Laci the Dog: Don't let cute and fluffy fool you!

Are you still reading this?

2010-08-31T20:57:00.002+01:00

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

Bye Bye Blogger

2010-03-12T00:15:00.000Z

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

2010-03-11T17:39:00.002Z

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

2010-03-11T13:22:00.003Z

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

2010-03-10T19:00:00.002Z

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

2010-03-09T23:04:00.000Z

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

More proof that British anti-hunting laws are nonsense.

2010-03-09T20:00:00.003Z

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.

2010-03-09T17:01:00.004Z

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

2010-03-09T15:01:00.002Z

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

2010-03-09T14:50:00.003Z

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

2010-03-09T14:22:00.000Z

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..

2010-03-09T09:47:00.001Z

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...

2010-03-08T22:07:00.005Z

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

2010-03-05T09:37:00.000Z

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

2010-03-04T20:25:00.005Z

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

2010-03-03T20:55:00.003Z

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!

2010-03-03T20:35:00.007Z

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

2010-03-03T16:19:00.000Z

From The New Internationalist site:

American Independence: A blessing or a curse?

2010-03-03T14:25:00.002Z

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?

2010-03-02T17:41:00.007Z

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?

2010-03-01T23:28:00.008Z

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

2010-02-28T22:01:00.008Z

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

2010-02-27T13:07:00.001Z

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

2010-02-26T22:51:00.003Z

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!

2010-02-26T18:02:00.005Z

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...

2010-02-25T19:43:00.001Z

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.

2010-02-25T19:39:00.000Z

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!

2010-02-20T15:58:00.001Z

Original Title was "No Comment"

From Talking Points Memo via Right Wing Watch

New Image!

2010-02-20T14:59:00.006Z

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!

2010-02-11T13:43:00.000Z

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

2010-02-08T13:02:00.000Z

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!

2010-02-07T18:18:00.002Z

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!

2010-02-06T15:14:00.002Z

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...

2010-02-05T16:55:00.016Z

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

2010-02-03T17:37:00.005Z

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?

Spam in Garlic

2010-02-02T17:32:00.007Z

I mentioned Thomas Tallis's Spem in Alium in a previous post. As I said:

there is a cartoon where the person is saying "Not many people pirate CDs of Buxtehude" (although I did hear that Tallis's Spem in Alium was pirated as Spam in Allium, or Spam in Garlic in translation--not sure if that was a joke or not after this reference).

The reference in question is this:

let me explain that, although Spem in Alium (Processed ham in garlic) is written for 40 voices, and New College has only 33 singers, they do, for this one item, call in the reserves - another 7 voices.

Which has me wondering: what is the origins of this anecdote? I searched the Internet to learn its genesis, but came up with comments such as these:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3698&page=5

...or "Spam in Allium" ("Spam in garlic"), as it once appeared printed in the Radio Times.

No, the magazine in question that I mentioned was a specialty hi-fi mag (Hi-Fi News or Hi-Fi Choice), not Radio Times.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006812.html

#167 ::: Dan Layman-Kennedy ::: (view all by) ::: September 20, 2005, 09:41 PM:

If I ever open up one of those fancy sandwich shops where the sandwiches are all named after someone, one of the featured items will be processed canned pork product served with sliced onions, garlic and leeks.
I'm calling it the Thomas Tallis.
*ducks, runs*

#169 ::: Karl T. ::: (view all by) ::: September 20, 2005, 10:38 PM:

Lucy, one of Mr Tallis's most famous compositions is a 40-part motet known as Spem in Alium (Latin for "hope in others.")
I suspect that Dan was making a Spam/Spem pun, with the addition of some sort of a pun on "alium" in the Latin name for the vegetables involved.
Many apologies if this explanation ruins the joke for anyone else.
Dan, the pun was good/bad enough to make me wince, if that's your preferred form of applause.

So, still no idea, perhaps a musicologist will set me straight on the origin of Spam in Garlic. Until that time, I am afraid that the origin of this musical in-joke will remain a mystery.

This Monty Python sketch is a bit cliche, but apropos:

Monty Python - Spam
Uploaded by beautifulcynic. - Watch more comedy videos and sitcoms.

Comment policy

2010-02-02T16:59:00.018Z

Now that I am accepting comments, I thought I would put out a policy.

I have always had the policy that "can offer intelligent and constructive comments"

Likewise I have made it clear that 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".

In particular those who are thought adverse since they can't "offer intelligent and constructive comments" by definition. Of course, that doesn't stop them from trying to comment. That is the nature of hubris.

Likewise, try to read my stuff. You will be deleted if you don't have some ideas of where my interests lie. For example, if my last week's posts are about DRM, please don't comment about Brittany Spears. That's a sure road to the electric dustbin as well.

Furthermore, No comments from Anoraks, unless they are intelligent and constructive. Although, Steve may freely comment, especially if he has put up caps of Daljit Dhaliwal or Mishal Husain. I mean what's with him putting up caps of Zeinab Badawi???

Hots for the Smarts

2010-02-02T16:57:00.002Z

I have this thing for intelligent women as partners (and intelligent people in general as company). So, here's Richard Thompson singing "Hots for the Smarts".

Scots and Tennis

2010-02-02T16:48:00.007Z

One of my cricket teammates commented that it ruined his Monty Python routine when Coventry won the World Cup in 1987. Likewise, Even though Roger Federer defeated Andy Murray, Andy proved that Scots can play tennis.

Still, here is Myton Python's Science Fiction Sketch

American Voice (very resonant) The Universe consists of a billion, billion galaxies... 77,000,000,000 miles across, and every galaxy is made up of a billion, zillion stars and around these stars circle a billion planets, and of all of these planets the greenest and the pleasantest is the planet Earth, in the system of Sol, in the Galaxy known as the Milky Way ... And it was to this world that creatures of an alien planet came ... to conquer and destroy the very heart of civilization...
Mix into close-up of railway station sign: 'New Pudsey'. Pull out to mid-shot of a couple walking towards camera. They are middle-aged. He (Graham) wears a cricket blazer and grey flannels and a carrier bag. She (Eric) wears a fussy print dress.
American Voice (gently) It was a day like any other and Mr and Mrs Samuel Brainsample were a perfectly ordinary couple, leading perfectly ordinary lives - the sort of people to whom nothing extraordinary ever happened, and not the kind of people to be the centre of one of the most astounding incidents in the history of mankind ... So let's forget about them and follow instead the destiny of this man ... (camera pans off them; they both look disappointed; camera picks up instead a smart little business man, in bowler, briefcase and pinstripes) ... Harold Potter, gardener, and tax official, first victim of Creatures from another Planet.
Weird electronic music. Sinister atmosphere. Follow him out of station. Cut-away to flying saucer, over day skyline. Back to Potter as he walks up suburban road. Back to flying saucer. It bleeps as if it has seen its prey and changes direction. Cut back to Potter just about to open his front gate. Shot from over the other side of the road. Cut to flying saucer sending down ray. Potter freezes . . . shivers and turns into a Scotsman with kilt, and red beard. His hand jerks out in front of him and he spins round and scuttles up road in fast motion, to the accompaniment of bagpipe music. Cut to close-up of newspaper with banner headline: 'Man turns into a Scotsman'.
Newsvendor's Voice Read all abaht it! Read all abaht it! Man turns into Scotsman!
Mix through to Potter's front gate. His wife is being interviewed by obvious plainclothes man.
Inspector Mrs Potter - you knew Harold Potter quite well I believe?
Wife Oh yes quite well.
Inspector Yes.
Wife He was my husband.
Inspector Yes. And, er, he never showed any inclination towards being a Scotsman before this happened?
Wife (shocked) No, no, not at all. He was not that sort of person...
Inspector He didn't wear a kilt or play the bagpipes?
Wife No, no.
Inspector He never got drunk at night or bought home black puddings?
Wife No, no. Not at all.
Inspector He didn't have an inadequate brain capacity?
Wife No, no, not at all.
Inspector I see. So by your account Harold Potter was a perfectly ordinary Englishman without any tendency towards being a Scotsman whatsoever?
Wife Absolutely, yes. (suddenly remembering) Mind you he did always watch Dr. Finlay on television.
Inspector Ah-hah! ... Well that's it, you see. That's how it starts.
Wife I beg your pardon?
Inspector Well you see Scottishness starts with little things like that, and works up. You see, people don't just turn into a Scotsman for no reason at all... (goes rigid: with Scots accent:) No further questions!
The words are hardly out of his mouth when he turns into a Scotsman and spins round and disappears up road in fast motion. Pan with him. Cut to bus queue: man in a city suit and bowler hat suddenly changes into a Scotsman with beard, twizzles round and speeds out of shot. Cut to street policeman pointing way for woman with a pram. Suddenly he changes into a Scotsman and scuffles out of shot. She looks aghast for a moment and then she too changes into a Scotsman and hurtles off after him. The baby suddenly develops a beard and the pram follows her. Single shot of black jazz musician in cellar blowing a blues sax solo. He changes and whizzes off. Squad of soldiers being drilled. Suddenly they all change into bearded Scotsmen and race off in unison. Pan with them past sign: 'Welsh Guard'.
Quick animated shot of flying saucer disappearing over city skyline.
Cut to big close-up of passionate kiss. It goes on for some moments. Foggy lens... romantic music. Keep on big close-up as they talk. She is none too intelligent.
She
(Donna Reading) Charles...
Charles Darling...
She Charles...
Charles Darling, darling...
She Charles... there's something I've got to tell you...
Charles What is it darling?
She It's daddy ... he's turned into a Scotsman...
Charles What! Mr Llewellyn?
She Yes, Charles. Help me, please help me.
Charles But what can I do?
She Surely, Charles, you're the Chief Scientist at the Anthropological Research Institute, at Butley Down - an expert in what makes people change from one nationality to another.
Charles So I am! (pull out to reveal they are in a laboratory; he is in a white coat, she is in something absurdly sexy) This is right up my street!
She Oh good.
Charles Now first of all, why would anyone turn into a Scotsman?
She (tentatively) Em, for business reasons?
Charles No, no! Only because he has no control over his own destiny! Look I'll show you...
He presses a button on a control board and a laboratory TV screen lights op with the words 'only because they have no control over their own destinies'.
She I see.
Charles Yes! So this means that some person or persons unknown is turning all these people into Scotsmen...
She Oh, what kind of heartless fiend could do that to a man?
Charles I don't know ... I don't know ... all I know is that these people are streaming north of the border at the rate of thousands every hour. If we don't act fast, Scotland will be choked with Scotsmen...
She Ooh!...
Zoom in on her face. Cut to as many bearded Scotsmen as possible, hurtling through wood in fast motion. Follow them, ending up with skyline shot as per 'Seventh Seal'. They all still have the arm outstretched in front of them and as always they are accompanied by bagpipe music. Shot of border with large notice: 'Scotland Welcomes You'.
American Voice Soon Scotland was full of Scotsmen. The over-crowding was pitiful.
They all dash across harder and then stop abruptly once they're over. They stand around looking lost.
American Voice Three men to a caber.
Cut to three Scotsmen tossing one caber. Cut to Scots wife in bed with bearded husband. Pull back to reveal five other Scotsmen in the bed. Short but brilliant piece of animation from T. Gilliam to show England emptying of people and Scotland filling up, ending with a till sound and a till sign coming up out of England reading: 'Empty'. Track into England. Film of a deserted street. Wind, a dog sniffing, newspaper blowing along street. Close-up sign on shop door 'Gone to lunch Scotland'. Close-up another sign on a shop door.' 'McClosed'. Shop sign: McWoolworths & Co'.
American Voice For the few who remained, life was increasingly difficult.
Man suddenly folds up newspaper and runs round corner. Re-emerges driving bus. Drives it halfway to stop and then leaps out with bus still moving. Runs to stop, and puts out hand. Bus stops. He leaps on, rings bell, runs round to front and drives the bus off again. As bus drives out of frame we just see a couple of Scotsmen flashing past camera with arms outstretched. Pan slowly round empty football stadium. Eventually we pick up a solitary spectator, halfway up and halfway along in stand opposite where the players come out. He suddenly leaps to his feet cheering. Cut to players tunnel and one player emerging and a referee with ball. They kick off. Player goes straight down field and scores.
Spectator disapppointed.
A quick shot of flying saucer again.
Studio: the laboratory again. Charles is looking through microscope, when the door flies open and she bursts in.
She Charles! Thank goodness I've found you! It's mummy!
Charles Hello mummy.
She No, no, mummy's turned into a Scotsman...
Charles Oh how horrible... Will they stop at nothing?
She I don't know - do you think they will?
Charles I meant that rhetorically.
She What does rhetorically mean?
Charles It means, I didn't expect an answer.
She Oh I see. Oh, you're so clever, Charles.
Charles Did mummy say anything as she changed?
She (with an air of tremendous revelation) Yes! she did, now you come to mention it
A long pause as he waits expectantly.
Charles Well, what was it?
She Oh, she said ... 'Them!' (thrilling chord of jangling music and quick zoom into her face) Is there someone at the door?
Charles No ... It's just the incidental music for this scene.
She Oh I see...
Charles 'Them' ... Wait a minute!
She A whole minute?
Charles No, I meant that metaphorically ... 'Them' ... 'Them' ... She was obviously referring to the people who turned her into a Scotsman. If only we knew who 'They' were ... And why 'They' were doing it... Who are 'Them'?
Crashing chord... cut to a small still of a Scottish crofier's cottage on a lonely moor. Slow zoom in on the cottage.
American Voice Then suddenly a clue turned up in Scotland. Mr Angus Podgorny, owner of a Dunbar menswear shop, received an order for 48,000,000 kilts from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda.
Mix to interior of highland menswear shop. An elderly Scottish couple are poring over a letter which they have on the counter. Oil lamps etc.
Mrs Podgorny Angus how are y'going to get 48,000,000 kilts into the van?
Angus I'll have t'do it in two goes.
Mrs Podgorny D'you not ken that the Galaxy of Andromeda is two million, two hundred thousand light years away?
Angus Is that so?
Mrs Podgorny Aye ... and you've never been further than Berwick-on-Tweed...
Angus Aye ... but think o' the money dear ... £18.10.0d a kilt ...that's ... (calculates with abacus) £900,000,000 - and that's without sporrans!
Mrs Podgorny Aye ... I think you ought not to go, Angus.
Angus (with visionary look in his eyes) Aye ... we'd be able to afford writing paper with our names on it... We'd be able to buy that extension to the toilet...
Mrs Podgorny Aye ... but he hasn't signed the order yet, has he?
Angus Who?
Mrs Podgorny Ach ... the man from Andromeda.
Angus Och ... well ... he wasna really a man, d'you ken ...
Creepy music starts to edge in.
Mrs Podgorny (narrowing eyes) Not really a man?
Angus (sweating as the music rises) He was as strange a thing as ever I saw, or ever I hope to see, God willing. He was a strange unearthly creature - a quivering, glistening mass...
Mrs Podgorny Angus Podgorny, what do y'mean?
Angus He wasna so much a man as... a blancmange!
Jarring chord.
Police station: a police sergeant is talking over the counter to a girl dressed in a short frilly tennis dress. She holds a racquet and tennis balls.
Sergeant A blancmange, eh?
Girl Yes, that's right. I was just having a game of doubles with Sandra and Jocasta, Alec and David...
Sergeant Hang on!
Girl What?
Sergeant There's five.
Girl What?
Sergeant Five people . . . how do you play doubles with five people?
Girl Ah, well ... we were...
Sergeant Sounds a bit funny if you ask me ... playing doubles with five people...
Girl Well we often play like that... Jocasta plays on the side receiving service...
Sergeant Oh yes?
Girl Yes. It helps to speed the game up and make it a lot faster, and it means Jocasta isn't left out.
Sergeant Look, are you asking me to believe that the five of you was playing doubles, when on the very next court there was a blancmange playing by itself?.
Girl That's right, yes.
Sergeant Well answer me this then - why didn't Jocasta play the blancmange at singles, while you and Sandra and Alec and David had a proper game of doubles with four people?
Girl Because Jocasta always plays with us. She's a friend of ours.
Sergeant Call that friendship? Messing up a perfectly good game of doubles?
Girl It's not messing it up, officer, we like to play with five.
Sergeant Look it's your affair if you want to play with five people ... but don't go calling it doubles. Look at Wimbledon, right? If Fred Stolle and Tony Roche played Charlie Pasarell and Cliff Drysdale and Peaches Bartcowitz... they wouldn't go calling it doubles.
Girl But what about the blancmange?
Sergeant That could play Ann Haydon-Jones and her husband Pip.
Cut back to Podgorny's shop. He and his wife are frozen in the positions in which we left them. They pick up the conversation as if nothing had happened.
Mrs Podgorny Oh, a blancmange gave you an order for 48,000,000 kilts?
Angus Aye!
Mrs Podgorny And you believed it?
Angus Aye, I did.
Mrs Podgorny Och, you're a stupid man, Angus Podgorny.
Angus (getting a little angry) Oh look woman, how many kilts did we sell last year? Nine and a half, that's all. So when I get an order for 48,000,000, I believe it - you bet I believe it.
Mrs Podgorny Even if it's from a blancmange?
Angus Och, woman, if a blancmange is prepared to come 2,200,000 light years to purchase a kilt, they must be fairly keen on kilts. So cease yer prattling woman and get sewing. This could be the biggest breakthrough in kilts since the Provost of Edinburgh sat on a spike. Mary, we'll be rich! We'll be rich!
Mrs Podgorny Oh, but Angus... he hasna given you an earnest of his good faith!
Angus Ah mebbe not but he has gi' me this... (brings out piece of folded paper from sporran)
Mrs Podgorny What is it now?
Angus An entry form for the British Open Tennis Championships at Wimbledon Toon ... signed and seconded.
Mrs Podgorny Och, but Angus, ye ken full well that Scots folk dinna know how to play the tennis to save their lives.
Angus Aye, but I must go though dear, I dinna want to seem ungrateful.
Mrs Podgorny Ach! Angus, I wilna let you make a fool o'yourself.
Angus But I must.
Mrs Podgorny Och, no you'll not ...
Close-up on Angus.
Angus Oh, Mary... (suddenly we hear a strange creaking and a slurping noise; a look of horror comes into his eyes) Oh, oh, Mary! Look out! Look out!
Big close-up of Mrs Podgorny's eyes starting out from head.
Mrs Podgorny Urrgh. It's the blancmange.
Blur focus.
Cut to a desk for police spokesman. A peaked-capped policeman sits there, reading 'The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire' by Googie Withers. He lowers book and talks chattily to camera.
Policeman Oh, now this is where Mr Podgorny could have saved his wife's life. If he'd gone to the police and told them that he'd been approached by unearthly beings from the Galaxy of Andromeda, we'd have sent a man round to investigate. As it was he did a deal with a blancmange, and the blancmange ate his wife. So if you're going out, or going on holiday, or anything strange happens involving other galaxies, just nip round to your local police station, and tell the sergeant on duty - or his wife - of your suspicions. And the same goes for dogs. So I'm sorry to have interrupted your exciting science fiction story ... but, then, crime's our business you know. So carry on viewing, and my thanks to the BBC for allowing me to have this little chat with you. Goodnight. God bless, look after yourselves.
He is hit on the head by knight in suit of armour with raw chicken.
Cut to CID office: a plainclothes detective is sitting in his office. Podgorny is sobbing.
Detective (softly and understandingly) Do sit down, Mr Podgorny... I... I ... think what's happened is ... terribly ... terribly... funny .... tragic. But you must understand that we have to catch the creature that ate your wife, and if you could help us answer a few questions, we may be able to help save a few lives. I know this is the way your wife would have wanted it.
He is sitting on the desk next to Podgorny. Podgorny with superhuman control makes a great effort to stop sobbing.
Angus Aye ... I'll ... do ... my best, sergeant.
Detective (slapping Podgorny) Detective Inspector!
Angus Er, detective inspector.
Detective (getting up and talking sharply and fast) Now then. The facts are these. You received an order for 48,000,000 kilts from a blancmange from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda ... you'd just shown your wife an entry form for Wimbledon, which you'd filled in... when you turned round and saw her legs disappearing into a blancmange. Is that correct?
Angus Yes, sir.
Detective Are you mad?
Angus No, sir.
Detective Well that's a relief. 'Cos if you were, your story would be less plausible. (detective brings out photograph of blancmange) Now then, do you recognize this?
Angus (with a squeak of fear) Oh yes. That's the one that ate my Mary!
Detective Good. His name's Riley... Jack Riley... He's that most rare of criminals ... a blancmange impersonator and cannibal.
Angus But what about the 48,000,000 kilts and the Galaxy of Andromeda?
Detective I'm afraid that's just one of his stories. You must understand that a blancmange impersonator and cannibal has to use some pretty clever stories to allay suspicion.
Angus Then you mean...
Detective Yes.
Angus But...
Detective How?
Angus Yes.
Detective Well...
Angus Not?
Detective I'm afraid so.
Angus Why?
Detective Who knows?
Angus Do you think?
Detective Could be.
Angus But...
Detective I know.
Angus She was...
Detective Yes.
Suddenly, we hear a strange noise. Angus looks frightened. Detective narrows his eyes and walks over to the door.
Detective Good lord what's that? (he opens the door and we get a close-up of his staring eyes) Ah, Riley! Come to give yourself up have you, Riley? (with sudden fear) Eh Riley? Riley! Riley! It's not Riley!
Eating noises. He is dragged out of camera shot. Refocus on Angus ... he averts his eyes as we hear the detective inspector off-screen.
Detective (off-screen) It's an extra-terrestial being! Agggh!
Jarring chord: Angus shuts his eyes.
Cut back to laboratory: she is sitting suggestively on a stool. He is pacing up and down looking intense.
Charles So, everyone in England is being turned into Scotsmen, right?
She Yes.
Charles Now, which is the worst tennis-playing nation in the world?
She Er ... Australia.
Charles No. Try again.
She Australia?
Charles (testily) No... try again but say a different place.
She Oh, I thought you meant I'd said it badly.
Charles No, course you didn't say it badly. Now hurry.
She Er, Czechoslovakia.
Charles No! Scotland!
She Of course.
Charles Now ... now these blancmanges, apart from the one that killed Mrs Podgorny have all appeared in which London suburb?
She Finchley?
Charles No. Wimbledon ... Now do you begin to see the pattern? With what sport is Wimbledon commonly associated?
She is thinking really hard.
Norman Hackforth (off-screen) For viewers at home, the answer is coming up on your screens. Those of you who wish to play it the hard way, stand upside down with your head in a bucket of piranha fish. Here is the question once again.
Charles With what sport is Wimbledon commonly associated?
SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: 'TENNIS'
She Cricket.
Charles No.
She Pelote?
Charles No. Wimbledon is most commonly associated with tennis.
She Of course! Now I see!
Charles Yes, it all falls into place!
She The blancmangcs are really Australians trying to get the rights of the pelota rules from the Czech publishers!
Charles (heavily) No ... not quite ... but, er, just look in here.
He indicates microscope. As she eagerly bends to look into it he picks up a sock filled with sand and without looking strikes her casually over the head with it. She collapses out of sight under desk. He continues to think out loud.
Charles Yes. So these blancmanges, blancmange-shaped creatures come from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda. They order 48,000,000 kilts from a Scottish menswear shop ... turn the population of England into Scotsmen (well known as the worst tennis-playing nation on Earth) thus leaving England empty during Wimbledon fortnight! Empty during Wimbledon fortnight ... what's more the papers are full of reports of blancmanges appearing on tennis courts up and down the country - practising. This can only mean one thing!
Flash up caption quickly:
Voice Over (and CAPTION)
'THEY MEAN TO WIN WIMBLEDON'
Charles They mean to win Wimbledon!
Cut to commentator in his box.
Commentator Well, here at Wimbledon, it's been a most extraordinary week's tennis. The blancmanges have swept the board, winning match after match. Here are just a few of the results: Billie-Jean King eaten in straight sets, Laver smothered whole after winning the first set, and Poncho Gonzales, serving as well as I've never seen him, with some superb volleys and decisive return volleys off the back hand, was sucked through the net at match point and swallowed whole in just under two minutes. And so, here on the final day, there seems to be no players left to challenge the blancmanges. And this could be their undoing, Dan: as the rules of Wimbledon state quite clearly that there must be at least one human being concerned in the final. (we see a three-foot-high blancmange being shepherded onto a tennis court by a Scotsman) Well the blancmange is coming out onto the pitch now, and (suddenly exalted) there is a human with it. It's Angus Podgorny! The plucky little Scottish tailor ... upon whom everything depends. And so it's Podgorny versus blancmange in this first ever Intergalactic Wimbledon!
Cut to the centre court at Wimbledon or if we can't get it, number one will do. Blancmange and Podgorny on opposite sides net. Another blancmange sitting in umpire's chair. Blancmange serves... a real sizzling ace. Podgorny, who in any case is quivering with fear, doesn't see it.
Commentator's Voice And it's blancmange to serve and it's a good one.
Blancmange Umpire Blurb blurble blurb.
Voice Over Fifteen love.
Blancmange serves again, and again Podgorny misses hopelessly and pathetically. Collage of speeded-up versions of blancmange sewing and Podgorny missing. Cut to scoreboard:

BLANCMANGE: 40
PODGORNY: 0

Cut back to the court. Podgorny is serving and each time he fails to hit the ball altogether.
Commentator's Voice And Podgorny fails to even hit the ball ... but this is no surprise as he hasn't hit the ball once throughout this match. So it's 72 match points to the blancmange now... Podgorny prepares to serve again.
Podgorny fails to serve and we see the scoreboard:

BLANCMANGE: 6 6 5 40
PODGORNY: 0 0

Commentator's Voice This is indeed a grim day for the human race, Dan.
Just as Podgorny is about to serve we see Mr and Mrs Brainsample jump onto the court brandishing forks and spoons and with napkins tucked into their necks.
Commentator's Voice But what's this? Two spectators have rushed onto the pitch with spoons and forks... what are they going to do?
Cut to laboratory.
Charles They mean to eat the blancmange.
The girl pulls herself up from where she was slumped by microscope. He knocks her out again with a sand-filled sock. Cut back to Wimbledon. Mr and Mrs Brainsample chasing blancmange and eating it.
Commentator's Voice And they're eating the blancmange ... Yes! The blancmange is leaving the court... it's abandoning the game! This is fantastic!
Cut to Mr and Mrs Brainsample covered in bits of blancmange and licking their fingers.
American Voice Yes it was Mr and Mrs Samuel Brainsample, who, after only a brief and misleadling appearance in the early part of the film, returned to save the Earth ... but why?
Mr Brainsample Oh, well you see we love blancmanges. My wife makes them.
American Voice She makes blancmanages that size?
Mr Brainsample Oh, yes. You see we're from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda, and they're all that size there. We tried to tell you at the beginning of the film but you just panned off us.
Cut back to Podgorny on court still trying to serve; at last he makes contact and runs backward and forward to receive his own services.
American Voice So the world was saved! And Angus Podgorny became the first Scotsman to win Wimbledon... fifteen years later.

Raiding the BBC Archives: DRM, iPlayer, and other things

2010-02-02T14:55:00.007Z

Anyone familiar with UK TV knows that the powers that be were terrible about archiving shows. It was common UK television practice up until the late 1970s to destroy videotapes because of agreements with actors' and musicians' unions that limited the number of repeats. Fortunately, the policy of wiping recordings ceased in 1978. When Peter Cook learned the series Not Only... But Also was to be destroyed, he offered to buy the tapes from the BBC but was refused because of copyright issues. He then suggested that he purchase new tapes, so that the BBC would have no need to erase the originals, but inexplicably this was also turned down. We are fortunate that some series managed to survive this dark period of ignorance. I believe that some programmes, such as Doctor Who and the Goon Show managed to survive because the tapes were shipped to other countries that were more enlightened regarding archiving (e.g., Canada and Australia).

This wasn't just a UK problem since Lathe of Heaven had various issues regarding its rebroadcast, this was despite it being the most requested PBS programme of all time. Even the remake had to have the Beatles "A Little help from My Friends" redone to enable the show's rerelease. WNET has not said how much it cost to re-release Lathe of Heaven, stating simply that it "wasn't cheap," and that hopefully royalties would help recoup the expense.

Anyway, This comes from one issue I have with iPlayer: they don't archive the shows for very long. The 7 day limit is annoying: especially when they rebroadcast the show. Also, the rebroadcast of Hamlet was in standard def rather than hi-def. The good folks at the Beeb have said that they are making the quality of standard programmes better, which they are. But, hi-def is indeed much clearer, which is important when you are watching the programme on a 1080p 37" LCD-TV! Also, some of the later archived versions of iPlayer vids are signed.

Being signed is acceptable if you are deaf, but it's a bit like watching someone playing charades for those who do not sign. This is especially true since the interpreters tend to emote whilst signing. It could be worse, the described programmes for the blind are a bit annoying as well. The Goons used to point out the advantage of the radio for using your imagination. As they would say "try doing that on Television" after some bizarre description of their activities.

You can find Goon Show Scripts here:
http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_alpha.asp
If you are too cheap to buy the books.

The next annoyance is DRM, which isn't limited to iPlayer. Neither is it really relevant since there are ways to get around that nonsense. It seems to me that these people could make more money by allowing people to subscribe to the iPlayer service and download away. Better yet, get rid of the geographic restrictions on this material anyway since that can be circumvented as well.

It's a bit like the cartoon where the person is saying "Not many people pirate CDs of Buxtehude" (although I did hear that Tallis's Spem in Alium was pirated as Spam in Allium, or Spam in Garlic in translation--not sure if that was a joke or not after this reference). How many people are going to pirate Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys? Anyway, it seems that regional encoding has gone the way of the Dodo with blu-ray since people who want to watch programmes such as Michael Portillo's Great British Railway Journeys will do so.

Never underestimate a determined Anorak!

“Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?”

2010-02-02T13:03:00.003Z

Thanks to DC weasels:

Very funny video from The Onion. Funny excerpt:

“We should just put corporations in office and cut out the middleman.”

In The Know: Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?

Thanks, but a little too realistic for my tastes.

The New Toy

2010-01-31T18:26:00.003Z

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

2010-01-29T23:43:00.006Z

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?

2010-01-29T18:04:00.005Z

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

2010-01-29T17:10:00.016Z

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

2010-01-28T18:28:00.013Z

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

2010-01-27T19:12:00.003Z

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

2010-01-26T16:47:00.007Z

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

2010-01-25T20:22:00.005Z

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

2010-01-25T13:00:00.006Z

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

2010-01-25T03:01:00.010Z

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

2010-01-22T17:04:00.009Z

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

2010-01-22T13:10:00.003Z

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!

2010-01-21T20:57:00.010Z

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

2010-01-21T13:47:00.009Z

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?

2010-01-20T20:37:00.006Z

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

2010-01-20T18:15:00.006Z

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,

2010-01-20T08:31:00.017Z

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

2010-01-20T08:31:00.004Z

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.

2010-01-19T21:17:00.017Z

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...

2010-01-19T19:11:00.003Z

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

2010-01-19T19:01:00.002Z

Courtesy of Viz Comic

Gastro pubs

2010-01-19T18:29:00.005Z

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.

2010-01-18T23:40:00.018Z

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

2010-01-18T16:21:00.003Z

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.

2010-01-18T13:33:00.011Z

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

2010-01-17T20:12:00.005Z

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

2010-01-17T18:43:00.020Z

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

2010-01-16T17:56:00.010Z

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

2010-01-16T17:39:00.002Z

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!

2010-01-16T17:26:00.003Z

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

2010-01-16T15:28:00.005Z

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...

2010-01-16T03:39:00.006Z

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

2010-01-16T03:20:00.005Z

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

2010-01-15T17:45:00.014Z

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?

A Message from the Founders.

2010-01-13T23:51:00.017Z

Dateline: Philadelphia, PA 13 Jan 2010.

Amazed tourists at Carpenters' Hall were surprised by the sudden appearance of a blue box marked "Police Public Call Box". Even more astounding was the appearance of 56 men in colonial dress from the box along with two men in modern dress and a small white dog.

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".

Another man later identified as Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death. To claim that the Second Amendment gives you such a right is ludicrous. It was all about Standing Armies, we rebelled against standing armies. And those people who identify themselves as Teaparties have no idea what we were doing. I disown them."

All reiterated what the man identified as John Adams who said that "It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. If firearms prove mischievious to public safety, they should be banned." Adams reiterated the comment about Standing Armies.

All expressed a disgust for the interference of religion in politics. A man identified as George Washington said; "The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. To say that the United States is a Christian nation over a Moslem or Jewish nation is repugnant: it is a secular society."

The General consensus was that they were much better off under Britain and any thoughts of Independence were mere "wills-o'-the-Wisp". We intended to not have a standing army and the expense encumbant upon such an institution, yet people who claim to hate tyranny support it. They were amazed that modern Americans could agree to be taxed to support what the founders believed was tyranny: "How can one fight a war against Afghanistan, Iraq, or Balnibarbi when they pose no real threat to security?" They expressed shock that the British people had inquiries into these events, yet Americans blindly followed without question.

"The Tories are correct." one said, "True Britons shall never be slaves or submit to tyrrany. What Americans have become is not worthy of our efforts or our blood."

The New Survivors

2010-01-13T20:49:00.003Z

I've Mentioned the original Terry Nation Series before along with the remake. The original version is one of my fav programmes of all time since I fantasise about living in that world in my more misanthropic moments.

Anyway, the Beeb has begun to run the Second Series of the remake. I have to admit a curiousity since they left the first series as a cliff hanger. Not that it was a really exciting cliff hanger, but it did have me curious as to what was happening. I would have been screaming at Tom Price for wasting ammo as he shot in Derek's direction ("you don't have a good shot, dimbo"). But this Tom Price is supposed to be sociopathic.

Anyway.

I like how the site boasts an interview with the creator of Survivors: No, not Terry Nation--Adrian Hodges.

Hodges didn't create Survivors, he made a crappy remake of the series. Series two is total crap with no continuity between the two seasons (what happened to Derek?). And, yes, it is an evil pharmceutical firm that caused the "plague".

Give me a break.

It had to happen

2010-01-13T17:16:00.004Z

Even in real life, I prefer to be low key. That means I like to avoid the press as much as possible. Although, I did see my court artist drawn picture in one high profile case on the local news, which I bought and have hanging in my guest bedroom. Also, I was quoted making a disparaging comment about a celebrity case's defense, which is archived in the Newspaper's website. Fortunately, later versions changed the attribution to a courthouse wag (thank you).

Unfortunately, I thought I had a quiet guilty plea for my client. Somehow, this case gathered attention from the press because I was accosted by a reporter as I left the Court.

I told him to piss off. Of course, I said it in a more polite manner: "I don't speak to the press!"

Him: "pretty please"
Me: No

This really got my wick.

I was going to rant about how people don't understand the criminal justice system since this client has a doctorate and didn't understand his basic rights. So, I shouldn't be too amazed that the average Joe Bloggs doesn't understand the law.

Well, I do blog for my own amusement.

Complaint

2010-01-13T12:51:00.002Z

Somebody tagged this blog "The History and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship", which really wasn't my intent when this started. Somehow, I have become an "expert" in this field for the Civic Right side.

So it goes.

My Third Amendment rights have been violated!

2010-01-12T17:41:00.015Z

One of the dumber arguments about the Second Amendment's importance is that it is Second. Using that logic, shouldn't the Third Amendment be pretty significant?

OK, quick, tell me what does the Third Amendment say? It was one of the Complaints that was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. That should make it significant: shouldn't it???

And back to the "It's third in line" argument. Third place will get you a bronze medal in the Olympics as well as other awards. You can collect if your horse comes in third if you place a "show" bet, but you get paid the "show payoff" even if your horse comes in First.

Well, here it is:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

You can find out how important the founders thought this Amendment was by going here.

They even have where this was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which also mentioned the issue of "Standing Armies".

So, the Third Amendment is not unrelated the Second Amendment which was intended to prevent a Federal Standing Army. I guess that means "the Third Amendment protects the Second" to rip off another stupid "gun rights" comment.

And Sorry, Gun Cretins or Gun Loons, but I HAVE read the history of the Second Amendment and related PRIMARY SOURCES to come to the conclusion that the Civic right interpretation is the correct one for the Second Amendment. But that's not my point here.

My point is that up until the 1930s, the Second and Third Amendments had the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Screw that, they HAVE the least Supreme Court Jurisprudence with 5 cases for the Second Amendment and NONE for the Third. Mostly because it's hard as heck to misinterpret the Third Amendment (unlike the Second).

Although, it provides a great justification for the "Castle Doctrine" using Story:

§ 1893. This provision speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. The billetting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the petition of right (3 Charles I.), it was declared by parliament to be a great grievance.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1893

Actually, it's funny to read the primary sources on the Third Amendment, which really shouldn't be neglected: especially if you are going to argue the Civic Right Interpretation of the Second. This is because there IS a reason this is third, and it is related to the Second Amendment in that they both relate to the issue of standing armies and civilian control over the military, which was far more important that personal firearm ownership to the founders.

For more information on the History of the Third Amendment, try visiting:

* Tom W. Bell, The Third Amendment: Forgotten but Not Gone, 2 William & Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993).
* Willaim S. Fields and David T. Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 (1991).

I think you will find an aversion to the maintenance of Standing Armies and civilian control over the military are common threads in Anglo-American history along with the history of other British Colonies. As other former British Colonies show, there was no common law concept of "gun rights" outside of militia duty.

Actually, it has been pointed out to me that the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) gives service members certain special rights to terminate leases without penalty as well as to avoid eviction. Qualifying service members can also have their mortgages modified to cap the interest at 6%. The SSCRA makes no provision for just compensation to be made to the private parties who suffer the costs of its provisions; effectively, the owners of the affected properties have to bear all the costs.

So, join in the efforts of the Third Amendment Center in protecting this most important of rights! Fight the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA)!

Second Amendment--You go girl!

2010-01-11T22:04:00.010Z

Thanks to MikeB for pointing out that Lisa Madigan is going to not play dead the way Walter Dellinger did (Dave Dellinger was one of the Chicago Seven). As I said in my comment to Mike's post, I point out the irony that the Second Amendment was to protect the States from Federal interference every chance I can get

I am glad that someone is willing to argue proper history in this matter and it's Illinois' Attorney General Lisa Madigan McDonald. Dellinger blew it in the Heller oral arguments because he forgot that precedent was on his side.

Yes, the Second Amendment was to protect against Federal Tyranny: in the form of an overblown military budget (why does no one seem to talk about the Standing Army issue?).

Yes, the Founders wanted local legislative power to control their own affairs. That's what the no taxation without representation bit was about.

DC was screwed by the Supremes.

The next question: how do you argue with historically ignorant justices?

I wish you all the best! Intelligent Women are soooo Sexy!

The Illinois AG's brief can be read here.

Environazis

2010-01-07T18:10:00.012Z

There is a sort of smugness that comes from living a green lifestyle, but these are the people who go the extra 10 (100?) kilometres toward "reducing their carbon footprint". Somehow, they manage to make you feel like you are living an environmentally unfriendly lifestyle because you:

* Don't go on holiday via astral projection (reducing your Carbon Footprint by not driving a car or, even worse, flying)
* boil the water in the electric kettle more than once (these people even have solar powered kettles).
* have any non-compact florescent bulbs in your house
* your form of transportation has any connection to fossil fuels or electricity (even if it's electric or a bicycle--rubber on the tyres)
* you throw anything into the trash and it isn't reused in some way.
* the food you ate required any energy to raise, transport, or what have you (you should photsyntesise instead of eat).
* Don't get your power from people on bicycles
* Even have a carbon footprint for that matter

I think you get the picture.

BBC's Bang Goes the Theory had an episode that was along this line called The Human Power Station. In this episode they powered a house for an entire day solely through human pedal power: while the unsuspecting family inside went about their normal Sunday routine. The clip below shows what happened when the father used an ELECTRIC SHOWER: malus malorum!

This programme rubbed in how wasteful our lifestyle is (yes, you who double boil that water!) by roasting a chicken with two 60 watt bulbs. Of course, watching 80 people pedal all day to power a house makes the point of how much energy we use. We don't realise how much literal power is needed to push our appliances. Bang did do this in a manner that was entertaining even if it did make you feel guilty for the incandescent bulbs in the fridge and cooker (do they have compact florescent bulbs (CFLs) for those yet?).

You might be able to download this episode here and it does make for fascinating viewing. Although, there were points when I wanted to roast the presenters on a solar cooker because they made me feel guilty for "wasting energy" by merely existing.

Now, I need to find some people willing to power our houses by bicycle.

I love John Oliver!

2010-01-07T14:01:00.004Z

Another man working to the same agenda as I do!

John Oliver's New York Stand-Up Show Item

Friday 11pm / 10c

Stand-Up: John Oliver - Don't Ask, Don't Tell

www.comedycentral.com

Joke of the Day

Stand-Up Comedy

Free Online Games

Get in touch with me so we can work out our plans.

The difference between the US and UK

2010-01-06T23:34:00.004Z

In the US, a DC cop threatened people who threw a snowball at him with a gun.

In the UK, we have had snow and loads of snowball fights. No firearms have been used.

End time delusions

2010-01-06T17:30:00.019Z

FORD PREFECT: Six pints of bitter and quickly please. The world’s about to end.
BARMAN: Oh...yes, sir, nice weather for it. Going to watch the match this afternoon?
FORD PREFECT: No, no point.
BARMAN: Foregone conclusion you reckon sir. Arsenal without a chance?
FORD PREFECT: No it’s just that the world’s going to end.
BARMAN: Ah yes you said. Lucky escape for Arsenal if it did.
Douglas Adams: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe

This topic is really big and has been around since the start of Christianity. I was going to say since Jesus died, but I don't think he existed for loads of reasons. Even more certainly, the end times will not come in the way these millenialists claim.

To copy from the Wilderness preacher: "In his warning about the false prophets, Jesus says to these sign-seeking disciples that the events we interpret as signs of the end are always happening and will continue to happen. They are not signs that the end is here, and if some are preaching this, they are false prophets who will lead us astray."

The message that the false prophets of the end times have is that the world is ending, so let’s not only look for the signs of the apocalypse, let’s also hurry things along. Let’s forget about seeking good in the world, making peace in the world, and improving our world. Let’s focus our attention on how quickly we can cause the world to end.

Uh, isn't that for God to take care of, not some idiot human beings?

These people are the Christian Zionists. The people who urge support for Israel. This is because Israel plays a significant role in their bizarre "Christian" end-time theology. Indeed, these prophets equate the modern state of Israel with the Biblical New Jerusalem. They preach that America must support Israel’s desire to hold on to confiscated land in order to be on God’s side, despite the atrocities the Israeli government may carry out against the Palestinians, or even US citizens. Nevermind that Torah Scholars point out that only "G-d" can form the true Eretz Israel, not man. I guess "Jesus's" covenant changes all that.

The prophets of Doom most egregious theological error is that the world will end in an apocalyptic battle in the Middle East, when Muslim nations will attack Israel and the world will erupt in a cataclysmic war to end all wars. Indeed, many of them express joy as they salivate over the prospects of an end-time war. The desire for this war is what creates an instability in the middle east and the hope that the US will go to fight this war. Nevermind that one of the criteria that there would be two powers, Gog and Magog, that would fight this war.

This fascination in the rapture in some circles has led to a gospel that is not socially conscious, but detrimental to society. They fixate on idea of a rapture, which will take place at a point in time in which Christians will somehow disappear from earth, apparently teleporting to heaven much like a scene out of Star Trek. The idea is that Christians will be taken from earth before things get really bad. The Left Behind series demonstrates this belief that Christians will not have to live through the mess they created for the rest of us by failing to address, or exacerbating, social problems.

But, as I stated before, this belief has been around since the beginning of Christianity. Strangely enough, it has been called Premillenialism or Millennialism even though Christ lived two millenia ago. John Calvin wrote in Institutes that millennialism is a "fiction" that is "too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation." Furthermore, Chritianity's history is full of stories of people who have predicted this age only to stand waiting on a hill with nothing happening. Either they go back to recalculate the date of the "End"or realise that the "end times" are merely folly.

Yet, like the myth of gun rights, the concept of the "end times" receives a lot of bandwidth on the internet. The coming of 2012 and the fact that the Mayan Calendar ends in that year. Nevermind that astronomers such as Philip Plait have stated very clearly that the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012 at all, that it is like the odometer on your car, as each section of the odometer reaches 9 and then clicks over to 0, the next number to it starts a new cycle, so that when all the numbers again reach 0 all the way across the odometer - the last number will change from 1 to 2 and the new cycle starts all over again.

There are some 50 million Evangelicals in the US who believe in this "literal truth of Bible prophecy". You can argue theological accuracy all you want. This massive block of citizens possesses unshakable belief that the end of the world will be heralded by a series of prophetic events some of which have occurred (e.g., 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina), some of which are ongoing (e.g., the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and some that they are working fast and furious to cause or exacerbate (e.g., global warming and the financial crisis).

Of course, the refrain of "the World is going to End" is like the boy who screamed wolf. We've heard it so much that we are like Douglas Adams' Barman that we remain blase as someone repeats it. The problem isn't so much that these people are deluded as much as that they are working to create a mess of the world, which really isn't very Christian behaviour. In fact, this mindset creates a very sick and nasty gospel that turns people from the message of Christ (if he existed).

Of course, his real name was יְהוֹשֻׁעַ or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (if he existed), which is Yeshua, or Joshua: not Jesus. So, how can you have a personal relationship with the guy if you call him the same name as your Mexican gardener? So, don't come around and tell me I need to have a personal relationship with him since I already do.

He's one of my wife's family and they are all meshugga!

Editorial note: I support Chelsea.

More musing on Benedict Arnold

2010-01-05T16:17:00.010Z

I have to admit a fascination with Benedict Arnold since his efforts helped to push forward the agenda he later described as "sinister views at the expence of the public interest". Arnold's military victories against the British, in particular the victory at Saratoga, helped to secure the French aid he so despised. It also raises the question of how many citizens were aware of the machinations that went on during the War for Independence? I have often mentioned French Involvement in this war as a contrast to the fighting farmer militiaman one is given to believe fought the war.

How many were "duped" into believing that the War for Independence was beneficial or necessary? How many would have preferred Union to independence yet remained silent? what would have been the outcome had Arnold supported Union and the Tory cause?

Arnold mentions in his letter that "we raised arms against a brother". I am assuming that he means England,but the War for Independence was a civil war. Are the Loyalists the people Arnold refers to as "the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion"? What if Arnold has cast his lot with those who argued for restraint in dealing with their grievances with the motherland?

There is a part of me who sees two possible methods of defeating the rebels: military and civil. The civil method would have been to find those who were inclined toward the motherland and keep them informed of the overatures by people such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the French. Would John Adams, who defended Captain Preston and his men, be inclined to a slow and reasoned approach with the motherland that would have sustained Union?

To be quite honest, when I see what has happened in this country, I am sure that many who supported Independence would regret that action. Benedict Arnold demonstrates that I don't need to travel far into the future to see evidence of this. As George Washington said about Shays' Rebellion:

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."

I also find it interesting that another supporter of Independence, Samuel Chase, said: “our republican Constitution will sink to Mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments”. This statement is even more interesting in light of the "tea party" movement. Unfortunately (or fortunately), most colonials were not supportive of the original Tea Party's wanton destruction of property.

It seems that people can be affected by events even if they hope to remain neutral. Unfortunately, you've got to fuck up royally to admit you made a mistake after wasting lives in a war.

Orgasm gun

2010-01-05T12:48:00.005Z

Sedate me mentioned this in regard to Orgazmo at Cousin Avi's post about Mormons

I think these guns are great items for personal defence: shoot someone and they start cumming!

A couple of spiritual good deals

2010-01-04T21:20:00.011Z

It seems that one doesn't need to convert to Judaism to get the benefits since it seems there are a couple of categories one can fall into to receive the benefits: Noachide and ger toshav. The last is a kind of green card to the "nation of Israel" that is applied to someone who has married a Jew, or otherwise lives amongst them, but hasn't converted. It seems that only Jews are stuck with being the Chosen People, which seems to be that they do the spiritual scutwork for those of us who aren't Jews.

But for some odd reason some Jews say in their aleinu: shelo asani goy "thank you for not making me a gentile".

The more I know about Judaism, the odder that sounds. We dumb goys are not Chosen to be paragons of virtue, or at least try to be. Naw, it's the Jews who have to keep kosher, keep the 613 mitzvot, and say at least 100 blessings a day!

The next super deal is retroactive, or proxy, baptism. The Mormons will baptise you after you're dead and then give you the option of becoming a Mormon. So, if you are sitting in Hell, someone comes along and tells you that you have been proxy baptised so that you can be a Mormon and go to heaven. I hope they add the bit about Heaven includes polygamous sex when they tell you that you can go there.

So, you don't need to be a Mormon in this life to benefit! Not a bad deal. In fact, you are sitting in Hell, if the Mormons are correct, when you get this option of accepting their baptism. I am not sure how you learn of this when you are dead, but I know full fucking well that I am going to accept that "ordinance". I mean I am in Hell when they break this news to me.

So, it sounds like you can slide through life if you are willing to do the minimum of goodness requisite to be a Noachide or Ger Toshav. And failing that, you can choose to become a Mormon in the afterlife and reap all the bennies (polygamous sex!).

Works for me!

In celebration of a pagan midwinter rite...

2010-01-04T20:05:00.006Z

This clip is from Doctor Who: The End of Time (Part I). I like the fact that they describe Christmas as being a "pagan rite to banish the cold and the dark" and nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

I figured I would post it since it is still within the 12 Days of Christmas.

I have never gotten away from using that term for the 12 day midwinter feast even though there are viable, and much more appropriate, alternatives.

Retroactive Baptism

2010-01-03T22:56:00.014Z

Cousin Avi had a debate with a Mormon missionary about this topic where he: "mentioned that I was a little offput by the Mormon’s posthumous baptism of Jews killed in the camps."

Well, it seems my extremely distant cousin was correct: "Baptism for the dead does not change anything for the person unless they choose to accept that ordinance. It simply makes it possible for the dead to accept baptism if they want it. It's entirely their choice."

It's not forcing dead people to accept Mormonism: it gives them a choice if they are dead.

Unfortunately, the most important fact about this topic seems to be left out: the polygamous sex in the afterlife! I hope that when they tell Rabbi Nachman of Breslau that he has been converted and he is sitting in hell that he has the option of spending the rest of eternity in hell, or spending it in a mormon heaven of blonde shiksas who will have polygamous sex with him.

I'm fairly sure the wise Rebbe would have no problem making up his mind as to what he would choose in that situation.

Anyway, this is a bit like Descartes belief on God, there may not be one, but it doesn't hurt to believe. So, Mormons may be way off, but I know what I'm gonna choose if they are right. How could you pass up polygamous sex in the afterlife with Marie Osmond and Debbie Fields if they are willing to do things that would make pornstars such as Juli Ashton blanche?

And God proves his love by giving me a chance to accept it after I've seen he's right.

Now, that's what I call Heaven!

A really good source on this topic is:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml

So, don't knock it if they are baptising holocaust victims. Shouldn't they have chance at a heaven of polygamous sex with hot and horny shiksas?

JadeGold

2010-01-03T21:24:00.003Z

I thought I stirred things up, but this person is out to really make waves. Enough so that someone has actually created a blog to find JadeGold!

My!

Naturally, I like this person!

Nothing like stirring up the blogosphere.

For Zorro

2010-01-03T18:12:00.002Z

Kill my dog, asshole, and you'll wish there was a fucking gun ban! Although, I don't need a gun to kick your sorry arse.

Anyway, I'd want you to fucking live so I can make your death slooowww and equisitely painful befitting a coward of your ilk who would dare countenance harming my faithful friend.

Of course you don't blog because your opinions aren't worthy of wiping Laci's arse.

Benedict Arnold--A true Patriot

2010-01-03T16:59:00.018Z

I have to admit a love for alternative history: the big what if? Stuff like Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga, and Redcoats' Revenge: An Alternate History of the War of 1812. A part of this comes from my conviction that the founders would not have fought the war for American Independence if they saw the ultimate outcome, especially in terms of how the United States has turned out. One can read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence and find that the Tories were correct when they said they would "rather be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants less than a mile away" since many of those grievances still exist.

But does one even need to go beyond the period of the War for American Independence to find proof of my conviction? Benedict Arnold was a strong believer in the Independence movement: whhich included spending his own money toward that effort. His numerous military victories for the Independence movement have been discounted based upon his "treason". Likewise, the reasons for his "treason" have been clouded over and covered with selfish reasons, although I have heard that one reason was that he was opposed to the Alliance with France. Other reasons are that he was disapppointed with Congress.

I have found the text of a letter he wrote to the American Public about his "treason" and it appears to confirm my opinion:

A very few words, however, shall suffice upon a subject so personal; for to the thousands who suffer under the tyranny of the usurpers in the revolted provinces, as well as to the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion, this instance of my conduct can want no vindication; and as to the class of men who are criminally protracting the war from sinister views at the expence of the public interest, I prefer their enmity to their applause. I am, therefore, only concerned in this address, to explain, myself to such of my countrymen, as want abilities, or opportunities, to detect the artifices by which they are duped...

With the highest satisfaction I bear testimony to my old fellow soldiers and citizens, that I find solid ground to rely upon the clemency of our Sovereign, and abundant conviction that it is the generous intention of Great Britain not only to leave the rights and privileges of the colonies unimpaired, together with their perpetual exemption from taxation, but to superadd such further benefits as my consist with the common prosperity of the empire. In short, I fought for much less than the parent country is as willing to grant to her colonies as they can be to receive or enjoy.

Some may think I continued in the struggle of these unhappy days too long, and others that I quitted it too soon-- To the first I reply, that I did not see with their eyes, nor perhaps had so favourable a situation to look from, and that to our common master I am willing to stand or fall. In behalf of the candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly--in the bands I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their own safety before it is too late; and with respect to that herd of censurers, whose enmity to me originates in their hatred to the principles by which I am now led to devote my life to the re-union of the British empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured, that concious of the rectitude of my intentions; I shall treat their malice and calumnies with contempt and neglect.

The problem with the War for American Independence is that it was a civil war, but it needed a pretense of righteousness to cover the fact that it was a dirty war: Us v. them. But many of "them" were also colonials (e.g., Tenche Coxe)! Unfortunately, Arnold, like another of my pantheon: Banastre Tarleton, were on the losing side and make lovely bogeymen and scapegoats in the American Myth factory which posits that ordinary people rose up to fight a foreign enemy. Never mind that the war was between three (or more) well-trained armies and Arnold was able to live out his days and died in London. The picture at the top of this piece comes from the house where he lived out his days in peace.

I would love to attribute Arnold's actions to prescience since I find it very interesting how he confirms my belief that those who supported Independence would be tremendously disappointed with how this country has turned out. If hindsight is 20-20, how many supporters of Independence would have supported insurrection over reason as the answer to their woes? Or to again quote Samuel Adams:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

And ask doesn't the precedent of rebellion sanction that as a method of change: whether against a king or a republic? Was that a precedent that should be kept or does that lead to another form of tyranny?

Gawd, what wimps!

2009-12-29T20:49:00.009Z

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

And I should add hypocrital motherfuckers. Shoot a few of them or destroy a couple of their buildings and they run and hide. I mean, how many towns were burnt by the British before and after 1776? (A: None prior to 1776, Fairfield and Norwalk (CT) in 1779. The traitors burned Norfolk, VA on 11 Dec 1775)

The problem with the British was that they were too fucking nice during the War for Independence (except for Bann the man and maybe a few others). Then, the bratty colonists go running to the frogs for help. Actually, both sides (tory and traitor) were pretty wimpy in that regard: so, I shouldn't give grief just to the traitors. On the other hand, if the British had been a little more diligent in kicking arse, as Bann the Man did, we might not be in the mess we are right now.

Yeah, let's see how quickly the yanks would go to war if they knew they could get their noses bloody.

Let's just invade somewhere we can beat: Grenada is a great idea! We could possibly beat them.

The good point to gay marriage

2009-12-28T20:38:00.004Z

The crowd that dislikes gay marriage haven't caught on to one super advantage: it gives you something to talk to your gay relatives. I have about zip in common with my gay nephew.

Until I realised I can now ask him if he is going to get married!

Yeah! Have you thought about getting married? Now that you can get married why don't you meet a respectable young man and get married?

I wonder if they can be house husbands if they have no real skills like my nephew? He is a massage school dropout. Incredibly intelligent and can work in a bookstore.

But does gay marriage give him the option of being a stay at home spouse?

Munir Hussain

2009-12-22T02:27:00.021Z

This is the BBC News Story on Munir Hussain from the 6 O'Clock News 21-12-09. Actually, the Beeb has a couple of good pieces on this subject with clips that play outside the UK here and here

(finally the effing thing has been posted. It's taken half a day to do so. Shit, only one second posted the first time.Half the audio came through in the second go. I hope three's a charm! Nope, had to do it through youtube)

Tuesday's Guardian also has an editorial on this case. This case has become a conservative cause célèbre. Except when push comes to shove, the Conservatives aren't around to vote on the issue. The last time this came to a vote (2005) Chris Grayling and other MPs who "supported householders" were absent (see clip above).

Also, The fact that Hussain's sentence was reduced by half because of the self-defence mitigation seems to be lost in this discourse. Hussain could have been sentenced to five years, but instead received a 30 month sentence (2 1/2 years). Additionally, Hussein precluded the trial of the man he attacked by beating the person and giving him brain damage: it doesn't make much sense to try someone who does not understand what is going on (i.e., diminshed capacity).

Also, the Spectator has an article on this topic as well: The politics of self-defence.

This was the Times' take on the subject:

But the court of public opinion should reflect on the crucial distinction betweeen sympathy and legality. It is not hard to understand why Hussain, after watching burglars ransack his house and tie down his family at knife point, should have responded with violence of his own. But an eye for an eye is not the law — and with good reason. Victims of burglaries do not have the right to assume the role of judge and jury, still less an avenging vigilante.

The argument “Would you have done the same?” merits the simple answer: “If so, it would have been right that I should have been punished under the law for having done so.” One facet of a civilised society is that justice is meted out by juries and judges, not by victims at the scene of the crime.

Pandering to public opinion after the sentencing of Hussain might appeal to the electorate’s baser instincts. But it will not improve the criminal justice system. Sympathy for those who take justice into their own hands is one thing; the law is quite another. Politicians should understand the difference.

And while we are at it, the Times also has an article about the proposed “grossly disproportionate” standard.

Meanwhile, in the US, a police officer pulls a gun on snowball throwers. Funny, but people bitched when British soldiers did the same thing in Boston. Figure that one out for yourselves if you're so bloody smart.

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites!

The Second Amendment in Art!

2009-12-21T22:55:00.010Z

This is Charles Henry Granger's Muster Day which is in the National Gallery in Washington, DC. There is another version of this at the located at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia.

Many able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were a members of the militia under the militia act of 1792. The annual muster day accomplished actual enrollment of the members into their units.

Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment's muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.

"Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’" --Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834

Exemptions to Militia service were:

Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states"notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."

Or as the quote goes: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).

So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. Thie was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.

Now, they demand the right without the obligation encumbent to that right.