Are you still reading this?

Seriously, I've moved to http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/.

Bye Bye Blogger

Man with the muckrake made a comment that you can block people from commenting at wordpress.

From this time forward, I am posting at:
http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/

I know, it's so much fun having mikey, twatface, and others waste their time trying to get me to read their shit.  But I prefer to hear from interesting people--not cretins.

So, if Aztec Red or Sebastian want to stop by:  I'll read what they say.

Another thing I would never expect from US citzens

The good folks at the British Army Rumour Service have a thread up about Tony Blair: http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=55715.html

In it they discuss the Channel Four programme The Trial Of Tony Blair, the premise of which Tony "The Weasel" is called up for war crimes in 2010. Not so far out considering that Britain has the Iraq Inquiry. George Monbiot has already paved the way for this with his bounty on Blair.

As one person said in the forum regarding the invasion:

1. Next time you are considering starting another war, please make sure you are doing it for a good reason, and one which can be justified both at the time and afterwards.
2. Please give people the real reason, not one that seemed convenient at the time even if a bit economical with the actualite.
3. Please ensure that the military is the correct size, and is correctly manned and equipped, and is not overstretched by still being involved in your other feck ups.
4.Ensure that there is a proper mission and plan, including some sort of idea of where we are headed with this, rather than going into it with no idea of how you are coming out.
5. And finally, when your boss across the pond rings you up and tells you your boys are being deployed to Iran next, have the bollox to tell him to feck off and die.

This is what I mean when I say support our troops.

The People of Wootton Bassett demonstrate their support of the troops by publicly mourning the dead ("re-patriated") on their return. Friends who live there has told me it's a really moving experience to see the crowds. The Beeb always broadcasts this event on the News when soldiers are "re-patriated". Here's a vid for the yanks who miss this event:


This is a pretty crappy video of the event, but it still chokes me up to watch it. Also, the event has gotten larger with time and the street is packed with people.  I am sorry that this type of thing only happens in Britain.

Somehow, I just don't see all this happening in the US.

As one forum member said:

And what this pathetic excuse of a goverment needs to accept is that our brave lads and lasses volunteered to fight for THEIR country....not for a bloody oil well for some dickhead yank!!!

More on the stupidity of the gun crowd

mikeb302000 had this post

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Montana Teacher Fires Gun in Classroom

The Associated Press reports on an accidental shooting which happened in a classroom during history lesson.

BILLINGS, Mont. — The superintendent of a rural Montana school district says he was showing students his black powder muzzleloader when he accidentally fired the weapon into a classroom wall during a history lesson.

Dwain Haggard, who used to be a Civil War re-enactor, was showing the gun to five students in Reed Point High School's American history class Friday when it fired.

No one was injured, and Haggard says he can't explain how the weapon was loaded.

He says he usually fires a cap during the demonstration, but this time there was a loud bang and the room filled with smoke.

The ball shot through the "o" in the word "North" on a wall map.

Haggard says none of the students' parents was upset with him. He described the incident as "bitter irony" because he has tried to increase safety in the school district west of Billings.

Well, at least this is an improvement over some recent reporting we've seen: "...when he accidentally fired the weapon..." I'm glad they didn't report that "the gun went off." Of course, his not being able to explain how the gun got loaded, is a bit strange. But the best part of the whole story is this:

Haggard says none of the students' parents was upset with him. He described the incident as "bitter irony" because he has tried to increase safety in the school district west of Billings.

Yeah, that's some pretty funny irony right there. I guess those Montana parents know that Constitutionally-protected, God-given rights require that a certain price be paid in safety and caution.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

To which I made this comment:

I love history and I'm all for living history and such, but reenactors are something else.

I have this picture of the gun going off and filling the classroom with black powder smoke. When the smoke clears, the occupants appear as comic figures with startled expressions, their hair standing up, and soot covered faces.

From the British Army Rumour Service wiki:

"re-enactment is performed by individuals with a keen interest in history who attempt to recreate battles of years gone by to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Disturbingly Medieval to victorian types have access to swords, halberds, bows, crossbows, medieval siege equipment and an even more disturbing knowledge on how to use them. In their favour they drink like fish."

Sorry, shrimp, but most reenactors use blanks while they are playing soldier. It sort of makes sense if you are shooting at each other to do that, or reenacting would indeed win copious amounts of Darwin awards.

Although, this bloke seems to have forgotten that even though his toy was loaded with blanks--it was still loaded!

More on this weirdness at:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Re-enactment

First off, the "I love history and I'm all for living history and such, but reenactors are something else." should have clued in one named "shrimp" that I was getting down on re-enactors, who are pretty bizarre characters in their own right.

Anyway Shrimp's comment was:

"Sorry, shrimp, but most reenactors use blanks while they are playing soldier."

LtCC,
Did I say that they did not?

Regardless of what it was loaded with, blanks can kill at close range. It fired something through the "O" in North, according to the story. At that range, even if it had not been lead ball, a blank would have killed.

As far as safe handling of firearms goes, it doesn't matter if it's a blank or not. It's the same as if it had been loaded with lead ball.

Shrimp seems to have missed where I said:
Although, this bloke seems to have forgotten that even though his toy was loaded with blanks--it was still loaded!
I'll admit that my black powder knowledge is limited to the Brown Bess and I have very little knowledge of percussion firearms, but I do know about blank guns. I also said in my response that the death of Jon-Erik Hexum was rather notorious. Hexum placed a .44 magnum loaded with blanks to his temple and pulled the trigger resulting in a blunt force trauma wound to his skull and subsequent death.

So, blank loads are still ammunition loads.

That wasn't really my focus as my opening sentence points out. Usually, people open with something that is going to get you into the topic, or relating to it. But, the RKBA crowd neglect that since they now believe that the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't really important to the Second Amendment (at least Scalia did in the DC v Heller decision).

Anyway, Aztec Red's comment was closer to the point:

I don't know why he thought it was a good idea to do something like this indoors. Even just firing a cap can loses debris in the bore and fire it with enough force to cause eye damage to anyone within speaking distance.

Even re-enactors know that blanks and percussion caps can cause injury, so they only fire at each other at distances measured in tens of yards at minimum.

You can count on Aztec Red to say something considered even if it may be something I disagree. He earned my respect with his answer to my question about his relating to the Oklahoma City bombers. I'd read any of his comments and might even publish them.

As I said, my comment was directed toward the waltiness of reenactors rather than gun safety, which the opening comment made pretty clear. Aztec Red gave a more gun safety oriented version of my comment.

Still, you'd think the possibility of filling a classroom with black powder smoke would have deterred this re-enacting wally from bringing his toy to school.

Stick Guns

I think this is an anti-war parody:

Stick Guns

Dave Tucker | MySpace Video


And while we are at it. This is a clip from the British CHILDREN'S TV Programme Blue Peter. It seems that they dressed up all the female presenters in lingerie (albeit 19th Century lingerie). Proof that the spirit of Benny Hill runs deep through British Psyche. Does the underage bird parading around in 19th Century undies put this in the realm of kiddie porn?:

Fight the enemies of the people

Not sure why I am receiving this stuff, but I will pass it on.

More proof that British anti-hunting laws are nonsense.

OK, we don't know the actual location of where this picture was taken, which means the premise of this post is a terrible assumption. But I can be busted for telling Laci "go get 'em, girl" when we're chasing squirrels in the park. Soooo....

Likewise, after seeing a fox wandering through a shopping mall at 17h00 (5PM) in what used to be the Duke of York's barracks in Chelsea (I knew they should have never opened up the place to the public) and being told: "Oh, that's nothing" while having a pint at my local, which is appropriately called the Fox and Hounds. It seems that there are an estimated 10,000 foxes roaming London as of 2006 with some being able to access the Prime Minister as the picture shows.  Trust me, the little buggers are everywhere including Oxford Circus tube stop.  Googling "London Foxes" will net you as many webpages as foxes.

Unfortunately, short of being the Royal Family (and they would probably be busted if they held fox hunts in Kensington-Hyde Park), we are screwed at chasing the little buggers.  You have to give a shout to the local council to "relocate" the beasts.  Also, the animal rights crowd can complain at riding through paved city scapes.  I know that Charles and Camilla like the sport: maybe they can be persuaded to start a city hunt.

I'm all for animals, but sometime they need to be culled: even if they remind me a bit of Laci.

The US media are as liberal as the corporations which own them.

I have been saying that NPR is a commercial media outlet and pretty right wing these days.  The commercial accusation comes from the fact that the conservatives have worked to ensure that no public funding is used for public broadcasting (which includes the The Corporation for Public Broadcasting). Thus US Public Broadcasting resorts to extort-a-thons and corporate "underwriting", which is a fancy word for commericals.  Corporations can pull their "underwriting" if the media decide to publish something contrary to the corporation's interests.  Likewise, it seems that the Cato Institute is dictating NPR's editorial policy.

Anyway, FAIR had Steve Rendall 5 Mar 10 blog post: Progressive History on the Public Airwaves: U.S. vs. U.K. from 03/05/2010 which confirms that my suspicions may not be too far off.

Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the end of the historic British miners strike of 1984-85. The BBC has a special broadcast in commemoration, The Ballad of the Miners Strike, featuring the voices of miners.
But where can Americans turn for commemorations of our progressive history? There is always Howard Zinn's excellent book, A People's History of the United States.  But turn on NPR, the closest thing the U.S. has to the BBC, and the closest you'll get to the people's history is the denunciation of Zinn.

Going to the NPR Finds Right-Wing Crank to Spit on Zinn's Grave: David Horowitz in ATC obituary with substance-free attack post makes the request for action that people ask "why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR's extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?"

NPR's coverage has become very right wing as of late, which is part of the reason I posted the Coffee Party info. It seems to me that the US MSM is far too fixated upon the "Tea Party Movement" which is obviously astro-turf.

On the other hand, I watch the BBC and see stories about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. There is the work Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett which posits that that there is one common factor that links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their citizens: not wealth,resources, culture, climate, diet, or system of government. Furthermore, more-unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them—the well-off as well as the poor.

In the US, health care isn't considered a right, yet owning a deadly weapon is. Hardly anyone seems to be challenging this idiocy beyond FAIR (How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution and Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment). Where is the screaming about healthcare other than the astroturf tea party movement?

Again, I have to recommend the Wisconsin AFL-CIO's reports on the Right Wing movement.

Anyway, why aren't the US MSM asking the same questions that the BBC and FAIR ask?  Where are the media who will ask the questions and post the news that people need to hear?

8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

No, not from Ohhh shoot, but the Onion (got that, you moronic fucks, I am crediting this to the Onion):

NORFOLK, VA--Gun owners nationwide are applauding the patriotic, though accidental, exercise of Second Amendment rights by 8-year-old Timothy Cummings Tuesday.

"Timothy is a symbol of American heroism," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre from Cummings' bedside at Norfolk General Hospital, where the boy is in serious but stable condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. "While praying for his recovery, we should all thank God that his inalienable right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed."

The incident occurred shortly after Cummings returned from school and found that his parents were absent from the house. Displaying what Second Amendment-rights groups are calling "good old-fashioned American ingenuity," Cummings placed a pair of phone books on a stool to retrieve his father's loaded .38-caliber revolver from its hiding place on a closet shelf. After a preliminary backyard investigation of his constitutional rights claimed the life of Pepper, the family's cocker spaniel, Cummings fell on the weapon, causing it to discharge into his left thigh.

"The framers of the Constitution would be so proud of what my boy did yesterday," said Cummings' father Randall, 44, who originally purchased the handgun for home defense. "If 8-year-old boys discharging loaded firearms into their own legs isn't necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, I don't know what is."

Doctors worked for six hours to reconstruct Timothy Cummings' femur, which shattered from the impact of the high-velocity teflon-coated slugs, and to graft his remaining muscular and circulatory tissue over the fist-sized exit wound below his left buttock. Although the boy lost a great deal of blood, attending physicians say they are confident that he will recover sufficiently to resume active use of firearms, though his chances of walking again are slim.

"For years, the people who want to take away our freedoms have said that we're not smart enough or responsible enough to own handguns," Randall added. "Timothy is proof that even a child is capable of using a handgun for its intended purpose."

Gun owners nationwide have flooded Cummings' hospital room with flowers, letters of congratulations and invitations to "come shooting." Area firearms enthusiast and family friend Lloyd Stone showed his support by donating 18 inches of vascular material to help rebuild Cummings' left femoral artery.

"He may be just a boy, but this use of the Second Amendment was a man-sized undertaking," Stone said. "Timothy may need a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but with every step he doesn't take, he'll realize what the Constitution really means."

Above: NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre praising Cummings' "commitment to the American way."

Although Cummings has yet to deliver an official statement on the incident, he regained consciousness long enough to discuss his immediate plans.

"Please, I want to run and play again," Cummings told doctors Tuesday night. "My leg hurts bad. Please make it stop."

Although gun-control advocates have criticized the boy's gun use, the NRA was quick to respond, calling Cummings' use of much-protested, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets "a victory for America."

"Timothy should be held up as an example to people who think we don't need these bullets--or fully automatic assault weapons, or concealable handguns which are impervious to metal detectors, for that matter," said NRA president Charlton Heston, who plans to congratulate Cummings in person as soon as he is through lobbying for Senate repeal of recently passed legislation mandating background checks for gun buyers.

"If we ban teflon-coated bullets, automatic weapons would be next," Heston said. "Then all handguns. Next thing you know, the law would deny our citizens' children the personal freedom to blow holes through their own legs."

NRA lobbyist Tom Korologos agreed. "Timothy's heroic accident happened because we live in the greatest country in the world," he said. "Had he grown up in Japan, England or Russia, he wouldn't be where he is today."

"Restrictive laws would have kept him 'safe' at home--and they would have justified it by telling us it was for his own good," Korologos added. "That's not the type of country I'd want my children to grow up walking normally in."

"Timothy is a shining example to gun-owning families everywhere," Cummings' mother Suzanne told reporters. "I am proud that my boy has followed in the footsteps of the many thousands of patriotic children who have already demonstrated their commitment of the U.S. Constitution in this same way."
© Copyright 2000 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.

Got that, you stupid fucks, this was from the Onion and not my original material? It is credited, which takes it out of the realm of plagiarism.

Anyway, I have always said that if Mothers Against Drunk Driving had the same attitude toward Drunk Driving as some "RKBA/Second Amendment Supporters" do, they would be throwing keggers for underage kids.

An interesting Web Page

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution:

* The Air Force
* Congressional Districts
* The Electoral College
* Executive Order
* Executive Privilege
* Freedom of Expression
* (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
* "From each according to his ability..."
* God
* Immigration
* Impeachment means removal from office
* Innocent until proven guilty
* It's a free country
* Judicial Review
* Jury of Peers
* "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
* Marriage
* Martial Law
* No taxation without representation
* Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
* "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
* Paper Money
* Political Parties
* Primary Elections
* Qualifications for Judges
* The right to privacy
* The right to travel
* The right to vote
* The separation of church and state
* The Separation of Powers Clause
* Slavery
* "We hold these truths to be self-evident"

I was looking up material on another topic, but these were particularly interesting to me.

Freedom of Expression

It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. This site, in fact, uses that term in its quick description of the amendment: "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." But "expression" is not used in the amendment at all. This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of "freedom of expression" is ubiquitous in this area of 1st Amendment study, it is important to note exactly what "freedom of expression" refers to - let this be such a note.

(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners' wishes.

See also the concept of compelled or coerced speech:

The guarantees of civil liberty are but guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them...The very essence of the liberty which they guarantee is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say...

Harlan Stone's dissent in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)

Amazing news

I'm not sure how to describe this bit of news from Today's Evening Standard, but The British National Party will find out today if the decision to scrap its whites-only membership policy was enough to meet race relations laws. Even better is the news that millionaire Asian businessman Mo Chaudry is appying to join the party to "fight them from the inside".

I realise that George Monbiot is discussing climate change, but..

I find a lot of the topics I discuss here can have comments made along the lines of

There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change this view...

Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don’t want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life’s work.

George Monbiot, The Unpersuadables

It is amazing how people will see what they want to see and remain fixed in their beliefs.

Or as George also says:

Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it. 

Comment policy reiterated...

Some people miss this bit:

I will even just delete comments without even bothering reading them from certain people. I really do just send them to the electric dustbin based upon "handle".
 
But they are only wasting their time, not mine.


As I don't read beyond the handle: e.g., hint hint.

Tea Party Alternative

Against US obstructionist politics? Check out this movement:

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

I'm not sure why someone sent me an invite to this group, or who the person was. I subscribe to the Cream Tea set.

Anyway, I see a lot of people who are fed up with hearing about the tea party movement. Here's an alternative for them.

I'm Labour Meself!   R.I.P. Michael Foot

Editorial cartoon about McDonald v. Chicago

From the 4 Mar 10 Philadelphia Inquirer

Personally, I would change the motto on the Supreme Court building to: AMERICAN JUSTICE IS THE BEST MONEY CAN BUY!

I also don't agree with the Inquirer's editorial about the possible outcome, although it will be a disaster whatever the result.

We are seeing a proliferation of people pushing the envelope on firearms in public as a result of Heller's new found right. I am not sure what the arms carriers are attempting to prove. They claim that they want to make firearms an everyday item, but I find that they are totally counterproductive to their stated aim. Unfortunately, rather than express disapproval, people who believe in "gun rights" support this idiocy.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at whatever nonsense the court promulgates in this case. It is building absurdity upon absurdity by trashing all canons of Constitutional law. We may even see Scalia contradicting himself:

"[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. … Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. … [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law 136-137 n.13 (Amy Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press 1997).

Although, we may learn that the Second Amendment applies to the States despite Patrick Henry's warning about "When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds".

It will be even funnier if he allows the State laws as reasonable regulation!

Perhaps, Scalia should have listened to the Precedent of US v Miller rather than judicially amending the Constitution. Better yet, he should listen to himself.

He might realise that he is making a real idiot of himself.

Save BBC 6music & BBC Asian Network

We can save the BBC Asian Network which has a massive global audience.

Sign the petition at http://www.petition.fm/petitions/6musicasiannet/ and email srconsultation@bbc.co.uk and trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk to complain about the closures.

If you are on facebook, become a fan of Save The BBC Asian Network!!!

The BBC will listen to public opinion regarding these closures. So, PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! contact the BBC and tell them to save these stations and listen to them via the Internet!

BBC Asian Network
BBC 6Music

Flip a coin!

Yeah, Scalia says that he follows the founder's intent in interpreting the constitution. He also pretends to follow precedent, which he clearly DID NOT in DC v. Heller when he ignored Justice McReynolds:

has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument...
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (Article I, Section 8 militias), the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

That couldn't have been any clearer in how the Second Amendment was to be interpreted, yet somehow it was missed.

Scalia has written that he viewed "[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. … Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. … [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law 136-137 n.13 (Amy Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press 1997).

Can he even follow his own writings when ideology calls on him to change his position?

Of course, What he calls dispassionate scholars are merely propagandists as truly dispassionate scholars have pointed out that:

I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state's power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army. In raising the issue in the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry several times pointed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 16, as an example of the potentially threatening effect of dual state and congressional jurisdiction over the militia and the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress. Yet wielding the scholar's power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry's remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth "The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image.

Henry Mayer, A PATRICK HENRY ESSAY(No. 5-98) THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF PATRICK HENRY

Likewise, the Second Amendment is the one Amendment which cannot be applied to the States by its nature. It was a bulwark against federal tyranny. I find it most amusing that those who claim that the Second Amendment promotes freedom use it as a tool for imposing their will on the people to bypass local legislatures.

Quite frankly, there was no mention of the concept of self-defence in the actual debates when the Second Amendment was being adopted, but you can find copious references to a federal standing army and how the Second Amendment was to prevent it from taking over the states along with the incumbent evils (out of control military spending). Additionally, the words "self-defence" are conspicuously absent from the Second Amendment.

In addition, Incoporation would interfere with the police power which is reserved to the States. More federal tyranny!

Scalia does back flips and trashes all legal principles to come up with the DC v. Heller decision. To be quite frank, the side arguing for Chicago should have made it quite clear to Scalia that his decision invalidates the use of precedent. He has created law in violation of the Constitutional principles he claims to follow. He has avoided the proper method of amending the constitution in his DC v Heller decision. US v. Miller was quite clear in how the Second Amendment was to be interpreted, yet he chose to ignore it.

But, I won't rag on just Scalia, since Alito (or is that Scalito) once took part in a decision that upheld the civic right interpretation of the Second Amendment (U.S. v. Rybar,103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)). Again, how does one argue to judges that choose to ignore precedent and history? Especially when the judges are willing to overturn themselves based upon fanatasies and fairy tales.

Whatever happened to judicial certainty when judges decide cases willy-nilly?

We can be sure that Scalia will provide us with yet another mutation of US Constitutional law as he has painted himself into a wonderful corner by failing to follow his own principles of constitutional interpretation. Let alone the accepted canons of judicial intepretation in his DC v. Heller decision.

What sort of aberration will be produced by McDonald v Chicago?

Scalia's method of Constitutional interpretation seems to be I am the judge, I make the laws!

How does one invalidate an unconstitutional act by a Judge?

Why I don't trust polls

From The New Internationalist site:

 

American Independence: A blessing or a curse?

The person who asked this question was none other than Patrick Henry.  To be quite honest, I am of the opinion that if the founders were to return to modern day American, they would be extremely disappointed in how their experiment turned out, which was the basis of my A Message from the Founders post. Additionally, the quote from Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, I mention in this post informed my comment:

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

I have been thinking about the following quote from Patrick Henry and how it might relate to his opinion of the current state of the Union.

After Patrick Henry died, his family found among his papers one sealed envelope with this written on it: " Enclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia Assembly, in 1765, concerning the Stamp Act. Let my executors open this paper." There was a copy of the resolutions in his handwriting inside. On the back of the paper containing the resolutions was written in Henry's handwriting:

"The within resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British Parliament. All the colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a burgess a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on the blank leaf of an old law-book, wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God had bestowed upon us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader, whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."

What does he mean by virtue?  Is he talking about characteristics that promote individual and collective well being? Does he mean it in the Aristotlean sense of being a mean between two extremes (For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance)?  Or is he talking about the Sainted personality which Americans desire, but human nature falls far short of being?

Also, there is a thin distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness. If he means righteousness as acting in accord with divine or moral law, was he truly righteous in engaging in his actions that caused the US to move into the mess it currently is in? Self-righteousness is a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. It can give one conviction that their actions are correct when they are very wrong.

But the most important piece of this is "If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable."

We see a lot of self-righteous persons of contrary character in modern US politics.  US Politics is that of  division, which is most certainly contrary.  It seeks to promote various interests above others, often (as in the case of "gun rights") that interest runs contrary to public interest.  The Right exploits single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.

To Quote the Wisconsin AFL-CIO:

Union members have been fighting attacks on worker rights and protections on many fronts. These are not random, unconnected attacks. They are the result of a coordinated strategy by a corporate-funded ideological movement that aims to eventually destroy the labor movement. Other progressive movements have seen hard won gains attacked and eroded as well.

Think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn't a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party works toward the interest of the workers. Chris Hedges wrote a great piece called Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama about how he is just as much of a tool of big business as was Dubious Bush. But Liberal are to blame for failing to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics which is the norm in the United States.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, I am certain that Patrick Henry would have been a Tory.  But hindsight is 20-20 and he didn't realise the mess he was creating for future generations when he acted so ill-advisedly in demanding independence before the nation was ready for it.

Michael Portillo, P2P, and Kiddie Porn?

No, Michael Portillo wasn't arrested for downloading kiddie porn. I think John Major made the comment that the Conservatives didn't invent sex in regard to scandals, which I just wanted to say even though it isn't really relevant to this post. Michael Portillo is an upstanding chap: maybe a touch boring, but upstanding.

This refers to my being a bit of an anoraky train enthusiast (not to the extent of train spotting) and wanting a copy of the complete Great British Railway Journeys presented by Michael Portillo. I had downloaded the series from iPlayer, but found out two episodes were unwatchable after it had expired. One, Todmorden to York, had been available in a signed version, but I find signing distracting. Anyway, 14 of the 20 were downloaded in hi-def and it's so interesting to know that the ticket he buys in the opening sequence is from Exeter St. David's to Exeter Central. Also, you get to see all the grafitti on the viaduct in the same opening sequence when you see it in hi-def!

Seriously, I felt that I wanted the whole series complete and in hi-def and it was no longer available through the "official channels", iplayer and just plain off buying it (Likewise The Truth About Christmas Carols is also history meaning that I have to suffer with a low def version--unless the Beeb rebroadcasts it next year). What does one do in such a circumstance?

One goes to the internet and hopes to find a download, which is possible for some popular programmes (e.g., Torchwood, Doctor Who, Being Human, Hotter than my Daughter, and so on). Less so for the arcane (e.g., The Truth About Christmas Carols and Great British Railway Journeys). Actually, Great British Railway Journeys was available on a torrent site, which is where my story takes me.

It seems that P2P technology is an up and coming area in the Child Pornography world. Pornography (and child pornography) has always been available on the internet. Clever distributors have used P2P as a method for sharing this stuff. Quite possibly, very clever ones could hide their wares under titles such as Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys or some other innocuous title.

US v. Borowy details how the kiddie porn images are red flagged. It also mentions how Borowy used LimeWire (a P2P sharing programme) to download this stuff. Furthermore, the fact that one is using P2P to open up your computer to share files means that you are giving up a privacy right. Not that you aren't waving a red flag to law enforcement by downloading this stuff anyway. I'd like to think that one could claim innocence if you truly thought you were downloading Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys and found yourself watching something revolting instead.

Common wisdom is that you immediately delete the files with some sort of secure wiping software the moment you realise that you are not watching Michael Portillo and the shock wears off. I am not sure how long a period of grace exists for the shock to wear off, but hope that it doesn't linger more than a couple of hours, or the time it takes for the heat to secure a search warrant. I do like to say that common wisdom isn't always good legal advice, but it won't hurt if you are a truly innocent train enthusiast with a love of Bradshaw's Railway Time Tables and their applicability to modern Britain..

My point is that most of my clients use P2P file sharing in a more menacing way than just downloading songs in the mistaken belief that they won't get nabbed. The reality is that these images are red flags to law enforcement. Law enforcement's software is such that nabbing kiddie porn enthusiasts is akin to catching fish in a well stocked barrel. They have their hands full with people downloading vast quantitites of images. You aren't really anonymous when you do P2P. For example, bit torrent has the possiblity of obtaining the IP addresses of all current, and possibly previous, participants in a swarm from the torrent's tracker.

Unlike music file sharing, law enforcement is down on the kiddie porn crowd like flies on shit. So, BEWARE!

Will Scalia prove he uses the Constitution as toilet paper?

The US Supreme Court has another chance to prove that US justice is not the best money can buy in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.  Bouyed by its success in DC v. Heller, the Cato institute is yet again posed to prove the US justice runs by the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.  Unlike DC v. Heller, they are much more blatant that they have been plaintiff shopping in their attempt to rewrite the constitution to their interpretation.  Added by the stupidity of the American public regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment as a guarantee against the establishment of a standing army now that the military budget has gone out of control (remember  that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" P.T. Barnum), they may just pull it off.

These words of Henry Mayer, a Patrick Henry scholar, have been drowned out by propagandists such as Stephen Halbrook:

In this connection, however, I need to say something about a recent popular misconception concerning Patrick Henry's legacy and the genesis of the Second Amendment, which states, "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." Despite efforts of a number of misguided scholars to construe this language as justifying individual, unregulated gun ownership, I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state's power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army. In raising the issue in the Virginia Convention Patrick Henry several times pointed to Art. I, Section 8, Clause 16, as an example of the potentially threatening effect of dual state and congressional jurisdiction over the militia and the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress. Yet wielding the scholar's power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry's remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth "The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image.

This is not, I repeat NOT, part of Patrick Henry's legacy. Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, "The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance...."

Not to belabor the argument, but cinch it, I would also remind you that the liberty or death speech itself was in support of a resolution to put the colony in a mode of defense, and the plan proposed by Henry's committee as a result of its passage included a militia law that described in great detail not only the number of men, but the amount of ammunition to be raised by a collective levy, and a very clear procedure for maintaining county and provincial control over the militia system. If Henry's remarks were intended to cast doubt upon the adequacy of a hypothetical Congressional militia law, they only affirmed his commitment to the traditional method of state control over a militia that, far from being a privatized collection of gun-toting individuals, was a community temporarily called to arms and always subservient to public authority and law.

from A PATRICK HENRY ESSAY(No. 5-98) THE POLITICAL LEGACY OF PATRICK HENRY

Even if we are willing to make the quantum leap of saying that Henry and other founders advocated the US Constitution include the concept of gun rights, they made it quite clear that they DID NOT want those rights to be subject to federal interference.


Those who truly support the Constitution are woefully mute about the Cato Institute's use of the Supreme Court to destroy that document in the name of "liberty".  It makes me sick that people are silent when such an organisation seeks to destroy the constitution and its meaning.  Of course, the US governement is the best that money can buy and the Cato institute seeks to make sure that it is a govenment of corporations and for corporations--the people be damned.


Libertarianism is merely facism with a smily face.  A philosophy of slogans, but without substance.  Anarchy of the right.  The founders were loath of democracy, which in their minds had the same meaning as anarchy does today.  Likewise, they would rail against libertarianism if they were here today.


Scalia has no real need for the original meaning of the Constitution if it doesn't meet his political purpose, or else he would have joined in Justice Steven's dissent in DC v. Heller.  In fact, if all the Justices who signed on to that piece of shit blotter called DC v. Heller cared for the Constitution and its meaning, that opinion would have been unanimous.  Scalia, in my opinion, is a political whore who should resign rather than continue trashing the constitution with rubbish which sounds as if it were written by a madman rather than a high court justice (hence I refuse to call him a justice).

Yes, this is contempt of court, but the contempt is well justified and deserved.  It should be accepted as that if he wishes to talk shit and clothe it as legal opinion.


Instead, he deserves the contempt he receives for deigning to put his name to DC v. Heller.  I hope his reputation as a judge will be that of a joke.  He has provided us with poor law. Moreover, he has made a joke of the the institution of the Supreme Court and US justice.  No longer is it equal protection under the law, but those who have money see their way.

Likewise, Roberts has burdened the Second Amendment with baggage, which he said he didn't want to do in the DC v. Heller Oral arguments.  Roberts has proven that he was indeed a poor choice to be chief justice.  But, Dubious Bush was also a poor choice to be president.  The idiots are running the village, but people get the government they deserve in a democracy

As I have said before, this blog began as a joke that my dog had been to court more than Harriet Miers had.  Five supreme court justices may again show that my dog has a better understanding of the law than they do.

You will be arrested for reading this post

Unlike White Rabbit, these days most of my cases come from perverts who like little children. They tend to have loads of money and don't really relish the idea of going to prison because they are likely to become victims themselves. I feel sorry for the collectors of kiddie porn since most of them are indeed collectors, few actually produce.  I don't have much sympathy for someone who is actually cranking out the stuff, but I do feel sorry for the poor sod who thinks they can safely download it...

Only to find a knock on the door from the fuzz.  Usually law enforcement doesn't go after the small time collector or it would be like busting pot smokers.  I've seen the LEO facilities where they can see someone downloading images in realtime.  You see these images are catalogued and have hash markings that make them as obvious as painting yourself blaze orange and walking naked down the street.  The penalties are also pretty draconian and include being civilly sued.  So, not only do you face the humiltation of arrest, conviction, being sentenced, registering as a sex offender, you are also looking at a bill of up to US$150k per image!

Ouch!


I mentioned in my previous post on this topic that:

Depictions of even a clothed child can violate law (E.g.,18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (4) and 2256(2)(E)) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."

So, my question is are the depictions such that they are "tending to excite lust". Although, that is a pretty vague concept. Is a picture of child in a long flannel granny nightgown sitting with her legs spread child pornography even if you can't see anything? What exactly excites lust. Could this picture excite lust? I mean her pose seems a bit coquettish to me.

Could this picture of Brittany Murphy be considered child pornography since the subject doesn't really even need to be a child either?  Better yet, I've posted this picture of Alice Liddell: is it chiild pornography using the definition?  Sure, Carroll produced more juicy pics which I am not going to post here, but you can see if you are so inclined (or even if you are just curious).   I mean Plate III could be within the definition of child pornography.  Although, has the statute of limitations passed given these images are 150 years old?

For those not in the know, Rev. Charles Dodgson, AKA Lewis Carroll, took pictures of nude little girls. I'll post the Alice pic here even though that is pretty racy as well, but not as racy as the one of Evelyn Hatch. We can't say too much about this portion of his work since approximately 60% of his original photographic portfolio is now missing.  Although one can speculate Could some "lucky" collector who happens to turn up these pictures be in for some serious legal headaches?

I have to admit to seriously speculating on Dodgson's paedophila given that his relationship with Alice Liddell was "expunged".  The family burned the letters and Dodgson "deleted" his diary entries for that period.  Leaving us with a picture that could earn the good Reverend a stint in choky from suspicious minds.

I will also add in the painting Making a Train by Seymour Joseph Guy which could fit the definition of child pornography.  Especially since the blurb mentions "The commingling of sexual allure and girlish innocence was prevalent in Guy's era, as seen in photographs by Lewis Carroll and Julia Margaret Cameron."  Personally, I found the fact that one can stare at naked women all days in an art museum, yet get in trouble for girlie magazines to be a bit of hypocracy.  In this case, one can stare at a "salacious" picture of a little girl in a museum.

So, technically the Alice Liddell pic could be "kiddie porn" although we again wish for John Mortimer to help straighten out this mess.  Although, I think he would be proud of my record in this regard to toot my own horn.  But where does the line get drawn between art and pornography, a dangerous collector and just some idiot who thought he could get away at looking at kiddie porn?  Does the law need to be so draconian for someone who possesses an image or two who isn't the threat that is posed by the relative who turns molestation into an cottage industry?

Don't forget that the book Show Me! has been considered child pornography. So, watch out if you have a copy lying about your house!

More BBC Station closings

It seems that Radio 6 and The BBC Asian network are the two stations up for the axe. It really hit me that The BBC Asian network is getting the axe as a fan of the The BBC Asian network Chart Show. I'm sure a fair amount of tweets came from the announcement of the The BBC Asian network biting the dust.

The BBC Asian network is available online, which means that there is a larger audience than just the UK Desi crowd (and non-Desi fans of Asian music like me). Internet radio has ensured that the Beeb is a world broadcasting source. In fact, internet radio is really where the world service does most of its work. The Beeb no longer broadcasts directly to the US (or so I believe) since the Internet is a much better way to transmit. There are still transmissions to non connected areas, but the Internet is quickly replacing short wave radio broadcasts.

So, I am glad that the word is getting out about the The BBC Asian network's impending closure.

For White Rabbit

It seems Tim Burton has done yet another remake of Rev. Dodgson's paedophiliac paeon to Alice Liddell. I keep wondering if some poor collector will get done for having some of his pics of Alice and need either of our services to beat a kiddie porn rap.

Oh dear, it seems that Michael Sheen is playing the White Rabbit in this œuvre. well, it beats Tony the Weasel, which he played rather eerily in the Queen.

Another load of famous thespians to make me wonder if this would really be worth the dosh to see. Although, it is getting good reviews, but I think they pay for those. BUt I do have to wonder when I see the likes of Tim Pigott-Smith, Alan Rickman, Matt Lucas, Stephen Fry, Timothy Spall, Paul Whitehouse, and Anne Hathaway (I thought she was dead and buried in Stratford-Upon-Avon). Although, I wouldn't mind dating Anne if I could get over the concept.  I like the chat up line: "Hey, babe, You've gotta go out with me--I'm from Stratford-upon-Avon!

Of course, John Profumo could also use that line on her as well. Oh, he was just our MP.

BTW, Dodgson was another old Rugbean. Tim Pigott-Smith didn't go to Rugby, but was a townie. I think one of his kin was an old boy during my first year, which made the Merrick character even more evil in my mind. Although, should I ever meet Tim, I will play him John Handy's Rainbow and tell him it's the Raj Quartet. He should appreciate that.

BBC Top Tweet!

It came to my attention that the BBC (yes, THE British Broadcasting Corporation) is one of the top tweets. One source said it was number one and the other at 6th and 8th position. Perhaps source one combined the second sources tweets to give the Beeb number one status. Either way, I had to verify this weird factoid as a lifelong Beeb fan.

Nevermind that the Beeb itself says that Twitter tweets are 40% 'babble'. I also become a true Luddite when it comes to things such as Twitter. I am a quasi-Luddite when it comes to modern technology, grudgingly accepting some things (e.g., computers, blogs, and e-mail). Otherwise going whole hog about things such as the internet, MP3 players, and PVRs (I include iPlayer in that category). Anything which gives me access to "Culture" wherever I may be is more than acceptable to me. The BBC's motto is "Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation" which strikes a chord in me.

Anyway, part of the reason for all the Tweets is that the BBC has announced budget cutbacks. It has proposed closing two radio stations (The closing of Radio 6 causing a fair amount of tweets), half its website, and cut spending heavily on imported American programmes (not much of a loss in my opinion) in an overhaul of services to be announced next month.



Personally, I think the Beeb should introduce external licence fees for all those people who use proxy server to access iPlayer from outside the UK. Sure, there's a get out clause about people who watch delayed programmes which is hinted at in this blurb:

If you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV you must, by law, be covered by a TV Licence, no matter what device you're using.

Go a little further on the licencing fees website and you see:

However, you don’t need to be covered by a licence if you’re only using ‘on-demand’ services to watch programmes after they have been shown on TV. So, you need a licence to watch any channel live online, but you wouldn’t need one to use BBC iPlayer to catch up on an episode of a programme you missed, for example.

Although, I did have a detector van person knock on my door and ask if I had a Television 20 years ago. I told him that I didn't, but I did have a computer. That was before access to the internet was widespread. Britain didn't have much in the ways of dial-up BBSs either at that time. Soooo...

Anyway, The people using iPlayer as more than just a "catch up service", but as their primary source for receiving the Beeb should be able to access the service directly. Of course, that gets in to all those DRM aspects that I personally detest: in particular, region coded DVDs (or other region blocked material). There are so many ways to get around these things that most Blu-Ray discs AREN'T region coded. So, region coding with me is a topic that truly raises my hackles, but it is also very easy to circumvent. Information should be without borders: especially music and other artistic performances.

So, if the good people at the Beeb would listen to me, maybe they may consider making iPlayer a pay service without borders and time limits. How many Americans are going to want to watch Rab C. Nesbitt? Better yet, how many can understand what he's saying? It's idiotic to make Rab C. Nesbitt DVDs (or other shows with "limited appeal") region coded to the UK or Antipodes (DVD regions 2 and 4). And BBC America is a joke (along with being part of the Discovery Network). If the Beeb won't look to other sources of income, they should stop bitching about licence fees.

Or being broke.

Personally, I'd pay to be able to download from iPlayer if they would cut the DRM crap. Otherwise, get-iplayer does the trick quite nicely for me: especially since get_iplayer gets rid of the DRM!

And while we're at it...

I'd be real careful if I eat a cucumber sandwich at her house




Thanks to white rabbit, but I couldn't post it in the comments. Although, I'll give it a try.

CPS announces new rules for assisted suicide.

I mentioned that there was mention of assisted suicide in Britain following two cases Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis along with Sir Terry Pratchett's  announcement that he has Alzheimers and wants the ability to commit assisted suicide. in a previous post

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) just came out with new rules about this
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html

Which is reiterated a little better for laymen at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7040839.ece. I say a little better since they basically repeat what the CPS says.

As I said in my previous post, I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy. So, I am glad to see that the CPS has come out with these new guidelines.

CAPTION CONTEST!

Original Title was "No Comment"

From Talking Points Memo via Right Wing Watch

New Image!

It seems that elections are coming up everywhere! The UK is looking forward to a general election with Gordon Brown announcing the Labour strategy and David Cameron attempting to be "cool". While the British elections aren't as interminable as the US ones are...YET--we do have this build up going on that makes me have this yearning for dictatorship. At least they don't have elections.

The US ones never seem to end. They are campaigning for the next election before the one election has even begun (e.g., they have been campaigning for the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections since 2007). We all know the date when the next "mid-term" election will take place (early November), yet they have been busily going on since lord knows when. And all that takes MONEY!

The British elections are sort of Secret, we know there is a general one coming up sometime this year. It's due because even though Gordon and Dave have been "electioneering", they haven't actually called one and time is running out for the current Brown Government! They have to call an election sometime soon, or we will all be bored as hell with their twaddle. Not to mention the pre-election warm ups on the News getting us prepped for what the issues will be (the fact that everyone is pretty much skint--including the government).

At least they deal with the issues. Unlike in the US where "Conservative" politicians are all talk about "tax and spend", yet the same people who talk that rubbish are working to ensure loads of government money for their constituencies. Not to mention they have done fuck all for about the wars they started.

I am a reluctant lefty, especially by US standards. In the US, Richard Nixon would be considered a liberal these days looking at the programmes he advocated (and the current republicans work to dismantle)!

So, with that said, I now take Alan B'Stard as my new mascot!  And Thanks to White Rabbit from whom I grabbed the Tory ad as it seemed so appropriate to this post.  If Alan B'Stard can become Labour, why can't Tony the Weasel become a Tory.

Tony the Tory!

Tea Parties!

There is all this talk in the US of the Tea Party movement.

I think a proper Devon Cream Tea is the way to go. In fact, I'm all for it.

I strongly suggest Hanson's, 2 Cathedral Close, Exeter EX1 1EZ (1392-276-913) for a nice Devon Cream tea. Sure, the place is full of grockles, but it's been around for ages. Lovely and quaint. Although, I've never personally eaten there.

If you can't, or won't, go to Exeter, you can always make your own cream tea. A traditional Devon cream tea is comprised of two scones, strawberry jam, clotted cream and a cup of tea.

Simply split the scones in half
Cover with a thick layer of strawberry jam.
Top with large spoonful of Devon cream
Serve on your best china plates.

It is important that the scones be warm (ideally, freshly baked), clotted cream (not whipped), and that the jam be strawberry (although raspberry jam is sometimes used as an alternative. Butter should never be included. Clotted cream is a bit like butter in consistency, which is why butter isn't served. The tea should be served with milk. Some people put the clotted cream on the scone first and top it with the jam. My personal favourite is put the jam on the scone and then clotted cream, but that's partly to do with the way I was brought up.

If it’s a summer afternoon then why not sit out in the garden and enjoy your cream tea.

Sadly all this clotted cream is not good for the waistline, however a little now and then is good for the soul.

Interesting

I took part in a study on aphasia when I was at University. They would insert odd things in a sentence and see how long it took me to spot the discrepancy. One sentence was "she went into the forest where she was scared by a tick". Of course, that was a bit difficult since people ARE scared by ticks because of Lyme disease.

But in that vein, I bring you.

Only great minds can read this

If you can raed this, you have a uunsaul mnid too!

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed this forwrad it

Well, Shakespeare never spelled his name the same way twice! COnsistant spelling was a late 18th- early 19th Century invention.

US Weather man goes insane on TV!

Thanks to Charon QC for this vid


Weatherman Freaking Out Over DC Snowpocalypse
Uploaded by TheDlisted. - Check out other Film & TV videos.

I wonder what Steve at Steve's Regional News Caps would think of this. The Yank is definitely not Laura Tobin!

Avoiding the Superbowl!

Mudflap Bubbas was curious about my comment:

I have literally traveled to the ends of the world to avoid the superbowl only to hear the results broadcast on foreign shortwave. I think I have managed to find a way to avoid it this year.

She asked: How did you manage to get away from all the Super Bowl stuff? I am really curious. Find a secluded cave that you need to share with some of us?

Ah, the joys of the new technology! In particular, the Joy of BBC iPlayer and the internet.

Find something such as Radio Nederland or some other world service (I can't comment on al-Jazerra, but they may be a good source of entertainment) and stay away form US media. Also, DVDs that don't feature the Superbowl. Although, my bliss was destroyed in 1986 when I was in Bonaire and the BBC World Service announced the Superbowl Score.

You can be safe by avoiding any mass media outlet and be your own source of entertainment for the weekend. But here are some suggestions for American Souls who don't want to watch the Superbowl:
al-Jazerra--It's the 31st Anniversay of the Islamic takeover in Iran, perhaps you will be treated to them burning football players in effigy
BBC iPlayer
ITV has a similar service to iPlayer where you can watch Secret Diary of a Call Girl and similar trash!
Channel 4 has 4oD: Channel 4 is a weird hybrid of the Beeb and ITV which means it can have gems such as Time Team along with crap such as Desperate Housewives.

Someone once said there were around 176 Time Team episodes out there, which means you could have a marathon watching them all on 4oD. Although, you may have dreams about Baldric having a cunning plan to dig up your back garden (Tony Robinson, aka Baldric from Black Adder, is the Time Team presenter).

It seems that PBS also has a Time Team.

Now, White Rabbit has me going...

with his latest post, upon which I expanding my comment here about needing to dig out that old post card with the caption "Un baiser de Bruxelles". Here it is!


(perfect for Euroskeptics)

Actually, I thought of an ex-girlfriend who was a French teacher when I bought it. She taught at a "Christian School", which was rather amusing since she was the least Christian person I knew (She even said I was more of a Christian than she was). Anyway, she clued me in on this little double entendre during our weekends when we acted like a couple of rabbits.

It seems baiser had a different meaning a la fin du siècle dernier (let's parler franglais: dixneufieme, not vingtieme). Although, the Euroskeptic connotation would involve either some form of the words merde or chier since the use of baiser is along the lines of 18th century writiers talking about "making love". Although, one remembers hordes of third and fourth form lads sniggering as they read Jane Austen when I was a schoolboy.

Anyway, google up "un baiser de carte postale" for all sorts of fun cartes postales.




One can only wonder what they were thinking. Although it does remind me of the Squeeze song "Pulling Mussels from the Shell".

Assisted Suicide

There has been talk in the UK about assisted suicide, or assisted death: in particular the cases of Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis. Also, Sir Terry Pratchett, fantasy author (the Discworld and Truckers series, amongst others), has announced that he has Alzheimers and wants assisted suicide. I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy.

Kay Gilderdale is now calling for a change in the laws regarding assisted death. This makes sense since those with money are already able to travel to Switzerland. This points out a disparity in the law that those with money can leave the jurisdiction to end their lives.

Similarly, laws against abortion only harmed the poor since the wealthy were able to find alternative sources to the illegal back alley abortions.

Assisted death should be a legal option for those who wish for it in a civilised country. That absolutely isn’t to say assisted death should be forced upon anybody, or even encouraged, merely that the option should be available to those who a) are suffering from a condition from which they cannot recover, and b) expressly desire it.

Some opponents of assisted death argue that man should not “play God”. As Sir Terry says, “the problem with the God argument is that it works only if you believe in God”. Legalising assisted death need have no impact on the lives of those who do believe in God: they can go on dying as naturally as God intended. But it should be there for those who don’t believe in God, and yearn desperately for the salvation of assisted death, a salvation that God tends not to offer.

ed. I had originally called him just plain old Terry Pratchett, but decided to call him SIR Terry Pratchett. Why not?