A very intelligent canine. I've gone to court more than Michelle Bachmann, Harriet Miers, and most US Law School professors ever have. I am ghost written by my human companion. I actually live in the Second largest English speaking city at the time of the War for American Independence. These are my opinions and I don't care if you read this. I don't really want to hear from you--unless you agree with me or can offer intelligent and constructive comments. And I refuse to sell out (no ads here).
And I should add hypocrital motherfuckers. Shoot a few of them or destroy a couple of their buildings and they run and hide. I mean, how many towns were burnt by the British before and after 1776? (A: None prior to 1776, Fairfield and Norwalk (CT) in 1779. The traitors burned Norfolk, VA on 11 Dec 1775) The problem with the British was that they were too fucking nice during the War for Independence (except for Bann the man and maybe a few others). Then, the bratty colonists go running to the frogs for help. Actually, both sides (tory and traitor) were pretty wimpy in that regard: so, I shouldn't give grief just to the traitors. On the other hand, if the British had been a little more diligent in kicking arse, as Bann the Man did, we might not be in the mess we are right now.
Yeah, let's see how quickly the yanks would go to war if they knew they could get their noses bloody.
The crowd that dislikes gay marriage haven't caught on to one super advantage: it gives you something to talk to your gay relatives. I have about zip in common with my gay nephew.
Until I realised I can now ask him if he is going to get married!
Yeah! Have you thought about getting married? Now that you can get married why don't you meet a respectable young man and get married?
I wonder if they can be house husbands if they have no real skills like my nephew? He is a massage school dropout. Incredibly intelligent and can work in a bookstore.
But does gay marriage give him the option of being a stay at home spouse?
This is the BBC News Story on Munir Hussain from the 6 O'Clock News 21-12-09. Actually, the Beeb has a couple of good pieces on this subject with clips that play outside the UK here and here
(finally the effing thing has been posted. It's taken half a day to do so. Shit, only one second posted the first time.Half the audio came through in the second go. I hope three's a charm! Nope, had to do it through youtube)
Tuesday's Guardian also has an editorial on this case. This case has become a conservative cause célèbre. Except when push comes to shove, the Conservatives aren't around to vote on the issue. The last time this came to a vote (2005) Chris Grayling and other MPs who "supported householders" were absent (see clip above).
Also, The fact that Hussain's sentence was reduced by half because of the self-defence mitigation seems to be lost in this discourse. Hussain could have been sentenced to five years, but instead received a 30 month sentence (2 1/2 years). Additionally, Hussein precluded the trial of the man he attacked by beating the person and giving him brain damage: it doesn't make much sense to try someone who does not understand what is going on (i.e., diminshed capacity).
But the court of public opinion should reflect on the crucial distinction betweeen sympathy and legality. It is not hard to understand why Hussain, after watching burglars ransack his house and tie down his family at knife point, should have responded with violence of his own. But an eye for an eye is not the law — and with good reason. Victims of burglaries do not have the right to assume the role of judge and jury, still less an avenging vigilante.
The argument “Would you have done the same?” merits the simple answer: “If so, it would have been right that I should have been punished under the law for having done so.” One facet of a civilised society is that justice is meted out by juries and judges, not by victims at the scene of the crime.
Pandering to public opinion after the sentencing of Hussain might appeal to the electorate’s baser instincts. But it will not improve the criminal justice system. Sympathy for those who take justice into their own hands is one thing; the law is quite another. Politicians should understand the difference.
Many able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were a members of the militia under the militia act of 1792. The annual muster day accomplished actual enrollment of the members into their units.
Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment's muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.
"Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’" --Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834
Exemptions to Militia service were:
Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states"notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."
Or as the quote goes: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).
So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. Thie was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.
Now, they demand the right without the obligation encumbent to that right.
As we well know, the Civic right interpretation states that the Second Amendment guarantee of a "right to keep and bear arms" is not divorcable from the "well-regulated militia". In other words, the Second Amendment guarantees the institution set up under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The individual right interpretation holds that the right includes private purposes outside of the "Well-Regulated Militia": such as self-defence and hunting. The text of the Second Amendment offers no support for these purposes:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is silent on personal gun rights, yet it does mention the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In other words, concepts not mentioned in legislation cannot be inferred. therefore, one cannot assume that self-defence and hunting are covered by this right. Neither should one rely on them being covered by this right.
But, my point is not to argue this based upon text, but to argue it based upon utility of the right.
The concept of the militia is to create a citizen's defence force. Or to quote Joseph Story:
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
This is not some hypothetical "unorganised militia", but, again in the Words of Joseph Story:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The militia has an element of compulsion and duty to it. It is an organisation that requires civic mindedness. It is a system which demands discipline and submission to the group. It isn't doing whatever the fuck you please: fuck you, jack, I'm all right.
The individual right holds these concepts anathema. It demands the right without consideration of its costs to society. In fact, it is based upon a concept which runs contrary to the constitution: the insurrection theory. How can an institution which was created to "suppress Insurrections" foment them?
William Rawle succintly mentions something which is lost in this debate by those who demand the right without obligation to society:
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
There was a common belief that arms were to be used for society's benefit to not its detriment. Or in the words of the "individual right friendly" Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
7. “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or theUnited States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and be governed by the civil powers.”"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18, 1787), reprinted in Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788, p. 422
This text places danger of public injury or harm as a reason for disarming the people despite its "individual right" tone. This is because bearing arms is not to be used for harm, but for civic benefit.
In addition, the cost of the individual right as a barrier to firearms regulation makes it into a mockery. This interpretation of the right is not a benefit to society, but a detriment. These are the costs related to medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes that result from the misuse of firearms.
The right, according to Story was to free society of the enormous military expenditure and prevent the ancilary usupation of freedom that accompanies such a build up. Or to Quote Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is civic in nature, not individual. It is to protect society, not to protect the individual. It is to protect us from the military-industrial complex usurping our liberties. It has obligations and duties encumbent upon this right which are owed to society.
It was not to burden society with crime and injury due to misuse of firearms by those who keep them outside of the militia duty. It is to ensure the security of a free state, not "to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace." "Real danger of public injury from individuals" is a reason to abridge this right for individuals.
The detriment to society of the "individual right" misinterpretation is far too costly a mistake to make.
I am really ticked about the DRM on iplayer material since that seems to bugger up just about everything with the player. Also, I have this thing against DRM in that it makes life miserable for the end user, can still be broken, and really doesn't protect anybody's rights anyway. No, it seems to make playback impossible.
Anyway, I had a problem with iPlayer in that get_iplayer was giving me something about the ITV plugin and not letting me download anything. Fall back position was to use the official Beeb iplayer desktop. Amazingly enough the programmes actually downloaded and seem to have done so completely using the official Beeb iplayer desktop. That was a miracle to behold since usually the official Beeb iplayer downloads act wonky as all get out. What's the point of watching something in "hi-def" if the sucker does all sorts of weird things? On the other hand, the shows download and play when I go off line (Ha!).
Get_iplayer has a lot of advantages over the official Beeb iplayer since it removes the DRM that prevents you from keeping the show longer than one week. The official Beeb iplayer desktop has a week's limit to how long you can watch something before you have to redownload it. Also, the the official Beeb iplayer desktop downloads aren't portable (can't move them between computers). Moving the downloads creates all sorts of problems. That's unfortunate since once computer is hardwired and the other is wireless. The hardwired computer downloads stuff in about a 10th of the time.
Anyway, all is well, but I truly wish the Beeb would drop the DRM on the iPlayer downloads since it doesn't do anyone any good.
A few weeks back, Panorama did a show on the concept of joint enterprise, which is a form of criminal conspiracy. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been using this concept to combat gang violence finding joint enterprise in rather tenuous circumstances. Unfortunately, I can't upload this: so this will have to do. Some of the clips on the Panorama website play outside the UK and give you an idea of how this concept works.
The reason I mention this concept is in regard to this comment from MikeB's blog
You, or anyone else for that matter, have yet to prove that these are necessary measures. And yes, I refuse to be inconvenienced because some criminal thousands of miles away decides to break laws. Instead, go inconvenience the criminals by leaving them in jail.
This statement shows willful ignorance about a situation and a refusal to get involved in something which DOES affect this person. Unfortunately, the costs of society are so far removed from this person that he refuses to give a shit. Only if the effect is direct and present will this person accept that it does affect him!
I was trying to make a point that we all pay for the cost of gun violence in that post. Society pays to house the criminal, it pays to treat the victim, it pays for the psychological effect (although the economic cost may show up in other aspects such as lost productivity) to name a few ways this costs society. The post may have been too clinical to make my point to someone this woefully ignorant.
On the other hand, the concept of joint enterprise could do the trick. The major problem would be getting around the evidentiary issues: although those could possibly be lowered in regards to gun trafficking than just a case of willing ignorance. Although, I don't see US prosecutors as being willing to hit gun owners as part of a joint enterprise.
The Grow Your Own Drugs Christmas Special: That would get the religious right in the US freaking out especially after reading about the American Decency Association targeting "American Dad" and "Family Guy" at Stupid Right Wingers. I can just imagine them blowing a fuse or two when they see this programme.
Too bad it's about actual organic medicines, not psychoactive ones. Like the type of medicinial plants you find in Physic Gardens.
The ads for this show are a scream. I should post one.
Oz and Hugh Drink to Christmas: Wine Experts Oz Clarke and Hugh Dennis decide to try seasonal drinks. This will get your Christmas spirits up. Stuff like Dickens's smoking bishop. If you've actually read "A Christmas Carol" rather than watched the numerous versions out there, you know that a reformed Ebenezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchit share a glass (or more) at the end of the story. Oz and Hugh may not drink actual smoking bishop, but they do plow through whisky, winter ales, wassail (horrid stuff), sloe gin, port, sherry and snowballs along with each drink's traditions. Oz and Hugh may not get wrecked, but I am sure someone watching it would if they drink each libation along with Oz and Hugh. Although it does take a heck of a lot of mulled wine to get drunk.
I'm downloading this to iPlayer as I write.
Since we mentioned it in the last bit, Dickens' A Christmas Carol on Radio 7 (I remember when there were only 4 of them): Michael Gough and Freddie Jones. It is without regional boundaries since it's a radio programme. SO, you are set if you don't like seeing:
Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you.
The Truth About Christmas Carols: That one should have the Christ in Christmas crowd worrying as well since I mentioned it. I'll cop out and just cut and paste the Beeb's description:
There could be nothing more sweet and sentimental than the sound of traditional carols performed by a velvet-voiced choir at Christmas. Or so you would think. Composer Howard Goodall uncovers the surprising and often secret history of the Christmas carol.
Far from being accepted as part of the celebrations of Jesus' birth, over the centuries carols have been banned by both church and state. The carols we sing seem set in stone and yet they can have up to 400 regional variations. Individual carols have caused controversy - While Shepherds Watched had to be cleaned up by the Victorians for being too crude and there's a suspicion that O Come All Ye Faithful was a call to 18th century Jacobites to rebel.
History Zone - Christmas Zone: Sounds interesting. It looks like clips from previous years' programmes. Something to listen to whilst cleaning the house.
I'll add in Victorian Farm Christmas after catching a bit of the first episode. The last few minutes had folkie John Kirkpatrick playing some trad Christmas songs. That was worth the price of admission.
Take Bang Goes the Theory'sBrain Test Britain. I did mention that I like taking tests. I'm not sure why, but I do. I should have been tested enough in school to be petrified of anything like a test. But isn't life a test anyway?
Bang Goes the Theory is according to presenter Dallas Campbell, a show for "anyone who is remotely curious about life, the Universe and pretty much everything." It's a science show where they do more than just experiment. The only special episode I caught was where they powered a house inhabited by a "nuclear family" for a day by 80 bicyclists. Which may sound odd to you, but was absolutely fascinating in how much energy it takes to run our appliances. It also pointed out ways to cut back on energy use. Which although switching lightbulbs may seem like a small thing, as someone told me at the Centre for Alternative Technology combining just a lightbulbs worth of energy can add up. That is made more apparent when you watch a team of bicyclists power a house!
Unfortunately, Season one is over. So, you would have to wait until season 2 in 2010 to catch the show
Anyway, these are all sorts of weird little tricky tests to see if training your mind will improve it. They are sort of Kim's Game in spirit where you guess where things are. Also, they had one test where I had to put things from high to low, which sounds simple until you have to deal with negative numbers along with written (six) and numeric (6) numbers. One test gave me grief when I had to count items going into a box ancd compare them to items coming out. My internet connection screwed up that test. Also, there was one test/game where I had to do simple math calculations whilst balloon floated up, but I couldn't figure out which balloon I was supposed to be calculating.
If training your mind isn't enough, there are weird little science challenges that take me back to the quickie radio electronics class I was subjected to in the army (What was ohms law? (V=IxR)).
Fun! fun! fun! Now, I can't wait for the annual Financial Times Christmas Quiz!
I have been a barrister for 20 years now. There have been times when I thought that a trained chimp could do my job, in particular when I do a guilty plea.
On the other hand, I find that the hoi polloi cannot understand the law. They believe they can get plain language when they are dealing with legalese.
Anyway, enough moaning. I just saw that Stupid Right Wingers has me on their blog roll. My problem is that I focus on trying to reach the unreachable to educate and enlighten them.
the world is a much better place when you focus on the positive rather than the negative. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who are negative and destructive in their ways.
The better thing is to think positive thoughts and work toward that future.
I have to admit annoyance with the ignorentia at MikeB's blog (I just changed that from ignorentia ad mikeB's reluctantly since that sounded very Latin).
In particular Fatheaded White Moron who did point out something I missed in the DC's list of guns which cannot be registered: a bayonet lug. They missed that one since I wasn't there cribbing them on what to put in.
Anyway, since I like the idea of regulating assault weapons as machineguns, his example of an M1 Carbine would be an assault rifle in my opinion because:
In selective fire versions capable of fully-automatic fire, the carbine is designated the M2 carbine.
which places it in the 26 USC 5845 definition of a Machine gun: Machine guns, defined as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The M2 variant is designed to be capable of fully automatic fire, therefore, the M1 is a machinegun using that defintion.
Tough shit, you cretinous asshole.
I strongly suggest that people read the case law 26 USC 5845 in particular the law relating to "designed to shoot" and "readily restored to shoot":
"There were two welds in the gun which obviously was, when manufactured, 'designed to shoot.' The barrel of the gun was welded closed at the breech and was also welded to the receiver on the outside under the handguard. Scroggie testified that there are two possible ways by which the firearm could be made to function as such. The most feasible method would be to cut the barrel off, drill a hole in the forward end of the receiver and then rethread the hole so that the same or another barrel could be inserted. To do so would take about an 8-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop. Another method which would be more difficult because of the possibility of bending or breaking the barrel would be to drill the weld out of the breech of the barrel. United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399(8th Cir.1973)
In the context of the NFA and its use as a modifier describing the manner of firearm restoration, "readily" has been read to encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has to be changed to allow it to shoot automatically; (8) feasability, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction. See S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 253, 254-55 (11th Cir. 1987) (ease and scope); United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1982) (expertise, ease, and scope); United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1973) (time and equipment); United States v. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1362 (M.D.Fla.1999) (time, ease, expertise, and equipment); United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 573-75 (D.D.C.1980) (time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability, expense, and feasibility); United States v. Cook, No. 92-1467, 1993 WL 243823, at *3-4 (6th Cir. July 6, 1993) (availability)...
The decisions of several other courts make clear that the Defendant weapon, which would require, according to Alverson's own expert, a maximum of six hours to convert to fire automatically, "can be readily restored" under the NFA. The Eighth Circuit held that a semiautomatic rifle that would take an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop to convert to shoot automatically qualified as a "machinegun" under the NFA.10 Smith, 477 F.2d at 400; cf. United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1367 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that disassembled guns that could be made to shoot automatically were "readily restor[able]"); S.W. Daniel, Inc., 831 F.2d at 254-55 (upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as "those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts"); Alverson, 666 F.2d at 345 (concluding that an automatic weapon that was converted to fire semiautomatically prior to its sale to defendant could be "readily restored" where it could be modified to shoot automatically by filing down one of its parts); United States v. Lauchli, 371 F.2d 303, 312-13 (7th Cir.1966) (in a case prior to the addition of the "can be readily restored" language to the NFA, deciding that weapons requiring assembly to shoot automatically were machineguns under the NFA). U.S. v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416(2006)
There's readily restorable for you!
And why I have a job.
Additionally, some people obviously haven't read the DC v. Heller decision, in particular page 54. They could also do with reading footnotes 23 and 26. Heller did not get rid of firearms regulations. In fact, I have pointed out that Dick Heller was denied a permit for one of his guns. The DC Metropolitan Police notes on its website that: "about 50 applications to register handguns have been denied since the Heller decision".
Of course, these people don't read things or footnotes, unless of course, they are Michael Bellesiles footnotes! Then they rip them apart.
Another point, the "civic right" interpretation of the Second Amendment is not dead as Justice Steven's dissent provides hope for its revival. The Heller decision is "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law". Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in such documents as the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.
I'd have to think what the Christ in Christmas crowd would do about this one I found in the BBC London Weekend Guide if are upset about the Slutcracker: Make the Yuletide Gay with Sandie Shaw (Saturday 20 December, 7.30pm, £16.50 - £36.50, Barbican Hall, Barbican Centre, Silk Street EC2. Box office: 020 7638 8891)
You can tell when Christmas has truly arrived in London: when music promoter and impresario Raymond Gubbay unveils his annual concert series of festive favourites at various upscale venues across town.
Having worked in the past with Pavarotti, Ray Charles, Henry Mancini, Yehudi Menuhin and all four London symphony orchestras, Gubbay knows how to put a programme together that will unashamedly deliver bums on seats.
And so it is with his Christmas Festival, which begins this weekend at the Barbican.
This year he's matched 60s icon Sandie Shaw with the Brighton Gay Men's Chorus for an evening of seasonal songs and carols, and presenter Natasha Kaplinsky with the London Concert Orchestra in a programme of light classics by Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Schubert and Strauss.
Unfortunately, not much is interesting. I am sorry that this is the last year for the English National Ballet's Nutcracker designed by Gerald Scarfe and choreographed by Christopher Hampson having played for seven consecutive years. It was a super combination of the Hard Nut style scenary and choreography with a more traditional story.
I also liked Stephen Fry's Panto version of Cinderella. Despite quite a few reviews getting upset about the gay aspect of this production (well, isn't panto gay by its nature?). It was more a panto for sophisticated grown-ups than the very young. If you've seen scores of Cinderellas it's intriguing to find the heroine being accused of "pathological inanition" by the Fairy Godmother and the ugly sisters are called Dolce and Gabbana.
Don't put the Christ in Christmas, make your yuletide gay! Now, isn't that a queer idea!
Nothing like a quote from another Old Rugbeian to start my post (Rupert Brooke's "The Soldier"). I'm also adding one of my fav New Yorker Cartoons of all time. It had me howling when I found it.
But the point I am making here is about community or society, which are the institutions by which humans join together for cooperation.
Part of the Whig and Libertarian fantasy is that governments and society can be placed into turmoil on whims and fancies. Despite some commentators attempts to portray the radical whig concepts which led to the US War for Independence, this movement comes from the liberal spectrum: in particular republicanism. As a political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International. This belief in liberal republicanism has odd concepts regarding the legitimacy of governments, hence the War for American Independence.
Conservativism by its nature advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically within a nation over a period of time. Change is organic rather than revolutionary. Any attempt to modify society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul and creating unintended consequences. The US Whig movement did this and found itself facing Rebellions Such as Shays', The Whisky Revolts, Second American Civil War (War between the States), and quite possibly a future civil war based upon the "Insurrection theory". The War between the States is the Second American Civil war because the War for American Independence was the first civil war since it pitted those who were loyal against those who were not loyal.
The problem is that the Libertarian fantasy views government as a destroyer of liberty. The fact is that government is essential to create liberty. This notion that government is bad is peculiarly American. Even conservatives in Europe bemoan the rich/poor gap, and recognize an important role for government. The paradox is that only people with a pretty good government could come up with such an absurdity. When you really have a bad government, such as in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, or Russia, it's obvious that you need reform, not anarchy.
But my real point is that whatever you call yourself, you are a part of society. It is positively absurd that the Second Amendment was created to fight the government since in a democracy, the people are the government. To quote, once again, Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.
Somehow, there is this desire to be a frontiersman and beholden to none but the laws of nature; however, one has to go quite far afield to find somewhere that is not a part of civilisation. The world is becomming smaller and boundaries are collapsing. We need to stop seeing ourselves as being a part of a small localised community, but as part of a larger society: world civilisation. And while one can define themselves as American, British, Irish, Italian, Itrish (I thought I would keep that typo), or whatever, we are still part of a larger society and need to develop a global consciousness.
Part of the failure of Copenhagen is due to the fact that the United States has failed to notice that there is a need for environmental protection for nearly the past 40 years. Nixon achieved the clean air and clean water acts, yet such legislation was not followed upon. In fact, "Conservatives" have sought to repeal it. And following upon that Administrations have failed to show leadership regarding global warming.
Gun Control is a no-brainer, yet it is mired in bizarre rhetoric about non-existant rights. The unintended consequence of trying to prevent a professional standing army has failed. The anachronistic Second Amendment has been distorted to create rights where no right has existed. It has been used to fight regulation of firearms to the detriment of society. Thus a document which was to form a more perfect Union is being cited as justification for all sorts of silliness.
This means that a document which was to be a blueprint for society may end up being its downfall. Not from intent since the stated intent was not to destroy the nation, but to build it. Its destruction came about from failing to heed the more conservative voices of the loyalists whom they called "advocates of despotism" in the words of George Washington:
"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."
While Washington said this over 200 years ago, the sentiment remains vibrant. It may be hindsight, but despotism can come from either one person or a mob. The advocates of "independece" were such a mob in that they silenced the voices of those who would have kept the Union and sought independence through the institutions available to them. Instead the advocates of freedom created a precedent where one could scream "tyranny" and "despotism" and hope that others would follow to overthrow the government.
That is not society, but madness.
Yeah, yeah, I am over a couple of hundred years late in writing this and James Chalmers Wrote "Plain Truth" as well. No actually, as long as there is a belief in the insurrectionist theory and movements like the tea baggers, this sort of comment is never late.
I have to admit a desire to want to take comments, but I really don't want to hear from the ignorentia.
Case in point, I have been trying to explain extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction and how that relates to Article VI of the US Constitution to someone (Fatheaded White Moron). He says I wasted my time in law school if I believe these things exist. Well, sorry, Fatheaded White Moron, but they do exist: especially in the era of the internet where you aren't just dealing with a person around the corner, but you are broadcasting to the entire world (e.g., my current IP address places me in North London, but I could be anywhere in the world).
The thing is that I don't really want to persuade anyone of anything. While I don't mind being informative: I can't teach the unteachable. It's a waste of time trying to explain the concept of jurisdiction to a moron. But, I shouldn't be surprised. When I was young and into short wave, we heard the Voice of America "special English" program (one with limited vocabulary for people learning English) and it sounded like US mainstream news. I've also noticed that the Beeb dumbs down its news programmes for the US audience. In fact, BBC America was an extreme disappointment when I saw it in all manners (commercials, programming, etc.).
People who think are a threat to society. Hence people like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, George Bush (either one), and so on become the leaders. There is a reason that Bill Clinton became US president and it wasn't that he was a great mind. Obama has always been more smoke and mirrors than anything else, which is why I am not disappointed in his performance as president. He was annointed to be president the moment he took the podium at the 2004 democratic convention. Oprah Winfrey, another media creation, helped catapult him to become the first black celebrity president.
I have been curious as to why people don't want to limit electioneering rather than term limits (other than term limits is one of those concepts that is easy for small minds to grasp and accept). The US election process isn't set up to be democratic as the Ron Paul and Howard Dean campaigns show, but is meant to be run by people with money. It costs money to run for office in the States. This is where we have the golden rule: "Those with the Gold: Rule".
So whether it is a right wing idiot like Sarah Palin or a left wing idiot like Brack Obama, the puppet is elected. The weapons of mass distraction media (thank you, il principe) can confuse the small minded. Or worse, the NPR listening fools who think because it is "public" radio it is any less controlled by commercial interests. As I said before, underwriting is just a slightly less obnoxious commercial.
Of course, where this is all going is that there is a world out there which means that you don't need to be limited to the weapons of mass distraction media in the states. You have the BBC, Radio Nederland, Al Jazeera and a host of other sources out there for alternative viewpoints. Although, that comment is superfluous since most of the closed minds don't want to listen to alternative viewpoints. If they do it will be in a derisory manner, as did Fatheaded White Moron when I tried to explain the concept of jurisdiction.
So after that rambling rant, I long for intellectual discourse, but find it difficult to have. the internet does provide one with others who can be good company, but it is also filled with those who are not as stimulating. I find the less intelligent and closed minded people to be quite tiresome.
I really like iPlayer since it allows me to catch BBC programmes and watch them when I want. Although I have some frustrations with the player not always downloading correctly, especially through the actual iPlayer desktop. My hardwired connection can download faster than my wireless, but I can't transfer shows since they tend to stop midway. A programme called get_iplayer is much better for downloading and doesn't have some of the associated iPlayer drawbacks.
Get_iplayer finds the "portable device" version of the show. I find that version is less buggy than the actual iPlayer version. I blame the DRM for a lot of iPlayer's issues. In particular crappy download quality. It seems that programmes either are jumpy as heck or can stop. I am frustrated as heck that I was only able to download half of an episode of the New tricks episode "Mad Dogs". Frustration has cause me to buy a copy of season 5 from a Dutch vendor and the sucker is taking forever to come.
I found this blog through another post on the Secular state.
Justin is a very intelligent young man who likes to cover political, philosophical, economic issues, and the topic of secularism and religion. In fact, part of me wants to defer to him on the topic of secularism and religion as he is wise beyond his age in thse matters.
He has just finished a three part post on Afghanistan that is most cogent and insightful regarding history and nation building. Unfortunately, the west likes to place its constructs upon a society which cannot work. The concept that nations can be built upon geographic, rather than cultural and ethnic lines is the cause of much conflict in Europe (Balkans), Africa, and Asia. Justin addresses the extreme multicultural society comprised by Afghanistan. Actually, Justin doesn't mention that this area combines Iran, Pakistan, and India by the nature of ethnic and cultural identites (e.g., Pashtuns).
I hope that decision makers consider Justin's comments and I hope those who read this take a look at Justin's blog.
I was curious as to how much this "Freedom" and "right" costs the American public and found John Rosenthal's December 15, 2009 post Health Care Costs and Gun Violence. He's a businessman, not a public health professional, but even being in business would give him an ability to assess the costs. He gives the figure that:
On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year.
He also states that:
According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.
OK, That means firearms injuries cost the United States public between 20 and 100 billion dollars a year. Jens and Ludwig calculate the cost of gun violence at the higher figure ($100 billion). Fiscal Spending in the US was $2,979 Billion with medicare and medicade spending coming in at 23% at a cost of $682 Billion. That would make the cost of gun violence roughly 3 to 15% of the Medicare/Medicade budget. The 100 Billion figure puts the cost of gun violence at around 3% of the total US Spending figure.
To put this number into perspective, $100 billion could be used to cover nearly two-thirds of those in America who are currently without health insurance, or to pay college tuition at a good public university for 27 million people – roughly the entire population of New York and New Jersey combined. And this reflects the costs of gun violence for just one year.
Now, the fact that firearm injuries are preventable, which they are if we reduce the amount of firearms in circulation via registration and conditions on firearms' sales. Simply requiring a criminal background check for all gun sales would significantly restrict access to guns by those who historically misuse them without limiting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Of course, firearms regulation is the bugaboo of the gun cretin crowd who would fill this blog with comments, if I allowed them. On the other hand, they remain mute about the cost to society of their "right". In fact, they scream loudly about rights, yet are not willing to show responsibility. Perhaps it is time to make them pay for their right!
Rights come with responsibilities. I think that the sale of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed to defray the cost to society since it is society that must bear the burden of their "right". But why should society be burdened and why has society allowed itself to be burdened by those who claim this right, yet are not willing to shoulder their responsibilities?
If they can't exercise their right in a responsible manner, then this right should not exist in the matter of public interest.
It seems that girlfriend's mother of another blogger was in a very bad wreck at the end of November. The woman is still recovering at Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville. We're all counting out blessings that she's alive, despite severe injuries. She won't be home until the week of Christmas. The woman was also supposed to start a new job the day after the accident. She had spent months looking for this position while unemployed and has very little savings left -- the accident literally could not have happened at a worse time. Now, she's discussing long-term disability, which means at the age of 55 she could be at the end of her working years.
I was curious about how one registers a firearm in Washington, DC post-Heller. The Metropolitan Police has an online brochure and a website.
How Do I Register a Firearm in the District? To register a fiream, residents must report to the Firearms Registration Section of the Metropolitan Police Department, located at 300 Indiana Avenue, NW. The application process may take up to 14 days. The cost for registering each firearm is $13, plus $35 to process fingerprints and $12 for test-firing the weapon. Applicants must: --Be 21 years of age --Complete a firearms application --Bring proof of residency (e.g., D.C. Driver’s License) --Bring two (2) passport-sized front facing photos --Be fingerprinted --Pass a 20-question multiple choice test --Complete a notarized firearms eligibility statement
And
WHAT TYPES OF FIREARMS CAN I REGISTER? Shotguns, rifles, and handguns — which includes revolvers and semi-automatic handguns with a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. However, a shotgun barrel cannot be less than 20 inches in length, and a rifle barrel cannot be less than 16 inches in length and must have a total overall length of 26 inches or more. WHAT TYPES OF THINGS WOULD CAUSE ME TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING ABLE TO REGISTER A FIREARM? To qualify for registration of a firearm in the District of Columbia, you must meet all of the following criteria. You: 1. Must not stand convicted of a crime of violence, or have any prior weapons offenses. 2. Must not be under indictment for a crime of violence or weapons offense. 3. Must not stand convicted within the past five years for a narcotics or dangerous drug offense, threats to do bodily harm or for assault. 4. Must not have been acquitted of any criminal charge by reason of insanity or adjudicated as a chronic alcoholic by any court within the past five years. 5. Must not have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to any mental hospital or institution within the past five years. 6. Must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly. 7. Must not be found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being. 8. Must not be convicted of any felony, or prostitution-related offense.
BTW, DC uses the 26 USC 5845 definition of a Machine gun: Machine guns, defined as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. (D.C. Official Code § 7-2501.01(10))
(IV) A semiautomatic, rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (aa) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (bb) A thumbhole stock; (cc) A folding or telescoping stock; (dd) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; (ee) A flash suppressor; or (ff) A forward pistol grip;
I just watched Scotland's Secret Serial Killer last night on BBC iPlayer which was a Documentary that aired on BBC Two in Scotland on 10 Dec 2009 about convicted serial killer and child rapist Angus Sinclair. It seems that he was let loose on an unsupervised weekend pass to attend a small boat festival back in the mid 90s. He was selling toys there that he made whilst in prison. As the programme said, this would have been the perfect ruse for him giving his M.O. (get a young child to do him a favour and then corner the little girl).
Fortunately, he didn't kill or rape anyone whilst on pass.
"Psychiatrists believe Sinclair's obsession with sex cannot be cured". Well, I think that can be said about most humans.
Most US states would have put this clown on death row. I seriously doubt the yanks would have let him loose and unsupervised on an unsuspecting public (what were they thinking????).
Yes, I must be mad since I am still watching this, but it is addictive in a strange way (not Strangeways which is a Prison in Manchester). For some reason the show's producers hook you in with titilation about something to do with the MoD. There is a clip, which unfortunately is only available in the UK, where Christian, the Scientist, and DI Flint (Tamzin Outhwaite) discuss the fact that the source of the images may be the Prometheus Satellite with hints that the MoD is behind it all. For some reason, conspiracy theories are taking over BBC Sci-Fi. The 2008 remake of Survivors is terrible because it hints at secret labs and black helicopters starting the plague. Add in that it happened as the media were whipping up hysteria about H1N1 when it came out. The problem is that the original series had the plague run amok, rather than be controlled by evil government (big business?) scientists. That makes the remake seem really bad along with the fact that the show collapses a lot of the story lines within the original series. Not to mention Talfryn Thomas played Tom Price in the original as a bit of a clown whereas Max Beesley's Tom Price is an armed robber.
But that's an aside that I wanted to get off my chest since the "evil MoD" aspect is contrasted with these images could be a message from God. Not sure what message God is trying to convey here, but...
We are seeing the surly scientist being a bit more helpful, but still off in his own world while the three cops try to figure out what exactly is going on here. This is a truly complicated puzzle that only having a good scriptwriter could make work (somebody find a good scriptwriter--pronto). To be honest, this is not a show you can just start watching since you need to come at the plotline from the beginning. Sorry, no spoilers for you, but plot lines run like the images from the future and blend in to make this a bit confusing. One plotline will go through at least three episodes (we have had images of the future on this in the form of the previews at the end of the show).
This might be one show that having a US remake might make a bit more comprehensible. And if I am saying a US remake could make this bearable, this sucker is baaaaaad.
And willing to foil an attack on a woman with differing political views from feral kids! So much for armed resistance or the myth that the British "just stand by and watch". No, Boris swoops by on his bike to save the day! A conservative who endorsed Barack Obama with the praise "Unlike the current occupant of the White House, he has no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences, each containing a main verb (Telegraph Column, Oct 21, 2008)."
Why can't US Conservatives be like this? Instead, they have Sarah Palin!
Alas, I am sorry that Boris couldn't save the day in Copenhagen.
Goerge Monbiot said something interesting in his post This Is About Us: "The talks at Copenhagen are not just about climate change. They represent a battle to redefine humanity."
The summit’s premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accomodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow...
The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.
Quite true, the issue is no longer just about the climate and the environment, but how we cooperate with each other.
Society cannot function if there are no more laws making a return to the "laws of nature". Humans have removed nature from the world and created society. As George Mnbiot says "this a battle to redefine humanity, and they (the expanders/unrestrained) wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today."
Despite my ragging on Meleanie Hain for her open carry ways, I think that open carry is the way to go. Meleanie's problem was that she was toting around a piddly little glock to kids' soccer games. That caused the other soccer mom's to freak out.
They're no fun!
On the other hand, the Swiss know how to do it properly as this off duty soldier with his Sig demonstrates. Yeah, you've got to get a permit to carry (literally and openly) the thing around if you are off duty, but how many people are gonna fuck with you when you have an assault rifle?
Unfortunately, the Swiss are moving away from this sort of thing.
After pissing off the rest of the country with its outrageous gun laws, DC has legalised gay marriage! (OK, Heller probably put them where they should be as far as guns go, but I am still pissed off at how the whole thing went down)
I have to admit to having no problem with gay marriage since it is more about property and rights than anything else. Ask anybody stuck in a bad marriage or who has gone through multiple divorces as to how "sacred" marriage really is.
This one will be fun to see how the rest of the country deals with DC's new law.
Will the religious right plaintiff shop to find someone who opposes the law? Will they add some rider onto a law that is popular to ban the law?
I am sure glad I don't live in DC anymore since they have absolutely no rights.
I knew that I was being far too optimistic that anything would come of this. How could anyone hope that the world's population could agree on anything no matter how much of a threat it is.
At least we cannot blame the US for screwing things up.
It seems the third world was far more of a problem. China engaged in fence post sitting to say it wasn't really developed and didn't have to reduce its emmissions.
Chinese Communism is a very weird thing. It's more like state capitalism. And it's gone insane.
I expect a "Yes, Minister" moment where they come up for a reason for the Secretary of the meeting quitting to be replaced by the Danish PM.
The only good point, Obama is limited to a three minute speech (as are the rest of the world's leaders). It would have been more fun to limit Bill Clinton to three minutes.
If I see some nutjob holding you down and repeatedly stabbing you I can legally draw and fire my firarm to stop the attack.
Well, I'd prefer that you knew first aid in that situation since it would be far more helpful than you shooting him.
Boy, I missed how incorrect that answer was. And this asshole had the gall to say I didn't know what I was talking about.
He would only have the legal right to assist me if I had the right of self-defence.
To put this in context, I have just shot someone who was robbing me. 45limpdick walks into the situation and shoots me. He would be liable since I had just shot an aggressor.
FatWhiteMan said...
Of course then Laci prefers once-great Britain where they will throw the victim in jail and let the criminals run free
Hmm, maybe if the British Tax collectors the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, or the people who owned the tea ships had used deadly force.
Britain will be great long after the USA has become a footnote in history.
Also, FWM mentions that self-defence is a justification. It is a defence to the charges, it is not a get out of jail free card. If the use of self-defence is improper one can still have liability, especially if one uses deadly force. Also, this is a criminal defence, not a civil one. You can still be civilly liable for improper use of deadly force.
To be quite honest, I wish these people would keep their guns to themselves.
FWM cited the case of Munir Hussein who used excessive force in "defending his home from an intruder". Well, not really, they chased the guys down the street after the attack. The Judge in this case commented that:
“If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
Yes, I do prefer the rule of law to the vigilantism that the gun cretins advocate.
NOTE: I didn't originally catch that Muni Hussein had chased the perps down the street and then wailed on them. That DOES put the incident in a whole different light.
One cannot let defence become offence by using too much force or by attacking after the threat is gone.
As for cops v. civilians, Cops have a couple of things that civilians don't (1) training and (2) protection from liability. A cop is slightly less likely to get into trouble if they make a mistake in judgement (e.g., shooting someone by mistake). A Civilian will have to deal with the civil and criminal liability of their actions.
I know that the mantra is "I don't dial 911". On the other hand, you cover your arse if you do dial it to let them know something has, or is happening.
To be quite honest, prevention is a whole lot better than shooting someone: especailly if you are going to end up in court (criminal or civil).
45limpdick (MikeW) had the nerve to tell me I was wrong when I said "legally you can only defend yourself and your property." Sorry, I am correct.
The general common law principle regarding self-defence is stated in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
The further one moves away from oneself, the less one can claim a right of self-defence. That would seem obvious since the right is "self-defence" not a "right to defend others". Of course, someone like 45limpdick (MikeW)gets his information from the Internet and doesn't check it with a lawyer to make sure it's accurate.
The right to defense of others turns largely on the reasonableness of the belief that the victim deserved assistance. A minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer be a member of the victim’s family, or the victim’s superior or employee. Similarly, a minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer’s belief be correct, reasoning that the rescuer ‘merely steps into the victim’s shoes’, while the majority requires only that it be reasonable. Pennsylvania law imposes no such restrictions. It does, however, require the additional showing that the rescuer believed that his intervention was necessary, and that the rescuer retreats if the victim would be required to do so.
If in the course of intentionally defending himself or another, a defendant recklessly or negligently injures or kills a third person, self-defense will not bar liability, but it will reduce the gravity of the charge from an intentional crime to a reckless or negligent crime.
Therefore, the further one removes oneself from the connection to the victim, the more tenuous the claim of a right to defend that person.
Aaj Ki Raat always reminds me a bit of "I Feel Love", but this version really takes the 70s-80s thing and runs. Parveen Babi was a really hot Bollywood star in the 70s. She was the first Indian actress to have featured on TIME magazine's cover, in 1975. All my Indian housemates at School were hot for her.
Priyanka Chopra is a more recent Bollywood star and former Miss World (2000). So, this combines two Bollywood sex goddesses. Priyanka made her Hindi film debut with The Hero: Love Story of a Spy. I've seen the previews of this, but this give you a good idea of what a Bollywood film is like. Expect loads of Song and Dance as our hero defuses the nuclear Weapon.
Come on, serious suspension of disbelief is required for any bollywood flick!
This is a Remix of Aaj Ki Raat (featured in the film "Slumdog Millionaire") by DJ Shai Guy.
I like the song anyway.
Bhangra for us Farangis (not Ferengi, they are the aliens on Star Trek) is traditional a Punjabi festival music. It's been updated in the west with synthesisers and such. It became popular in England since the Bhangra clubs didn't serve alcohol meaning they could have people who were underage and the clubs could stay open longer before liberalised opening hours.
Hindi Lyrics Translation Aaj Ki Raat Here is the song 'Aaj Ki Raat' from movie 'slumdog millionaire'. Shaam hai, jaam hai, aur hai nasha The evening is redolent with wine and seduction
Tan bhi hai man bhi hai pighla hua Body and heart are molten
Chhayi hai rangeeliyan The atmosphere is colorful and addictive
Phir bhi hain betabiyaan Yet there is a restlessness
Kyun dhadakta hai dil, kyun yeh kehta hai dil Why does the heart beat so, why does it say
Deewana ko ab tak nahin hai yeh pata The crazy lover has no idea as yet
Aaj ki raat hona hai kya What's to happen tonight?
Paana hai kya, khona hai kya What will be gained, what will be lost?
Aaj ki raat Tonight
Do ghadi mein hi yahan jaane kya hoga Anything can happen here in a matter of minutes
Jo hamesha tha mera bhi mera hoga? The one who was always mine, will he still be mine?
Kaun kiske dil mein hai faisla hoga Who is in whose heart will be decided tonight
Faisla hai yahi jeet hogi meri It's decided, I will be the winner
Oh Deewana ko ab tak nahin hai yeh pata The crazy lover has no idea as yet
Aaj ki raat hona hai kya What's to happen tonight?
Paana hai kya, khona hai kya What will be gained, what will be lost?
Aaj ki raat Tonight
Aao main tumse kahoon baat chupke se Come, let me tell you something in secret
Rang badlegi pal mein raat chupke se The night will change colors secretly
Tumko le jaaonga phir saath chupke se I will take you away secretly
Jaaoge tum kahan, dekho main hoon yahan Where will you go? Look, I am here!
Deewana ko ab tak nahin hai yeh pata The crazy lover has no idea as yet
Aaj ki raat hona hai kya What's to happen tonight?
Paana hai kya, khona hai kya What will be gained, what will be lost?
You don't need to have any intelligence background to spot this stuff. Although, it does help to have just plain old intelligence.
OK, this report stinks like shit to me:
First thing that gets a red flag flying in my mind is that it uses the terms "FEMA Detention Centers" and "FEMA Concentration Camps". Then the report mentions three of these facilities: Richards-Gebaur AFB Ft. Leonard Wood Fort Crowder (called by the old name Camp Crowder in the "report")
Oh dear, Zeitgeist is mentioned as a subversive film on page 9. I had better watch out!
And I have a copy of the Turner Diaries that someone gave me.
Another thing that stinks about this report is that it is only about the militia movement, which really isn't that strong. Any proper assessment of internal threats should include other groups (e.g., black militant groups).
Also, the militia information is tremendously dated. The ADL website relating to the militia movement is archived as of 2000. The SPLC mentions Black Separatist groups. I can't believe that an organisation like MIAC would put out a piece of shit like this.
MIAC report under review: Lawmakers examining document that linked some views to militias. Springfield News- Leader, Chad Livengood: A special House committee has been formed to investigate the inner workings of a state agency that produced a controversial report linking some social conservative views to militia membership. State Rep. Bob Dixon, R-Springfield, will chair the committee during the interim between legislative sessions. The real emphasis is going to be on what oversight is currently in place, rather than going back and rehashing the report and the details of the report,” Dixon said. “What I don’t want it to become is a witch hunt on law enforcement who are doing their due diligence to keep citizens safe.” Richard, R-Joplin, appointed 16 House members to the interim panel, including Dixon and fellow Greene County Reps. Shane Schoeller and Jim Viebrock. Schoeller, R-Willard, said MIAC and Highway Patrol employees should not view the committee’s scrutiny of their intelligence gathering as a witch hunt .”If you’ve done what you think is the right thing to do, there should be nothing to be afraid of,” he said. Viebrock, R-Republic, said he intends to grill state bureaucrats about the content of the report, which the patrol o! cially retracted on March 25.”I’m personally going to demand some of the intelligence they’re looking at,” Viebrock said. Viebrock said he got many complaints from constituents about the report’s contents and generalizations of conservative thought. He wants to know whether the MIAC report was based on actual intelligence, not information swiped o# the Internet. “If that is the entirely basis of their existence, then as a legislator I will join my fellow legislators and we will put an end to it,” Viebrock said. “To accuse God-fearing, anti-abortion, gun-toting Americans as terrorists is unacceptable.”
I'd love to know more about this report and what the committee found.
