laid down gold and bought this pure "weapon of war".
In fact, anyone with the cash could have gone into any big port in the country and bought just as good a warship as the Navy's best. The seas were infested with pirates, armed ships were ordinary components of commercial voyages. You didn't need permission, or registration, or anything else but the money or credit.
Commercially produced ships of the era were fully war capable. Golden Hind was private property. Before 1600 or so, national navies were largely formed of commandeered private ships and their civilian crews. American, British, and French privateers- privately owned and operated ships of war- were very active in the World Wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. On occasion East Indiamen and Mail Packets fought and captured Naval vessels.
A quarter of a century into this gun's life was the apotheosis of the cash and carry weapon of war. An insurgent organisation used its money and credit to buy high tech ships of war on individual private account, and then swept the seas clear of the second largest commercial fleet on the planet.
And when the dust settled, the United States' position was not that John Laird
shouldn't have sold warships to private individuals, but that the yard shouldn't have sold them to known representatives of active belligerents knowing that the buyers would use them as "weapons of war" in violation of local neutrality law.
I don't know when it became unlawful in the United States for an individual to just put down money and buy a navy for himself, if in fact it is. I know the various neutrality acts interfered with the ability of nations to buy warships, and applied the Alabama Claims' rules to sales to those acting for governments. And I know that British, French, and American shipyards supplied most of the warships, and nearly all the capital warships, to much of the world on a straight up cash and carry basis until after 1914. After 1918, the cut price sale, loan, or gift of surplus ships in government hands as a tool of policy killed the business.
Private possession and sale of artillery in the United States wasn't Federally regulated until 1968 (thanks Tam), which means that when this gun was 131 years old an American could still buy and own a destroyer, battleship, or aircraft carrier for his own use if he could find one for sale.
And I suspect he still can, if the artillery and torpedoes are properly NFA registered.
So no matter what the bien pensants assert, there's no indication from our past that the Second Amendment is meant to confine "weapons of war" to government possession.
This little cannon proves it.
Eastport is a pretty little town, once a busy port but now they have tourists in the summer and the rest of the year just take in each others' washing. A pleasant, tasty breakfast at the Liberty Cafe and walking over the town. We ended up in front of the Peavey Memorial Library.
Before which stands, as one might expect,
a cannon.
Being from down South and always interested in artillery displayed, I thought I'd wander over to see if it was a trophy from Tredegar, or a Yankee veteran.
I was surprised to see that it was neither. Aside from a Boston founder's name and an 1836 date, the tube was devoid of any marks of State or National ownership.
And that got me thinking. Uh oh...
Our master's latest push to disarm his subjects concentrates on what he calls "weapons of war", which have "no business on our streets". Funny, that "our", coming from a man who will never again walk a street unguarded. And the Government's weapons of war seemed to be perfectly fine on the streets of Ludlow and Detroit, and for special occasions like Katrina and Kent State. Not to mention Libya and Syria. Or just riding around in ordinary police cars.
But I riot. Back on the line, weapons of war.
When our Republic was new, a bronze muzzle loading cannon was the most deadly weapon there was. Unlike an infantry musket, cavalry horse, or M-4, there was and is no use for artillery other than killing people and smashing their buildings.
This six pounder was the cutting edge and definition of a "weapon of war".
In pretty much every time in every culture with a coast, the ship of war is the most complex, expensive, and deadly thing a society's brains and technology can combine to make. Salaminia, Sao Martinho, Victory, Gloire, Freidrich der Grosse, Nimitz- all embodiments of the top end of an entire country's ability to do violence.
And in 1836 the killing end of the warship was artillery just like this.
What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Our Betters assert that the Second Amendment does not apply to "weapons of war" and they always advert to artillery as an example. They read the initial clause to mean that although "weapons of war" are not the arms referred to in the Amendment and are not protected to the people, the Amendment's purpose is to insure that State and Federal reserve forces are able to have, um, "weapons of war". Go figure.
'Ware riot again. Anyway, in 1836 the Second Amendment was 45 years old. Quite a few of the men who adopted and ratified it were still around. I'll submit that they knew what it meant.
And in 1836, someone- some private citizen- maybe a few yards away at America's oldest ship chandler- (still in business today, with a lovely line of yellow leather gloves) laid down gold and bought this pure "weapon of war".
In fact, anyone with the cash could have gone into any big port in the country and bought just as good a warship as the Navy's best. The seas were infested with pirates, armed ships were ordinary components of commercial voyages. You didn't need permission, or registration, or anything else but the money or credit.
Commercially produced ships of the era were fully war capable. Golden Hind was private property. Before 1600 or so, national navies were largely formed of commandeered private ships and their civilian crews. American, British, and French privateers- privately owned and operated ships of war- were very active in the World Wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. On occasion East Indiamen and Mail Packets fought and captured Naval vessels.
A quarter of a century into this gun's life was the apotheosis of the cash and carry weapon of war. An insurgent organisation used its money and credit to buy high tech ships of war on individual private account, and then swept the seas clear of the second largest commercial fleet on the planet.
And when the dust settled, the United States' position was not that John Laird
shouldn't have sold warships to private individuals, but that the yard shouldn't have sold them to known representatives of active belligerents knowing that the buyers would use them as "weapons of war" in violation of local neutrality law.
I don't know when it became unlawful in the United States for an individual to just put down money and buy a navy for himself, if in fact it is. I know the various neutrality acts interfered with the ability of nations to buy warships, and applied the Alabama Claims' rules to sales to those acting for governments. And I know that British, French, and American shipyards supplied most of the warships, and nearly all the capital warships, to much of the world on a straight up cash and carry basis until after 1914. After 1918, the cut price sale, loan, or gift of surplus ships in government hands as a tool of policy killed the business.
Private possession and sale of artillery in the United States wasn't Federally regulated until 1968 (thanks Tam), which means that when this gun was 131 years old an American could still buy and own a destroyer, battleship, or aircraft carrier for his own use if he could find one for sale.
And I suspect he still can, if the artillery and torpedoes are properly NFA registered.
So no matter what the bien pensants assert, there's no indication from our past that the Second Amendment is meant to confine "weapons of war" to government possession.
This little cannon proves it.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
"Healthcare Will Save Money" Lie...
As far as I know, every time, every where, under every circumstance, health care costs of any group have grossly exceeded all estimates or projections.
ALWAYS.
States, cities, companies, armies, nations, all of them. Throughout the whole history of human endeavor.
It's like night follows day.
I defy the sellers of this slavery to point to a single example of a group health care cost projection that has not been waaaaay too low.
But we will be different!
They are just lying to us now.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
No Hunting Today, and Global Warming will increase food production
Due to flooding at the Flat Hunts. Grr.
Tomorrow is still on though.
Flooding. And snow, at the Home Hunt.
$%^&* Al Gore. My global warming is defective.
Although I hate to admit that there is such a thing, I have long believed it. I noticed years ago that we were having fewer and fewer snows, frosts, and too cold to hunt days. Just as the Otterhound packs noticed the decline of the otters first.
Which reminds me, it's only three degrees over a century, people. That means Tampa will be like...Miami!
I wonder, since the amount of land mass increases in the Northern Hemisphere and decreases in the Southern as one moves toward the poles from the outward limit of arability- how much MORE farmland will be available after that global warming? Despite the evasive, slanted, and conjectural stuff in this article, here's the money map-
The article's conclusions seem to be based on the agricultural results on existing farmland.
Buut... moving the polar direction arability lines only a little north and south produces big gains in available productive land. WELL WATERED available productive land. It MORE than offsets the loss from moving the equatorial "too hot" lines outward. All the Russians, Americans, and Canadians have to do is drive their cattle and run their tractors a little farther north.
And buy more of them, since they will be plowing more land. And buy less fertilizer, since it will be virgin,uncropped land.
Yes, poor and black people, and people ruled by tyrants, will be hardest hit. But unlike "Global Warming", which is a phenomenon we don't understand, don't know how to control, and won't be able to implement our magic solutions to, we can solve tyranny PDQ.
Tomorrow is still on though.
Flooding. And snow, at the Home Hunt.
$%^&* Al Gore. My global warming is defective.
Although I hate to admit that there is such a thing, I have long believed it. I noticed years ago that we were having fewer and fewer snows, frosts, and too cold to hunt days. Just as the Otterhound packs noticed the decline of the otters first.
Which reminds me, it's only three degrees over a century, people. That means Tampa will be like...Miami!
I wonder, since the amount of land mass increases in the Northern Hemisphere and decreases in the Southern as one moves toward the poles from the outward limit of arability- how much MORE farmland will be available after that global warming? Despite the evasive, slanted, and conjectural stuff in this article, here's the money map-
The article's conclusions seem to be based on the agricultural results on existing farmland.
Buut... moving the polar direction arability lines only a little north and south produces big gains in available productive land. WELL WATERED available productive land. It MORE than offsets the loss from moving the equatorial "too hot" lines outward. All the Russians, Americans, and Canadians have to do is drive their cattle and run their tractors a little farther north.
And buy more of them, since they will be plowing more land. And buy less fertilizer, since it will be virgin,uncropped land.
Yes, poor and black people, and people ruled by tyrants, will be hardest hit. But unlike "Global Warming", which is a phenomenon we don't understand, don't know how to control, and won't be able to implement our magic solutions to, we can solve tyranny PDQ.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
SaveKaryn for Budget Tsaritsa!
Alright, enough of this bailout nonsense already. Back in the old times of the Internets, there was SaveKaryn. A desperate nation needs her now!
Imagine if our fiscal masters lived by the example of The Daily Buck.
And doesn't her debt advice sound EXACTLY like what we ought to insist on from the people who spend the money we earn?
1.
ADD IT UP. Yes, add it up. I know from experience and from the e-mails I receive from others that debt-ridden people often times have no idea how much they really owe. I kept putting off adding up my bills, and when I finally did the amount I owed was much higher than I thought it was going to be. So ADD IT UP ALREADY! (Then pour yourself a cocktail.)
2.
DON'T JUMP. You can and will be able to fix your debt problem, so think positive and put things in perspective. There are far worse things in life than debt. I mean, it's only money, right? So change your attitude - if you THINK you'll be able to conquer it, you soon WILL BE able to conquer it.
3.
GET OUT A BIG OLE PIECE OF PAPER. Using a marker, write down the amount of money you owe in big numbers at the top, and then hang it somewhere where you'll see it every day (on the wall in your room, on the inside of the closet door, etc.). By keeping the amount fresh in your mind, you'll be less likely to go out to dinner, splurge on a pair of shoes, etc.
4.
Try to make a payment to your creditors EVERY WEEK. Every time you do, subtract the amount of your payment from the total owed, and write the new amount owed underneath the old one. On my old website, the Grand Debt Tally page was SO helpful to me because it forced me to look at how much I owed every single week. The smaller the number became, the more motivated I was to pay off the debt.
5.
BE PROACTIVE. Do not let the debt control you. You control the debt. There are several things you can do to make extra money to pay it off.
*
Craigslist.org - Craigslist is like a virtual bulletin board sort of website. Look in the "et cetera jobs" area to find a variety of odd jobs. You can volunteer for studies (be careful if they're medical studies), take surveys, help someone move, etc. Also look in the "Wanted" section. You may have something that someone is willing to pay cash for. Craigslist is also a great place to sell unwanted furniture.
*
eBay - Clean out your closets and sell stuff on eBay. People will buy ANYTHING - I've sold old magazines on eBay, broken electronics, etc. Just make sure you're honest in your description. And remember... when cleaning out your closet ask yourself this: Would you rather have another pair of black shoes or be DEBT-FREE? When my debt got out of control, I realized that I'd rather sit naked in an empty apartment than owe money to credit card companies.
*
Pay for things with whole dollar bills, and save the change. If something costs me $2.30, I give the cashier $3, and put the change in a jar when I get home. I try not to use any change when paying for things. Once a month I add up the change and send it as an EXTRA payment to my creditors. It's a great way to save money without trying that hard.
6.
CUT YOUR EXPENSES. Duh. Right? Pack a lunch, take the bus instead of a cab, make dinner at home instead of going out, cancel the cell phone - and send all of the money that you would have spent doing those things to your creditors. People ask me, "Do you mean I have to stop living my life?" The answer that is well... yes, you will have to sacrifice things in life if you want to pay your debt off. There's no way around it. Buy a book instead of going to a movie - it'll take you a lot longer to read it and cost you less money. You may even learn a few new words. You don't have to stop living, but you will have to make some changes in the types of things you do and the types of things you spend your money on.
Imagine if our fiscal masters lived by the example of The Daily Buck.
And doesn't her debt advice sound EXACTLY like what we ought to insist on from the people who spend the money we earn?
1.
ADD IT UP. Yes, add it up. I know from experience and from the e-mails I receive from others that debt-ridden people often times have no idea how much they really owe. I kept putting off adding up my bills, and when I finally did the amount I owed was much higher than I thought it was going to be. So ADD IT UP ALREADY! (Then pour yourself a cocktail.)
2.
DON'T JUMP. You can and will be able to fix your debt problem, so think positive and put things in perspective. There are far worse things in life than debt. I mean, it's only money, right? So change your attitude - if you THINK you'll be able to conquer it, you soon WILL BE able to conquer it.
3.
GET OUT A BIG OLE PIECE OF PAPER. Using a marker, write down the amount of money you owe in big numbers at the top, and then hang it somewhere where you'll see it every day (on the wall in your room, on the inside of the closet door, etc.). By keeping the amount fresh in your mind, you'll be less likely to go out to dinner, splurge on a pair of shoes, etc.
4.
Try to make a payment to your creditors EVERY WEEK. Every time you do, subtract the amount of your payment from the total owed, and write the new amount owed underneath the old one. On my old website, the Grand Debt Tally page was SO helpful to me because it forced me to look at how much I owed every single week. The smaller the number became, the more motivated I was to pay off the debt.
5.
BE PROACTIVE. Do not let the debt control you. You control the debt. There are several things you can do to make extra money to pay it off.
*
Craigslist.org - Craigslist is like a virtual bulletin board sort of website. Look in the "et cetera jobs" area to find a variety of odd jobs. You can volunteer for studies (be careful if they're medical studies), take surveys, help someone move, etc. Also look in the "Wanted" section. You may have something that someone is willing to pay cash for. Craigslist is also a great place to sell unwanted furniture.
*
eBay - Clean out your closets and sell stuff on eBay. People will buy ANYTHING - I've sold old magazines on eBay, broken electronics, etc. Just make sure you're honest in your description. And remember... when cleaning out your closet ask yourself this: Would you rather have another pair of black shoes or be DEBT-FREE? When my debt got out of control, I realized that I'd rather sit naked in an empty apartment than owe money to credit card companies.
*
Pay for things with whole dollar bills, and save the change. If something costs me $2.30, I give the cashier $3, and put the change in a jar when I get home. I try not to use any change when paying for things. Once a month I add up the change and send it as an EXTRA payment to my creditors. It's a great way to save money without trying that hard.
6.
CUT YOUR EXPENSES. Duh. Right? Pack a lunch, take the bus instead of a cab, make dinner at home instead of going out, cancel the cell phone - and send all of the money that you would have spent doing those things to your creditors. People ask me, "Do you mean I have to stop living my life?" The answer that is well... yes, you will have to sacrifice things in life if you want to pay your debt off. There's no way around it. Buy a book instead of going to a movie - it'll take you a lot longer to read it and cost you less money. You may even learn a few new words. You don't have to stop living, but you will have to make some changes in the types of things you do and the types of things you spend your money on.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stimulus bons mots...
It's not a stimulus bill, it's a patronage and loyalty reward bill. They are just calling it a stimulus so people won't fuss. Like you can set someone up with Helen, you know, on television". You think it's Helen Hunt but it's Helen Thomas all along.
Deflation? There's never been a general deflation of a fiat currency in the entire history of human endeavour. We have to worry about deflation like Barney Frank needs to worry about being assigned to replace Ian Farquhar, Carlton Kent or Rupert Pennefather.
Deflation? There's never been a general deflation of a fiat currency in the entire history of human endeavour. We have to worry about deflation like Barney Frank needs to worry about being assigned to replace Ian Farquhar, Carlton Kent or Rupert Pennefather.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sen. Obama says "Lay Off My Wife"...
"...they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
Wooooo.
This is the United State of America, jackass. You don't get to decide what you will accept.
It's a crime for someone in authority to use his power to prevent or deter citizens from exercising their rights. For a U. S. Senator to tell any one exercising his free speech rights that "they better be careful" is just as wrong as some Mississippi Sheriff telling the NAACP that they "better be careful" about registering voters, or a public school teacher telling his class that they "better be careful" about which church they go to.
A Senator should know that, just as a President should. I was just as angry when President Bush and Senator McCain told the Swift Boat veterans they shouldn't speak, but at least they didn't tell them to "be careful".
I suppose it's the Chicago way, "You got a nice little business here. Better be careful how you vote in the State Senate race, wouldn't want to have licensing problems..."
I am (not) very surprised that a reporter, supposed guardian of the First Amendment, didn't say,
"Hold up, there, Senator. "Better be careful"? Should they expect IRS audits? Will you vote against government programs in Tennessee if they don't exercise free speech the way you like?"
Here's what a Senator SHOULD say. "This is the United States of America. People will say all sorts of things in political life, they have a right to. I am not going to say that anything is "off limits", because I wouldn't want to live in a country where that sort of thing passed an official's lips. The public should be able to hear anyone speak, and judge ideas on their merits."
And if your campaign is flying her around to tell us how to vote, she's you, pal. What she says, you say.
If you don't want her using her brilliance to say what she really thinks about her country, or if she's too stupid to use the language clearly, give her a script or tell her to shut up.
And calling a playing of her words an "attack" doesn't make it one. Not a single person on that video, except "your wife" (When did she stop having a name?), said anything other than good things about our country.
Thank you for the great publicity! The MSM didn't do much with her crack, but you've put this pitiful homemade YouTube all over the front pages. Imagine what a studio can do with the idea and some better spoken people.
Wooooo.
This is the United State of America, jackass. You don't get to decide what you will accept.
It's a crime for someone in authority to use his power to prevent or deter citizens from exercising their rights. For a U. S. Senator to tell any one exercising his free speech rights that "they better be careful" is just as wrong as some Mississippi Sheriff telling the NAACP that they "better be careful" about registering voters, or a public school teacher telling his class that they "better be careful" about which church they go to.
A Senator should know that, just as a President should. I was just as angry when President Bush and Senator McCain told the Swift Boat veterans they shouldn't speak, but at least they didn't tell them to "be careful".
I suppose it's the Chicago way, "You got a nice little business here. Better be careful how you vote in the State Senate race, wouldn't want to have licensing problems..."
I am (not) very surprised that a reporter, supposed guardian of the First Amendment, didn't say,
"Hold up, there, Senator. "Better be careful"? Should they expect IRS audits? Will you vote against government programs in Tennessee if they don't exercise free speech the way you like?"
Here's what a Senator SHOULD say. "This is the United States of America. People will say all sorts of things in political life, they have a right to. I am not going to say that anything is "off limits", because I wouldn't want to live in a country where that sort of thing passed an official's lips. The public should be able to hear anyone speak, and judge ideas on their merits."
And if your campaign is flying her around to tell us how to vote, she's you, pal. What she says, you say.
If you don't want her using her brilliance to say what she really thinks about her country, or if she's too stupid to use the language clearly, give her a script or tell her to shut up.
And calling a playing of her words an "attack" doesn't make it one. Not a single person on that video, except "your wife" (When did she stop having a name?), said anything other than good things about our country.
Thank you for the great publicity! The MSM didn't do much with her crack, but you've put this pitiful homemade YouTube all over the front pages. Imagine what a studio can do with the idea and some better spoken people.
Monday, March 24, 2008
American Voters Can Learn From The Ones In Zimbabwe...
But they won't.
Unless they can come up with real solutions for the economy, they are finished. The problem with promising us the mines or ownership of other businesses (or whatever it is they have robbed from Peter to give to Paul today) is we have the experience of the land behind us now: we know that redistribution doesn’t have anything to do with the people; that all benefits go to the elite and the economy falls apart at the seams as a result. There is nothing left to dangle before our noses.
No more politics for a while, a hunting report tomorrow.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Ben Stein is very wrong about the Eliot Spitzer case...
Mr. Stein, who is usually dead on and about whom I've often raved, is very wrong here about both his points.
First, he seems bothered that investigators looking for evidence of one crime, finding evidence of a different "minor" crime, investigated that offense and eventually brought charges based on what they found.
Doe Mr. Stein seriously want the reverse to happen? "Yes, we've found evidence that a man is committing a crime. But he's the Governor, so we'll just not notice". That's not the Ben Stein I have heard before.
(There are really two things here. One's easily disposed of, and that's following the investigation where it leads. It happens all the time- police stop someone who runs a red light and find the driver is drunk. Or the police ticket a car and discover a multiple murderer's identity. I'm sure Mr. Stein doesn't oppose that sort of thing, and if the $4,000 had gone to a hit man or a legislator he'd have no complaint with a murder or bribery charge.)
The real problem seems to be that the investigators dared to charge someone Mr. Stein considers important with an offense he doesn't.
I suppose if it's just a plumber with a wife and family, it's alright to wreck his life with the truth about prostitution. Or an actor- I don't recall Mr. Stein being upset when Hugh Grant's picture was all over the news. Or is it just elections, rather than families or careers, that are sacred-ish? How about a Mayor smoking crack, am I supposed to give him a pass? A Congressman's roommate who is running a prostitution ring?
Everyone stayed quiet when another Governor ordered State Policemen on duty to fetch a state employee to an hotel room for an attempt at sex. Is that the way it's supposed to work?
Mr. Stein is frightened that "a few career civil servants" did exactly what they are sworn to do- investigate and charge a crime. Even though the criminal is powerful.
But he is not scared by the idea that the same "few career civil servants" decide whether to do their duty based on their personal judgment matrices of the criminal's importance and severity of the offense?
We have people to do that, and they do it in the open, not in the DA's office in secret.
As a prosecutor, I rightly have a very limited responsibility. When investigators bring me credible evidence of a crime, I present it to the courts. That's what the people chose me (through my boss) to do, and I won't deny them that election. It's not my place.
The legislature decides what crimes are. If the people think patronizing prostitution shouldn't be a crime, they can elect legislators who agree. It isn't up to a f.c.c.s. to deny the people their laws.
Courts decide whether a particular defendant committed a crime. Judges apply the defendant/offense balance in sentencing. It isn't up to a f.c.c.s. to deny the people their due constitutional process.
Mr. Stein's second point confuses me. He says that Gov. Spitzer was "kicked out of office". He wasn't, he quit. The public knowledge of the fact that he was a patron of prostitutes had no legal effect on his position, any more that the public knowledge that President Clinton was a perjurer.
The investigators didn't nullify Governor Spitzer's election, Governor Spitzer did. He could have hung on, but unlike President Clinton he had enough sense of shame, honor, fitness, respect for the citizens, or whatever to quit.
The Aspen Daily News' motto is, "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen".
If you don't want to be caught, don't do it. And if your man gets caught, don't blame the catchers.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The best Home Schooling thing ever is 80 years old...
Clever people often think along similar paths.
As before, click on each picture to blow the page up to readable size.
From:
No one reads APH any more, and it's a shame.
(And just in case one of my reader isn't familiar, these are sarcastic reports of fictional law cases dreamed up by the author to illustrate legal and social problems. Sort of like a proto-Onion, or my mass killing rewrites. Just so no homeschooler thinks the story is fact.)
Thursday, March 06, 2008
North Carolina School Shooting...
ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. — A campus security officer is dead and several Elizabeth City State University officials are in jail charged with murder following a bizarre incident at the college campus yesterday.
The News & Observer of Raleigh reported in Wednesday's editions that an armed man burst into a classroom Friday, threatening to kill students. According to several people who were in the room, as he ranted at them and waved a gun around, the students and teacher responded in a way the gunman did not expect.
Assistant professor Jingbin Wang, whose American foreign policy class was held hostage. "I was not prepared to die at that moment," Wang said Tuesday of the moment the gunman entered the room. "I know from the study of history that it is better to resist than to submit. My ancestors were driven from their homes by warlords and communists, but I'm an American. And Liviu Librescuwas on the cover of every magazine in the country- I just followed his example."
"Professor Wang was incredible", said George Hanover, one of the students. "While he was telling us to line up against the wall, he just launched himself at the guy, and it was on. One of the students grabbed a chair and hit him, and Lizzie grabbed onto him and dragged him down. It was like United 93, we just pounded on him until we got the gun away."
The attacker died from his injuries.
Unknown to the students, they had been unknowing participants in an "emergency response drill". The man who attacked them was a campus security officer, ordered to assault the students in the "drill". The gun was only a red plastic model, but Wang and others said they didn't have time to examine it as they were being attacked.
Following a brief investigation, ECSU Chancellor Willie J. Gilchrist, Anthony Brown, vice chancellor of student affairs, and Samuel Beamon, director of public safety, were arrested. Each was charged with eleven counts of aggravated assault, eleven counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and one count of murder, listing the security officer as the victim. No students were charged.
"Look here, in North Carolina, when you go into a room full of innocent people and tell them you're going to kill them, I HOPE they resist", said Sheriff Andy Taylor. "None of those people did anything wrong. They were placed in reasonable fear of imminent death, and did what the law allows and human nature demands. The days of lining up like sheep are over. With people like Adam Walburger and LaShanda Quantrell being all over the news, people know what to do now. I'm proud of them."
District Attorney Mike Notnifong explained the charges. "Entering the classroom and threatening the students with what appeared to be a weapon is aggravated assault, a felony. All three of the defendants conspired together to make that happen, and ordered their employee to commit the crime. Even if no one had been hurt, they would have been charged, as would the security officer if he had lived.
In North Carolina, when someone is killed during the perpetration of a felony, the person committing the underlying felony is criminally responsible for the death as a murder. It's called the felony murder doctrine. Usually it's applied to robbers and burglars who kill their victims, but it has been used to convict accomplices when a co conspirator was killed by a resisting victim, too.
Look, this was incredibly foreseeable. Just a week ago, the NIU attacker was beaten to death by resisting students. The defendants knowingly and intentionally put twelve people in peril, and one died. These defendants killed him, and if a jury agrees they will do life in prison."
Just a dream... But they SHOULD charge the people who did and ordered this.
Seriously, click on the Gilchrist and Beamon links- in light of this incident, their previous sayings are hilarious.
And sorry, Miss C- you were wrong. Too much Rosa Parks and M.L. King, not enough Peter Salem and Nat Turner.
The News & Observer of Raleigh reported in Wednesday's editions that an armed man burst into a classroom Friday, threatening to kill students. According to several people who were in the room, as he ranted at them and waved a gun around, the students and teacher responded in a way the gunman did not expect.
Assistant professor Jingbin Wang, whose American foreign policy class was held hostage. "I was not prepared to die at that moment," Wang said Tuesday of the moment the gunman entered the room. "I know from the study of history that it is better to resist than to submit. My ancestors were driven from their homes by warlords and communists, but I'm an American. And Liviu Librescuwas on the cover of every magazine in the country- I just followed his example."
"Professor Wang was incredible", said George Hanover, one of the students. "While he was telling us to line up against the wall, he just launched himself at the guy, and it was on. One of the students grabbed a chair and hit him, and Lizzie grabbed onto him and dragged him down. It was like United 93, we just pounded on him until we got the gun away."
The attacker died from his injuries.
Unknown to the students, they had been unknowing participants in an "emergency response drill". The man who attacked them was a campus security officer, ordered to assault the students in the "drill". The gun was only a red plastic model, but Wang and others said they didn't have time to examine it as they were being attacked.
Following a brief investigation, ECSU Chancellor Willie J. Gilchrist, Anthony Brown, vice chancellor of student affairs, and Samuel Beamon, director of public safety, were arrested. Each was charged with eleven counts of aggravated assault, eleven counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and one count of murder, listing the security officer as the victim. No students were charged.
"Look here, in North Carolina, when you go into a room full of innocent people and tell them you're going to kill them, I HOPE they resist", said Sheriff Andy Taylor. "None of those people did anything wrong. They were placed in reasonable fear of imminent death, and did what the law allows and human nature demands. The days of lining up like sheep are over. With people like Adam Walburger and LaShanda Quantrell being all over the news, people know what to do now. I'm proud of them."
District Attorney Mike Notnifong explained the charges. "Entering the classroom and threatening the students with what appeared to be a weapon is aggravated assault, a felony. All three of the defendants conspired together to make that happen, and ordered their employee to commit the crime. Even if no one had been hurt, they would have been charged, as would the security officer if he had lived.
In North Carolina, when someone is killed during the perpetration of a felony, the person committing the underlying felony is criminally responsible for the death as a murder. It's called the felony murder doctrine. Usually it's applied to robbers and burglars who kill their victims, but it has been used to convict accomplices when a co conspirator was killed by a resisting victim, too.
Look, this was incredibly foreseeable. Just a week ago, the NIU attacker was beaten to death by resisting students. The defendants knowingly and intentionally put twelve people in peril, and one died. These defendants killed him, and if a jury agrees they will do life in prison."
Just a dream... But they SHOULD charge the people who did and ordered this.
Seriously, click on the Gilchrist and Beamon links- in light of this incident, their previous sayings are hilarious.
And sorry, Miss C- you were wrong. Too much Rosa Parks and M.L. King, not enough Peter Salem and Nat Turner.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
A book for children...
I had forgotten all about this book until I bumped into it by accident recently. But when I saw it, I well recalled reading it when I was quite young. It made a big impression.
On reading it now, I had some thoughts that of course would never have occurred to six year old me.
Starting with, shock. Actual, internal surprise. This would NEVER win the Newbery Medal today. Are you joking? It would never even be published. Only its Newbery keeps it in print.
If somehow it DID see the light of day, its author would be hounded out of the scribblers' guild. I cannot imagine any public or government school librarian permitting it to be added to the stacks. Other Newbery winners have been sanitized, but this entire book is thoughtcrime.
I've asked three librarians in different parts of the country to see if it was in inventory. The only one who said it was, after looking at it, expressed surprise at its presence.
The America of the time this book was published was a very different place. It was in its physical world- genuine poverty, segregation, sound(ish) money, no welfare, nationally engulfing war right off shore, men with neckties at the ball game, and the criminals always losing in the movies.
But that mental America must have been different from this one too. Some of those differences will scream at you when you imagine what would happen if this book magically appeared on the shelves at a school in Berkley or Westport. They are too obvious for even I, the Earl of Obvious, to point out. But there are a LOT of them.
That America was different from the way we have been taught, and are told, to imagine it as well. A couple of things from the book bring that home to me.
I won't talk about them here, for fear of spoilage. I've put most of the book in the post immediately preceding this one, and so that post- from March 4, 2008, is big- 40 pictures. Click on each picture to make it large enough to read. It will take a while to load if your machine is slow. I've left out the preface (which is for adults), most of the illustrations, and the last chapter. That's fair use, and if you want to discover what happens...
But if the owners ask me to take it down, I will.
I've got a couple of thoughts at the end of that post that might be not entirely obvious.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Matchlock Gun, by Walter Edmonds
Thank you, Tam, for the link!! Haven't had so many visitors since I almost got blown up.
I had forgotten all about this book until I bumped into it by accident recently. But when I saw it, I well recalled reading it when I was quite young. It made a big impression.
On reading it now, I had some thoughts that of course would never have occurred to six year old me.
Starting with, shock. Actual, internal surprise. This would NEVER win the Newbery Medal today. Are you joking? It would never even be published. Only its Newbery keeps it in print.
If somehow it DID see the light of day, its author would be hounded out of the scribblers' guild. I cannot imagine any public or government school librarian permitting it to be added to the stacks. Other Newbery winners have been sanitized, but this entire book is thoughtcrime.
I've asked three librarians in different parts of the country to see if it was in inventory. The only one who said it was, after looking at it, expressed surprise at its presence.
The America of the time this book was published was a very different place. It was in its physical world- genuine poverty, segregation, sound(ish) money, no welfare, nationally engulfing war right off shore, men with neckties at the ball game, and the criminals always losing in the movies.
But that mental America must have been different from this one too. Some of those differences will scream at you when you imagine what would happen if this book magically appeared on the shelves at a school in Berkley or Westport. They are too obvious for even I, the Earl of Obvious, to point out. But there are a LOT of them.
That America was different from the way we have been taught, and are told, to imagine it as well. A couple of things from the book bring that home to me.
I won't talk about them here, for fear of spoilage. I've put most of the book in this post, and so it is big- 40 pictures. Click on each picture to make it large enough to read. It will take a while to load if your machine is slow. I've left out the preface (which is for adults), most of the illustrations, and the last chapter. That's fair use, and if you want to discover what happens...
But if the owners ask me to take it down, I will.
I've got a couple of thoughts at the end of that post that might be not entirely obvious.
Click on each picture to make it large enough to read.
It's a shame that we live in a world where every single bit of this story is subversive of the established theology.
One thing I like about this book is the author's spare, relaxed style. The book is full of incident, yet it feels like he's describing the making of a sandwich or some other fairly ordinary event. There's not the slightest attempt at hyperbole. The people, all of them, just cope.
Perhaps that's why the lessons and points of the book were so effective for me as a child. They aren't presented didactically, but are part of the background. Many modern books for children (like many old ones) are preachments, and that's just not so effective. With me, anyway.
One of the things most subversive of orthodoxy is partly what this book presents, but mainly the fact that it presented it in 1941.
We're told that women in those dim, pre-Friedan days were kept barefoot and pregnant. That they were the household skivvies of men, prevented from any contribution or decision making. And further, that the eeeeeeeevil patriarchy reinforced that outlook at every turn.
But look at the Gertrude children are shown in 1941! Talk about a strong, independent, intelligent, capable woman. She even refuses her husband's command to go to the brick house, and he just accepts it! It's almost as if she's a respected equal!
Current feminist thinking often pretends that girls (and boys) back in the bad old days weren't shown powerful examples of women. That's a lie, and this book is a demonstration.
This book is still under copyright, and I encourage you to buy it. Even if you are profoundly cheap. Certainly everyone who can read the second amendment and has a child whom he or she knows ought to think about it as a present. You might want to discuss aspects of it with them, but it should be in the nursery.
Something just occurred to me- I wonder if new versions ARE altered? Don't see how they could be, but the bien pensants are clever. I'll have to buy one and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)