The New Toy

I am having great fun with the Cinema Tube, although most of my viewing has been material which is on some form of drive: in particular iPlayer downloads. Get-iPlayer is a whole lot better than the actual BBC iPlayer for the fact that the downloads don't have the annoying DRM. IPlayer's DRM makes no sense, but neither does DRM in general. The particulars of iPlayer DRM being that the downloads must be played within a week if you begin to view the programme. Otherwise, the thing can sit for months so it seems. I have Rick Stein's Christmas Odyssey waiting to be played on the official iPlayer from late December 09!

Although, up and coming goodies are David Tennant's Hamlet is being repeated. I'll download that in hi-def(another complaint about the official iPlayer). There is also a programme, The Virtual Revolution, which is coming up as well that sounds interesting.

Back to iPlayer DRM, the official player blocks the end users ability to do things with DRM, yet get-iPlayer can download the programmes without the DRM. Even better, it can do so in hi-def! The hi-def versions usually play much better than their other versions. In some manner, get-iPlayer does a sound taxi trick to remove the DRM. Nice!

Although, I did record an episode of Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys (Todmorden to York) which was unplayable. Somehow, when the show came to the City walls bit there was this message that the sound had a difference in speed. Not sure what that means. The Beeb's archives mean that this show is only available in a signed version (as opposed to the hi-def versions availble a little while back).

Not sure if the original version can be fixed, but I am going to give it a try.

In future, I will download the flash versions with get-iplayer since they usually come out better.

Well, so much for reviewing the media server software. I'll save that for a future post.

Comments

Since some people I respect, the man with the muckrake and microdot, said they wanted to comment, I am now accepting comments.

That doesn't mean you will see your comments out there. I will enjoy censoring, or even just deleting comments without even bothering reading them from certain people.

The only reason I am doing this is so that I can hear from other iPlayer and media player users!

Now to find the ultimate media server software!

Ha!

Still want to find me?

Piquant Hike near where passport stealing parrots can be found.

I do love cryptic crossword puzzles even if I don't do them very well.

I think the people who claim to do them whilst their eggs boil either love very well done eggs, are not all there mentally (idiot savants?), or just plain off lying.

General thoughts

It's bizarre that the US has a right to own firearms, but not one to health care. Even more bizarre since the US claims to have this "pro-life" belief.

My Brite-view Cine-tube is on the way! I should be watching it tonight. Yipee!

I learned the command to get hi-def materials from iPlayer using get-iPlayer (get_iplayer --get xxx --mode flashhd --force, with XXX being the programme number). The difference in quality is astounding. And it doesn't have the actual iPlayer DRM: even better!

Comments, I would like to take them, but some people need to learn how to play correctly and share. I think this problem is due to the lack of nannies in the US. The US is seriously lagging behind in the Nanny gap.

The inequality thing is one of a few of topics that has really piqued my curiousity.

The others are control of the media and the lack of railroads, especially high speed ones, in the US.

This neat page of Samuel Johnson Quotes: http://www.samueljohnson.com/index.html
With these neat Quotes on Freedom

248. America/Americans; Freedom; Slavery
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Johnson: Taxation No Tyranny
Link

666. America; Freedom; Slavery
"Slavery is now no where more patiently endured, than in countries once inhabited by the zealots of liberty."
Johnson: Idler #11 (June 24, 1758)

I will reiterate something I like to quote, Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Vegetarian sausage and bacon. It is sort of a stretch that I eat turkey sausage and bacon these days, but I still want some animal protein in my diet. I'm not ready to go totally vegetarian.

So, other than being annoyed that the big electronics firms haven't weighed in on the media player thing, I am ready for the weekend. It would be nice if the big electronics firms came up with one of these things that allowed you access to ALL the material on the internet rather than the crappy little programmes out there, such as Playon and TVersity. Milliesoft's tuner free MCE seems to be the best programme out there except it only works in Vista and Windows 7--neither of which I will touch. Next OS I move to will be Ubuntu.

There is a world of material out there so, it doesn't need to be "57 channels and nothing's on".

Now, Who's a clever boy? I have to brag here. Now, see how you match up at the Pew Research Centre's Political Quiz


The ultimate insult, Tony "The Weasel' Blair went in front of the Iraq Inquiry crew this AM. Amusingly enough, he denied that there was a "covert" deal with George Bush--Does that mean the deal was "overt"? I keep thinking of what Kenneth Clarke, MP said that was recorded in the House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 2003 (pt 14):

Mr. Clarke: We have had 12 years, in two or three of which people have done nothing at all. We have had 11 weeks of the present policy and we must judge whether a few weeks more are required.

Let me make clear the origin of my doubts about the very persuasive case that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary sometimes put. I cannot rid myself of doubts that the course to war upon which we are now embarked was decided on many months ago, primarily in Washington, and there has been a fairly remorseless unfolding of events since that time. I am not alone in having heard and met American politicians of great distinction who gave the impression that a change of regime in Iraq was determined upon long ago and that the use of military force in a pre-emptive strike was justified in order to achieve that. I believe that in most cases the motives have been worthy and they genuinely believe that they are ridding themselves of an evil regime. I do not believe the conspiracy theorists. One can go on to hear theories about the installation of democracy in the Arab world, unfinished business from a previous Administration, and a reaction to the understandable state of political opinion in the United States of America in the aftermath of 11 September.

If war happens in the next few weeks—that is a genuine possibility—hon. Members must ask themselves whether it is legitimate to believe that such action had already been determined and had been remorselessly unfolding for many months. Many people believe that. It is why middle England and those of moderate political opinions have so many doubts. To many of my constituents, the answer to the questions, "Did Washington determine such action many months ago?" and "Could the President seek re-election without war and the removal of Iraq's president?" is as obvious as the reply to "Does the emperor have clothes?" The Government must respond to that formidable case.

George Monbiot is offering a bounty for "Tony the Weasel's" arrest

Again, it's interesting that similar movements regarding an Iraq inquiry and arrest of Bush and his cronies hasn't taken hold in the more serious segments of US Society.

Inequality: The Rich-Poor Divide

It's interesting listening to Americans (citizens of the USA) describe themselves as far as class alliance goes since what is called working class in other countries can be called "middle class" in the States. I think of middle class as those who fall socioeconomically between the working class and upper class. In the United States more people identified themselves as middle class than as lower or "working" class (with insignificant numbers identifying themselves as upper class).

These are trait which I see as being Middle Class:
--Achievement of University education.
--Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
--Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure."



What brings this about is that there was a story on the News last night about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. The BBC also has this story on its website as well as Lord Heseltine and Phil Woolas discussing the rich-poor gap.

Oddly enough, I have yet to see similar stories on the US Media outlets. In fact, I find it rather interesting that the US is having so many problems with implementing health care, and has had for nearly a century. Also, I wonder where the US falls in this chart of inequality: above or below the United Kingdom?

Oddly enough, I have a feeling that the US is more unequal than the UK, but can't confirm this. It's nice that the US electorate can be so easily distracted by wedge issues. Even more interesting that the Right can exploit single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.

What I like is the ending comment that the policies needed to address inequality "will always be controversial since they mean neutralising the advantages of wealth. A prospect that those with money and influence will fight hard against."

Media player v. Computers

I have to admit a bit of annoyance at the fact that most media players don't have the wherewithal to handle many of the services that I would like to access (Amazon unbox, Netflix, iPlayer, and so forth). So, you need either a UPnP (Universal Plug and Play) and (or?) Something from the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) that allows you to access this content on your media player. That needs to be run through a computer.

The Brite-View CinemaTube is called a "UPnP media render hardware" which means it gives you a method of connecting to the UPnP source.

The real issue is finding the UPnP media software which allows you access to the services that you want. That should be an easy feat since all this is determined by one standard, which means the emphasis is on should. It seems that there are quite a few programmes out there that are UPnP Media Software, but not all of them can "receive" the same services.

Again, the word "should" comes to mind here especially since most mediaplayers are based upon the Realtek Chipset. You'd think that something would work on pretty much all of these things.

Anyway, I am a bit wary about plonking down money on one of these programmes since it seems there will be a shakedown in the amount of programmes out there.

Additionally, there must be one of these programmes that's easy enough for the technologically challenged to use out of the box. You shouldn't have to be a technogeek to be able to use one of these things.

Although, I am seeing that one's needs can dictate what one may end up wanting to buy.

Are you going to want something for Netflix and Amazon unbox?--the Roku player will do you for now. Roku was set up to be Netflix's streaming server.
Want to watch other media (iPlayer, ripped DVDs, files on USB drive and so on): get a realtek based media player.
Otherwise, it seems that a media PC is your best bet. You don't need to plonk down loads of money on something like the CybertronPC when a small minipc, such as the Zotac or the Acer AspireRevo AR3610-U9022, can do the trick.

Although, one drawback to actual PCs is that they do not have the remote, which can be a headache. You have to go to the keyboard/mouse to control your video.

Enough rambling for now. I have some time to change my mind about the Brite-View cinema tube. I may not do that since it does allow for firmware upgrades (which computers don't). Besides, my real interest is playing material from a USB drive and iPlayer downloads.

More Media Player

I have to admit a bit of trepidation about all this, but I've decided to go with the Brite-view Cinema Tube. The trepidation is due to the fact that there could be a newer neater media player coming up in the future. Also, it seems that some blue-ray players have the facility to do some of the streaming feature I want.

This video showed the thing works worldwide:


The Brite-view site mentions that it can access BBC iPlayer via TVersity. There is another service, Playon, that allow you to download content from services such as Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon VOD. I am not sure how easy it will be to transfer content since it seems one has to use the UPnP interface and other things.

It would be nice to have a simple, idiot proof system though rather than something that requires a lot of time and effort to set up. Even without setup, I can have iPlayer programmes, but it requires downloading through get_iplayer to a computer. It would be nice to stream the iPlayer content directly, and have the Hi-Def option.

Anyway, this appears to be a less expensive method of streaming and viewing my media files than buying another computer.

BTW, I found this software that supposedly gives support for BBC iPlayer programming. Unfortunately, it only appears to work on Vista or Windows 7, neither of which I will touch.

Media players

If I had my choice between dealing with ninnies along the lines of MikeW. or dealing with fun things, I prefer the fun things. Fun things usually includes beer and wine, good food, MP3 and other media players.

The last bit because I find that it is easier to stream content from the internet: usually the BBC's iPlayer, Lovefilm.com (a British Netflix alternative), or Amazon downloads.

Usually, I watch and download from a PC I have set up to handle my media files, but that it attached to a TV in a room I would prefer not to use form most of my viewing. Also, I'd rather use that PC for the MP3 files. The problem is that there must be a way to watch all this material without having to buy another computer.

Step in the media player, which is basically a glorified hard drive. The problem is that most of these glorified hard drives can't play a lot of your files. For example, I was watchng a ripped copy of "the Poseidon Adventure" on an iomega media player. The thing was playing only a few chapters and the soundtrack was in Spanish. Likewise, most media players may not read your mp3 files. That sort of thing never happens on a computer.

SO, it's coming up with a media player that can play all your files, but there are also the services such as iPlayer, Netflix, Amazon unbox, Lovefilm.com, and so on that allow you to stream material to your computer either for instant watching or later viewing. I am not too thrilled with iPlayer, but you can find the iPlayer downloads that work using get iPlayer. The get iPlayer downloads are usually for portable devices, but the quality is acceptable. BBC says the quality will get better on these downloads.

OK, there are things such as the Brite-View BV-6000P, Roku, Sumvision Cyclone MKV, SoundBridge, Squeezebox, and so on. The question is which of these is best? I bought a streaming box for my wife to stream movies. It seems that a USB media player would work best for me since I can download programmes via iplayer and move it to a USB drive based player.

So, I am shopping around for a player. Not in any great hurry to get one.

Questions, Questions

OK, how does one enforce a law like this:

The Vermont Statutes Online
Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter 85: WEAPONS
13 V.S.A. § 4003. Carrying dangerous weapons

A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.

Why do most people carry, openly or concealed, a dangerous or deadly weapon?

Is it because they plan on using it for show and tell? They just like the feel? Is it because of an increased sense of euphoria?

No, it's because they plan on using it for self-defence, but doesn't that require an intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man?

Additionally, I decided to see how Middlebury uses its power to regulate firearms. The Town prohibits the discharge of firearms in certain areas.

I wouldn't want to chance it, but you can feel free to do what you want.

In the mean time, this will do:

Vermont is a capricious issue state, as we have no permit system. Concealed carry is legal for all without any need to apply for permits. The only legal requirement is the lack of any intent to breach the peace with said concealed weapon, covered in 13 VSA §4003 “Carrying dangerous weapons”:

“A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.”

This section of state statutes originated in 1892 and hasn’t been touched since the last general recodification of Vermont Statutes in 1947. Given the age of the statute, institution here appears to mean a penal or mental institution.

Mike W. is a dumbass

Let's see, I trust the Vermont State Police and AG a lot more than I do you, Mikey.

When the Vermont State Police Says:

Please be aware that Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.

They might be aware of information that dumbass Mikey isn't.

And they are:

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 2291(8), as amended by 2006 Vt. Acts 173 § 3, provides that, "[f]or the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience," a town, city or incorporated village shall have the power to "regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of, firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in section 5227 of title 10."

Come on, Mikey, go up to Vermont and carry a gun around. I want to see you get arrested and lose your gun rights.

And laugh my ass off at you making a complete dumbass of yourself.

Mikey, Put your money where your mouth is, go to Vermont and carry a firearm.

Winooski and Middlebury have local ordinances--go violate their local ordinance and see what happens.

As the report I quoted said:

“A number of cities in Vermont have municipal charters that specifically grant city bodies the authority to regulate or prohibit the possession and use of firearms. See, e.g., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24A, §§ 17-2.4(b)(4), 127-104(2). The enforceability of such provisions is unclear in light of sections 2291(8) and 2295. In SBC Enterprises, Inc. v. City of South Burlington Liquor Control Commission, 689 A.2d 427, 429 (Vt. 1996), a case not involving firearms, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that a city’s charter provided sufficient authorization for the city’s entertainment ordinance. The court explicitly stated that it did not need to decide whether section 2291 also authorized the ordinance. Id.”

It’s nice to discuss this stuff in the abstract, but I wouldn’t have a job if it were all cut and dry. Cops can come up with ways to charge you as well that you wouldn't consider. For example, disorderly conduct: Couldn't walking around with a firearm be considered "Engaging in threatening behavior".

If the Vermont State Police advises that:
“Please be aware that Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.”

It might be worth heeding their advice.

But, you Mikey are all wise and know everything. I hope your knowledge is correct when you do have your first run in with the cops.

OK, The City of Winooski

The Vermont Statutes Online
Title 24 Appendix: Municipal Charters
Chapter 17: CITY OF WINOOSKI
24 V.S.A. App. § 17-2.4(b)(4). General powers and duties
(4) To adopt, amend, repeal and enforce ordinances relating to the regulation or prohibition of the possession and use of dangerous objects and substances, and of firearms, air rifles, and other weapons and devices having a capacity to inflict personal injury, and to provide for the enforcement of penalties for violation or nonperformance.

And
The Vermont Statutes Online
Title 24 Appendix: Municipal Charters
Chapter 127: TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY §127-104(2)
(2) To adopt and enforce police ordinances regulating or prohibiting the use of firearms, air rifles and devices having a capacity to inflict personal injury, and the parking, operation and speed of vehicles of any kind upon Town and State aid streets and highways, private and public property, and to regulate or prohibit any activities constituting a hazard to the safety or health of the public.

OK, Mikey, go to Middlebury or Winooski and see if their laws are legal.

If Vermont were such a firearms heaven, why hasn’t everybody moved there?

I won’t debate you about this, I’ll challenge you to go to either of these Vermont Towns and test the legality of their local gun laws.

Be a real gun rights hero, Mikey, and put action over talk.

You can Contact Cindy Hill, 144 Mead Ln, Middlebury , VT 05753, (802)388-1664 to represent you.

It's your freedom, not mine that's at stake here!

Prayer in School

The Story I mention in my previous post, Oi Vey!, reminds me of a piece of art I would like to make called prayer in School.

You see, I have no problem with prayer in school. The problem does lie in the fact that the US is religiously neutral. This means that one can't favour one religion or sect over another.

So, I imagine that prayer in school would have an orthodox Jewish kid davening, a Moslem kneeling toward Mecca, a Hare Krishna, a Catholic saying the rosary, a flagellant, a Pentecostal speaking in tongues, a dervish, a snake handler, a Santeria adherent, and so forth. The ideal picture would have loads of the world's faiths practising in their own unique ways.

It would be quite a raucous and busy scene!

That's how I imagine prayer in School!

Oi vey

It seems an orthodox Jewish teenager's davening on a US Airways plane caused the plane to make an unscheduled landing in Philadelphia.

It seems the flight attendant saw the leather boxes of the kid's tefillin with what she thought were wires coming out of them and flipped out. The Captain didn't have an idea of what was going on. The crew in post 9-11 caution decided to land in Philadelphia to have the suspicious objects investigated.

The NY Daily News Article opened with the line "What schmucks".

Although, were the crew being schmucks? They see something suspicious and its their duty to look out for the safety of their passengers. Yes, a little bit of knowledge might have stopped an embarassing situation.

But the US is a Christian nation.

MikeyW. Shows his ignorance again!

Mikey, what part of "you are a dumbfuck" don't you understand?

Mikey: #10 by mike w. at January 21st, 2010

From Justice Breyer’s dissent, which also came to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

But hey, you anti-gun folks can continue to deny obvious truths. It’s not surprising you deny facts when they destroy your entire belief system.

Mikey, Mikey, it really helps when you make an argument to use something that supports your assertion. You make a piss poor argument when what you quote shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are so fucking thick that you miss that Breyers says "I take as a starting point the following four propositions". You go on to only quote one, the one that says "individual right" and neglect the other three.

Is that because they completely contradict what you are asserting and you know that? or are you just dumb and lazy? "yep, there are the words "individual right"--that looks like a good quote to use".

Either you didn't really read what you were quoting, didn't understand what you read, dishonest, or are just a plain off dumbfuck. I go with complete and total dumbfuck. You couldn't be clever enough to be dishonest.

Which gets to my reply:

#11 by Laci the Dog at January 21st, 2010
Mikey, once again you prove you are lazy and didn’t read what you quote:

“I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.”
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).”

Stop wasting my time.

The only thing you prove is that you are an ignorant time waster.

So, I will ignore you. Bye-Bye!

Mikey, of course, didn't read the opinion. At least he got through the first couple of sentences of Justice Stevens Opinion. But that had taxed his brain.

He didn't even bother with reading Breyer's opinion, which starts:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Mikey just sees the words "individual right" and it makes him salavate. He doesn't bother with trying to understand what he is reading. Otherwise, he wouldn't go off and show the world what a dumbfuck he is.

It's not bigotry, Mikey, you really are a complete and total dumbfuck. Which is why I don't really care what you lot think of me.

My advice, Mikey, use a dictionary for those words of more than a couple syllables that are hard for you to understand.

Learning to read also helps.

Thanks to Microdot

Yeah, the argument style of the teabagger/guncretin: simplify, use emotional language, and not think.

It distracts people from realising that you don't have an idea of what you are saying.



Case in point: MikeyW trying to show me that Justice Stevens' dissent support an "individual right"

Mikey
Also, Justice Stevens dissenting opinion states in the very 1st sentence.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

#49 by Laci the Dog at January 20th, 2010

of course, you tell half truths and didn’t understand the dissent.

or didn’t read it.

Otherwise you wouldn’t misquote it.

“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.”

” Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”

It seems you’re wrong again, Mikey!

Next time try harder and actually read and understand what you quote.

Mikey then went on to say that Miller was all about the Shotgun. Wrongo Mikey. Mikey didn't really understand this from Miller:

OK, to use my post with the complete quotation and additional material from Stevens’ dissent in Heller, I’ve already shown that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Likewise, I will ask you what to tell me what was the holding in US v. Miller? It is actually quite surprising. (ed. The Holding was that the Court reversed the lower Court's decision that the Firearm WAS covered under the Second Amendment and remanded the case for reconsideration: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.")

I will actually give you some bits of dicta that prove you are wrong:

“Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.”

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘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.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Sounds pretty similar to what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent.

Of course, Stevens' dissent supported an individual right, whatever that means.

Awful licence?

It was the late 70s and I had just finished visiting a friend in South London and was walking toward the bus stop. There was a young lady at the bust stop that asked me what I thought was:

"Is there an awful licence?"

That sort of took me aback since I didn't realise I might need a licence to be awful. It put fear in me that I might be acting awful without a licence and contrary to law.

I responded, "What?"
She said, "an off licence"

Much better, "where are you heading?"
Her, "Picadilly"
Me, "yeah, there are loads up there."

I should have told her to go to somewhere such as Justerini & Brooks or Berry Brothers and Rudd even though either of them would have really been out of her league. Fred's also has a good liquour section. There are places in Soho that would have been more along the lines of what she wanted.

Anyway, I am being awful without a licence these days.

Holocaust denial

Mike W. plays into the hands of the holocaust deniers as being all that effective: he's still around.

Or maybe his family was part of the crowd in the US that failed to help European Jews.

Anyway, I bet he gets a warm feeling seeing all that Nazi shit at gun shows (as well as Bob Levy).

The only thing MikeW is able to persuade me about is that he is an ignorant, time wasting wanker.

For Zerro,

What the fuck is your problem, asshole? And that goes for the lot of you fucktard guncretins.

You get uptight about my comment about prying the gun from your cold dead fingers? Then, Zero you make a total asshole of yourself by saying bring it on.

Do you realise how fucked up that is? Do you realise that you just showed yourself up for being a total wimp?

You can't have it both ways, asshole, playing the tough guy, but crying like a girl when someone takes you up on the challenge.

But leave my dog out of it, motherfucker.

The only thing you lot are proving is that you are immature assholes who shouldn't even be allowed to think about firearms let alone actually possess them. In other words, you only confirm my belief in strong gun control measures by acting as you do.

And your opinions aren't worth using for wiping my ass.

Posted after reading Zerro's response.
You dickheads have a lot of nerve talking about "bigotry" and getting upset about my comments about Meleanie Hain or "prying the gun from your cold, dead fingers".

You people are complete and total asswipes. You contribute dick to society.

And quite frankly, Society is indeed better off when you assholes shoot yourself.

If those statements don't pass through your bullet-proof skulls in a way that you understand-- that's your tough shit. I can get on my high horse all I want since you haven't shown yourselves to be worthy of anything but contempt.

Don't use words such as bigotry that you don't understand. It isn't bigotry that you are dealing with, assholes, but contempt for your being a worthless lot of losers. You're going to be treated like the worthless pieces of shit you are as long as you act like dickheads.
Grow up and live with it and stop acting like babies.

How to argue with gun cretins

OK, they are total cretins and losers who don't know what they are talking about. It's pretty obvious that they know this since their usual argument is the ad hominem.

Even better, they like to act hurt when you tell them that they are complete and total jerkoffs. Not that they haven't figured that out, which is why they like to claim that they are victims of "bigotry".

Hey, you're a bunch of assholes who don't contribute to society.

It's really funny that you hide behind the Second Amendment to claim non-existant "gun rights" when you are the type of people who would have been doing whatever you could to have gotten an exemption from militia service.

Naw, like a bunch of teenage boys you see the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think you have a right to own a machinegun.

It's doesn't work like that and it's too bad that Supreme Court justices can't use their own theories, but...

Rule 1) keep them on the subject. The usual practise is to try and get you off topic by mentioning something emotional.

Rule 2) Try to get them to back up what they say

Rule 3) realise that they aren't as tough as they like to act. They need the guns because they are weak. Having a gun gives them a sense of power.

Rule 4) Realise that you are correct and that they live in an insane world.

The ultimate upshot is that guncretins are a weak lot who want to feel powerful, but on the whole they are socially ostracised. They need that comradery to feel as if they have something to offer society, which they don't.

More ignorance of gun owners.

For some reason, MikeB decided to post my That's Laci the Dog post about how ignorant gun owners are.

I made a comment that it was illegal to kill people's pets. Fatheaded White Moron said:

"That depends on where you are."

I guess it does since it's a felony to do that in Ohio, where Fatheaded White Moron lives. Although, this is a fairly new law and Fatheaded White Moron is an ignorant bastard. I doubt he reads newspapers or he would have seen this:

An Ohio man is believed to be the first person convicted under the state's felony killing a cat or dog law, officials said.

Sorry, but most jurisdictions penalise the killing of a companion animal under animal cruelty statutes. I wouldn't expect someone like Fatheaded White Moron to know that though. That's Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated. Title IX. Agriculture--Animals--Fences. Chapter 959. Offenses Relating to Domestic Animals and the relevant Sections are 959-02, 959-13, and 959-131

As I said, most jurisctions make it a crime to kill a companion animal which can be verified here.

Some advice:

Fatheaded White Moron (and Weer'd Beard), it's a bad idea to cross busy motorways (interstate highways) or busy streets when traffic is coming.

And while we're at it.

RuffRidr proves even more ignorance. This cretin has picked Theodore Roosevelt as his avatar. Although, I wouldn't expect someone who uses an avatar of someone who became president because of an assassination and survivor of an assassination attempt to be able to grasp his ignorance.

If anything, RuffRidr, literally shoots himself in the foot by picking someone who blustered about using a firearm to prevent any assassination attempt against himself after the McKinley assassination, yet somehow didn't have a gun on him when that time came. Even though TR survived, the assassin's bullet effectively killed TR's political career.

We can argue whether actually having a handgun at the time of the assassination attempt would have been beneficial for TR, but somehow, I don't think it would. The fact that TR was a blow hard and the bullet was stopped by one of his speeches was more beneficial.

If anything, TR was great at using myth for self-promotion. In this case, the cowboy frontiersman, as a loner true to his own code of honor. The real TR couldn't have been farther from that image.

Roosevelt's own cowboy-soldier life testified to that, but first he had to create a persona that he most surely was not born with. He entered the New York state assembly in 1881 at age twenty-three, having overcome poor health just like his idol Abraham Lincoln. He still appeared unmanly, and newspapers and his fellow assemblymen ridiculed his "squeaky" voice and dandified clothing, referring to him as "Jane-Dandy," "Punkin-Lily," and "our own Oscar Wilde." The New York World proclaimed him "chief of the dudes." Duly insulted, he began to construct a new physical image around appropriately virile Western decorations and settings, foregrounding the bodily attributes of a robust outdoorsman that were becoming new features in the nation's political iconography
from Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire by Sarah Watts

.
As I keep telling RuffRidr: the only thing that would show him up for being more of a dickhead than he is already would be to use JFK as his avatar. Also, I don't know if RuffRidr's ignorance goes to the extent that he is unaware that TR was a progressive! That would put TR on the left side of the political spectrum. Quite possibly even further to the left of Barack Obama!

Of course, RuffRidr, and Zero are making total wankers of themselves. As I said in the original post--they are ignorant of their ignorance. These rugged individuals need help (and in more than one way) and the cavalry of gun cretins has arrived to back them up. Never mind their all just spouting shit and not addressing the issues that they need to address.

Someone needs to kleep these morons in line. Maybe some military training would do them good.

It's really funny at how upset they are at my comments about Meleanie Hain. I am sorry, but I don't see her as much of a loss. Meleanie happened to be a buddhist and perhaps she realises that it was her karma to be killed by being a moron. It's too bad that the rest of you are too stupid to learn from her lesson.

But, I am hopeful that someday you all will prove to be useful examples like Meleanie was.

Unfortunately, the rest of them haven't quite gotten the picture that the stories at Ohh Shoot might indeed be more common than their mythical DGUs.

Kind of like how having a gun helped TR stop that assassination attempt.

By the way, please stop making generalisations about people who support gun control from my comments. Especially you, MikeW., Or is it OK to make generalisations about groups, such as the Jews?

Not that I really need it, but...

The Magna Fartlet: Viz Roger's Profanisaurus

I blame Man with The Muckrake for doing a post on Exploding Underpants which has me thinking of Viz's Felix and His Amazing Underpants for starting me on this Viz thing.

Winter In Britain

Courtesy of Viz Comic

Gastro pubs

A bunch of my old favs have gone away, such as the King's Head and Eight Bells, The Ennismore Arms, The Australian, just to name a few. I still have a local, the Fox and Hounds, but it seems as if pubs of this kind are going away.

I have gone to a couple of old favs that have become Gastropubs. Those are pubs with expensive beer and bizzare versions of pub food. Nosh that reminds me of this from the Catherine Tate show:


There was a Japanese bloke who didn't find this funny since the mushrooms are pronounced Shi'itake. Although, one of my Irish girlfriends did pronounce it the same way that Janice and Ray do in the sketch.

Next question, why are trad pubs dying out to be replaced by this sort of thing?

(or worse, the Ennismore Arms was torn down for a private home).

You Yanks can't have a monopoly on the fun with the religious right.

Unfortunately, all the fun is happening up in Ulster. I guess since they need to find another outlet to their energies since the Troubles stopped.

This would have blown by me except I was reminded a a couple of days ago when we went out to dinner with a friend and she mentioned it. Then man with the muckrake mentioned the Troubles.

A bit of background, Think of the Scots-Irish who are the Protestants in this farce as being the Religious right, and a precursor to the US religious right in the US since most emmigrated to the Bible belt in the 1700s. The Unionist leader Ian Paisley has been compared to Jerry Falwell, which made Jerry Falwell wonder who WAS Ian Paisley. This had to be explained to Falwell (this was at the Oxford Union in 1984 after I was a student in the late 70s).

Anyway, there is a lovely scandal going on now in that part of the world (the troubles are long over, thank god) with Iris Robinson banging a 19 year old. Ian Paisley is properly apoplectic.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/jan/10/paisley-beyond-fury-over-robinson-sleaze/

To give you an idea of what this would be like in US political terms: This would be the rough equivalent of a sex scandal involving Michele Bachmann and a 19 year old guy since the DUP is able to be a party of Conservative Christians.

NOW, WOULDN'T THAT BE FUN!

None of that separation of church and state BS in the UK to stop direct identification By the DUP as a Conservative Christian organisation the way it does in the US. In fact, this party was founded by Ian Paisley. Actually, Bachmann doesn't have the power that Iris Robinson had since Iris's hubby was leader of the DUP, but still Imagine someone who is 60 banging a 19 year old.


A bit of background on the DUP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party or their website:
http://www.dup.org.uk/default.htm

I thought I would archive that view while Iris's Hubby, Peter, has his picture all over the website. It adds to the humour value.

Anyway, here are a couple of versions of "Mrs. Robinson". How appropriate.

Haitian Damage--Serious

OK, Auntie is running a piece about Haitian damage. Someone mentioned the difference between the Dominican Republic and Haiti and that the DR didn't have the damage that Haiti did even thought they are both on Hispaniola.

There is a big difference between the two countries in that the Dominican Republic has a much stronger economy than Haiti. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. That means there were poor building codes and no money to properly build buildings anyway. The real problem is that the country doesn't have the money to properly build much of anything.

So, the west rushes to Haiti's aid, but will it provide the additional funds and expertise to raise Haiti out of its poverty?

Uh, Pat, look to home.

SouthernFemaleLawyer ran a letter to Pat Robertson from the Devil which made this point:

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing.

I have to say after reading that, couldn’t Robertson be making a mistake. Shouldn't Pat look a little closer to home to find the country that made a pact with the Devil for its Independence. Isn't there a possibility that country is the US. Wouldn’t that explain how this country can be so >wealthy, yet so screwed up? Ever see Bedazzled (the Original Peter Cook and Dudley Moore version, not the later remake)? The devil gives you riches and what else you want, but there is usually a catch.

The last scene in the convent is a scream.

As OSO said at The Saturday Afternoon Post, "Good point. No way a bunch of black slaves could have outfought a modern European army."

You've got to admit this line of reasoning has a point, couldn't a country make a pact with the devil so it could defeat a much more powerful force. But, I'm talking about the US defeating Great Britain during the war of independence.

Britain was a much more powerful army and was doing a pretty good job of kicking colonial arse. The US did make a pact with the French that some, such as Benedict Arnold, might classify as a pact with the devil. But what about a real pact with the devil?

Wouldn't that explain a lot about the US's politics?

"Gun Right" supporters who are critical of Heller

Since my anger with the DC v. Heller decision is pretty much based on Scalia's playing fast and loose with the law and his alleged theory of Constitutional interpretation, I usually mention these articles in passing. You will find that most people who support Heller were in some way associated with the decision, or just plain ignorant.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/06/26/a-somewhat-skeptical-take-on-h
http://tadventures.org/2009/07/30/2nd-amendment-not-so-fast-my-friends/
http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2008/03/fatal-concession-in-dc-v-heller.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w32.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022044.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022039.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021863.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

The final post isn't so much anti-Heller as much as it is also critical of Scalia for failing to follow what he claims is his method for interpreting the Constitution.

http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_shaman/1/

That's Laci THE dog

Proof that gun cretins aren't that bright, one of them made the comment that "Laci owns a dog" amongst other statements that he had no fucking idea what I have written.

First off: That's Laci THE dog. And as the blurb at the tops says:

A very intelligent canine. I've gone to court more than Harriet Miers and most US Law School professors ever have. I am ghost written by my human companion.

The idiot also missed the "about me" bit on the right side of the blog. That's a DOG, fuckwit. Has that passed through your thick skull yet?

Laci IS THE Dog, NOT the human who writes this blog.

The bit about the dog going to court is not a joke. I've posted this picture of her in the Court hallway here before. The bit about Harriet Miers came from a friend who pointed out that my dog had been to court more than Miers ever had. Likewise, there are quite a few US law profs who aren't even admitted to any form of State Bar, let alone practised law, which means that Laci has been in court more than they have as well.

The last bit is scary since half the lawyers in the world are located in the US. I find it incredibly frightening that all one needs to do is pass a State bar and they let you loose on the unsuspecting public. Every other jurisdiction requires some form of apprenticeship before finally letting one loose in a courtroom.

The human who actually writes this blog has completed a pupilage in the UK. Whilst one serious hurdle to practise in Great Britain had been overcome. There is a second hurdle to practise: admission to chambers, which is even harder to surpass.

Additionally, this guncretin also shows a huge lack of comprehension of my position regarding DC v. Heller. There is a fairly good summary of that position in my post For SouthernFemaleLawyer. I did add in my response to this moron that one does not amend the Constitution through the judiciary, which Heller did.

Scalia's Second Amendment now reads: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms may be reasonably infringed".

Again, there are more than enough articles written by myself and others that point out this fact. Scalia used the magic words "individual right" which was more than enough to keep the booboisie happy. They now parrot the phrase the Second Amendment is an "individual right" with no understanding of scope of that right.

I didn't say Scalia was an idiot. I have said he was ignorant, which has nothing to do with intelligence. One can be a genius, yet be ignorant. Gun cretins are quite ignorant, which is compounded by the fact that they are ignorant of their ignorance.

I can say that I find Scalia intellectually dishonest as all get out to have wanted to attribute the Heller decision to himself as it pretty much ignores what he claims is his judicial philosophy. As I said, Heller is more "original" than "originalist".

Although, it has been said that Scalia misunderstands the nature of the US legal system and finds it is a civil law system rather than a common law one in his book A Matter of Interpretation. This misunderstanding may form the foundation of his willingness to judicially amend the Constitution rather than go through the proper constitutional process.

Since Heller now stands for the proposition that stare decisis and precedent aren't worth the paper decisions are printed upon, perhaps we can ignore that decision. In fact, isn't there a challenge that it was an unconstitutional act of Judicially amending the constitution to change the language of the Second Amendment? Or to once again quote the man himself:

If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. Antonin Scalia, Vigilante Justices: The Dying Constitution

I don't think I could make my position any clearer.

Essay question for guncretins/gun loons

Explain the Second Amendment in light of US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 and Patrick Henry's Speech Below to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788, Elliot 3:51--52:

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "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." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of.

Please realise that Henry was specifically addressing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 in responding to this question. He directly quotes that passage. I've highlighted that since I am pretty sure you would miss that bit if it weren't in bold, underlined, large print.

Also realise that this passage supports the civic interpretation of the Second Amendment and any essay supporting a right to arms outside of the militia context will have to overcome that hurdle.

OK, if firearms were commonplace, why is Henry worried that the Federal government would fail to arm the militia? Wouldn't that hint at scarcity rather than abundance? Also, by having the issue framed as failing to arm militia rather than confiscation, doesn't that also hint at the issue being provision of arms to the militia?

If you wonder why I find the civic right interpretation far more credible than an individual right outside of the militia context, it is because I have yet to see an explanation of the non-militia right that does not address these historical FACTS.

Neat Quote

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

He also said
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.
Federalist #10

Please Help Haiti!

Donate to Medicins Sans Frontiers Thanks to the crew at Man with a Muck Rake for that suggestion) and listen to the music of Boukman Eksperyans

CLIP BOUKMAN EKSPERYANS "Pa kite tan pase"
Uploaded by digiprod. - See the latest featured music videos.

My iPod is blowing up

I have a lot of music. I think I mentioned that I have well over 4000 CDs. It has been said that "if you can't find something you like in my collection, you don't like music". I now add that even if you don't like music, I probably have something in there for you (Stockhausen, The Residents, Rap, and so on). I try to have a sample of pretty much everything out there.

That said, I bought the largest capacity mp3 player I can find on the market, the Apple iPod classic 160GB. I loath the thing since it is a pain to manage and crashes frequently. The advantage is that it does have a large capacity which allows me to carry a pretty good selection of music.

The most annoying aspect is the management, in particular playlists. You can only manage it on one computer, which is a total pain. This is especially true if you find you put the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" on say your "last Night of the Proms" playlist by accident. A proper version of "God Save the Queen" is OK in such a situation, but not the Sex Pistols' version. Likewise, I found that I had put some of The Move and Wizzard's music on an English Restoration Playlist which was fairly jarring. I mean jumping from Purcell (even if the song was "pox on you for a fop") to The Move's Omnibus really buggers up the mood.



DId you realise how hard it is to perform "pox on you for a fop"? I mean you have to belch and fart on cue.

Henry Purcell, epitome of "The Flowering of the English Baroque". The artist and composer of sublime secular and sacred music. The man whom John Dryden described as:

So ceas'd the rival Crew when Purcell came,
They Sung no more, or only Sung his Fame.
Struck dumb they all admir'd the God-like Man,
The God-like Man,
Alas, too soon retir'd,
As He too late began.
We beg not Hell, our Orpheus to restore,
Had He been there,
Their Sovereign's fear
Had sent Him back before.
The pow'r of Harmony too well they know,
He long e'er this had Tun'd their jarring Sphere,
And left no Hell below.

Or just some twit who wrote puerile songs?

Anyway, back to my point. You find that some GMFU like this has occurred and the only way to deal with it is to skip the offending songs if you aren't near the computer one manages their iPod. I found that just using the "baroque" genre did the trick for the time being.

On the other hand, some people come up with fairly bizarre genres for their songs. Such as categorising Stockhausen as "blues" as opposed to "noise". OK, I don't know how you would describe "Hymnen", but it sounds as if someone is tuning a shortwave radio for 4 LP sides. I didn't bother with removing the record surface noise when I transferred THAT to MP3. In fact, isn't ambient noise part of the whole John Cage, Stockhausen, et al genre?

I am writing this as I synch my iPod. It has just gone from 148GB to 136GB as it "updates" my files. This is because I have a library of 45,000 songs! The iPOd can't handle a library like that even though it wants to synch your entire library to the iPOd, which is another reason the thing crashes. The best way to get the iPod to synch what you want is to use MediaMonkey for the bulk of your library, if you have a large collection. Put your songs into playlists and transfer the playlists to itunes.

In fact, delete your itunes library and just use playlists from MediaMonkey.

Unfortunately, you can't use RealPlayer or MediaMonkey to manage large files since the iPOd's directory crashes if you try that.

Please, please, please somebody come up with an MP3 player that can handle large amounts of music. As I said in a previous post, I like the Brennan JB7, but I don't think it is as portable as I would like it to be. Archos makes a media tablet with a 250GB drive, but I don't trust "media players" after my experience with the Argosy and IOmega versions which couldn't read elementary files for MP3 and DVDs. The ASUS O!Play sound like it could handle my video needs and possibly my mp3 needs, but it is also not portable.

Another possibility is to create a new OS for the iPod that allows for it to be managed in such a way that you don't have to use Apple's proprietary software with its encumbent problems. I haven't tried using MediaMonkey to manage the thing since I have had bad experiences with other programmes than iTunes to manage the iPod.

And while you're at it come up with a super open source OS that beats the crap out of Microsoft Windows. As I said before, I am switching to ubuntu before I move to another form of windows.

FInal ending note to this rambling rant: iTunes has just informed me that it cannot synch all my music, but will try to get as much on as it can.

What really annoys me about gun cretins...

is the fact that they want to come and tell you their point of view, whether or not you want to hear it. And I have heard it all before.

It's pretty obvious that these people have not read or understood what I have written. It doesn't make much sense for me to waste my time repeating myself.

Of course, they will hammer in what they want to say.

I am sorry, but I have examined the subject of gun rights far more extensively than you have and some of the alleged "Second Amendment Scholars" out there have as well. I find that any right to arms outside of the context militia service (that is the body set up under the authority of the US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16) does not exist in the Second Amendment. Such a right can be found in State Constitutions (yet another reason that "incorporation" is ridiculous), but not in the Federal Constitution.

Additionally, don't come around here spouting shit you obviously haven't read, or understood, since if you did read it, you would have realised it shows that I am correct in my assertions that the Second Amendment is related to militia service (that is the body set up under the authority of the US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16). Or worse, you mention something that is completely unrelated to the Second Amendment or its history that shows you have a lack of comprehension of the topic.

To be quite honest, any comments the founders made about the "right to keep and bear arms" is most usually tied to a comment about the evils of a standing army. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the US adopt a Swiss style military system, the Second Amendment is pretty much a dead letter. And by that, I mean that you are seriously willing to dedicate your time to training and service in such an institution, you do not have a right to keep and bear arms.

Prepping for Burns' night

Yes, it's coming upon the Burns' night season and I needed to pick up some Drambuie to make sure we had some. Or at least to make sure our hosts would have some. We are going to some friends' Castle in Scotland to celebrate. They have a pretty good collection of single malt, but I know they don't have any Drambuie.

Anyway, I was rather surprised by the new bottle. The thing looks more like a Scotch bottle. The redesign comes at the 100th anniversary of the widespread commercial availability of Drambuie. The stuff was actually created 260 years ago for Prince Charlie. Legend has it that After the battle of Culloden (1746), Prince Charles Edward Stuart fled to the Isle of Skye. There, he was given sanctuary by Captain John MacKinnon of Clan MacKinnon. According to family legend, after staying with the Captain, the prince rewarded him with this prized drink recipe. The legend then holds that the recipe was given in the late 19th century by Clan MacKinnon to James Ross. Ross ran the Broadford Hotel in the Isle of Skye. It was there that he developed and improved the recipe, initially for his friends.

The new bottle was a bit of a shock, but I caught that it was supposed to look more like a whisky bottle. Not sure how much I like the change though.

For SouthernFemaleLawyer

I am sure you would understand what I mean when I say I worked in USAO-DC's Operation Ceasefire in the mid-1990s, which is a major reason for my interest in this case--along with having lived in Washington, DC during that period.

Anyway, I find your use of the term "penumbral" in regard to the right enunciated in Heller to be quite novel. This is because the term "penumbral" usually means coming from the shadow in an eclipse. The right enunciated in DC v. Heller comes from out of nowhere as Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion points out.

In fact, DC. V. Heller can be used for great mischief in the hands of crafty lawyers since it stands for pretty much a trashing of most legal principles. Even those held by Scalia himself!

For example stare decisis. Prior to Heller it was held that the Second Amendment right was to paraphrase US. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

The entire text of the Second Amendment was made with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the forces created under authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. It must be interpreted and applied in consideration of that purpose. Without evidence that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' is reasonably related 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment of the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution or that its use and possession would contribute to the common defense.

The DC court of appeals reiterated that the Second Amendment was to ensure militia efficacy in Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057, 1058 (D.C. 1987).

As Justice Stevens pointed out, one does not lightly overturn precedent. I will add especially when that precedent was unanimously decided as was US. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Likewise, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)offers the guidance in US Constitutional interpretation that:

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

and

The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction.

The above quotes are not in order as they appear in the decision, but placed in such a way as to educate modern minds. The DC v. Heller decision stands for the principle that inconvenient language may be ignored.

To say that the right Scalia enunciated in DC v. Heller is penumbral would be akin to saying that if he suddenly decided that the Catholic Church was the State religion based upon the First Amendment would be penumbral. Not too far out a thought since his Heller decision has no historical or legal basis. What is to stop us from a mad judge doing the same with other rights? Or to quote the man himself:

If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. Antonin Scalia, Vigilante Justices: The Dying Constitution

Another aspect which should be frightening to lawyers is that DC v. Heller does not stand for the principle of equal justice before the law, but follows the "Golden Rule". That is, those with the gold make the rules. It is an open secret that the Heller litigation was bankrolled by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with connections to big business: in particular Rupert Murdoch and Koch Industries; the largest privately owned company in the United States. Likewise, the Cato Institute is bankrolling the McDonald case as well.

If we consider that the cry of "no taxation without representation" did not refer to the taxation, but the lack of representation in the decision making process that led to the taxation, DC v. Heller engages in exactly what the founders considered tyranny. That is the interference in the local legislative process by unelected persons. In particular, those who are not local, such as the Cato Institute or the Supreme Court. Again, this proves that Scalia's decision is without merit.

Next we come to Judicial Certainty: Some of my original posts deal with the US v. Rybar decision, which was the decision that earned Justice Alito the monicker "Machinegun Sammy". Amazingly enough, the Rybar court followed the Civic right interpretation of the Second Amendment, yet Alito signed on to Heller.

Likewise, Justice Scalia claims to follow an "originalist" interpretation, which he claimed followed the exact intent of the founders. Scalia proved that his judicial style is more "original" than "orignalist". This means that the law is whatever the judge cares to make it without any real bother with historic, legal, or other constraints. In fact, it will be amusing to see how he rules on McDonald since I believe he has said before that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government. Scalia has said that the doctrine of “incorporation,” which holds that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, is a “mistake” and is “probably false” in a speech he made at the Hoover Institution.

So, I am not sure how one determines what and how Scalia will rule: which side of the bed he gets up on, whether the sun is shining, etcetera. We may see Justice Scalia contradict himself yet again. How does one appeal from an insane judge, or at least a seriously inconsistent one?

Does that sound penumbral to you?