Wiseguy is in my opinion one of the greatest series in the history of network television. If you have time to watch this episode, you are in for a treat. It's the story of Vinnie Terranova, an undercover agent for the OCB (Organized Crime Bureau) working undercover to investigate the Mafia family run by Sonny Steelgrave.
Vinnie is conflicted. He had to spend a number of months in a federal prison in order to establish his cover as a mob thug. He can't reveal his cover to anyone, not even his beloved mother, who has at this point all but disowned him, and who is suffering from an incurable progressive heart condition.
The is the premiere episode of the series, in its entirety, divided up into four segments/ Courtesy of New Video Digital.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Mark Williams-Kicked Out Of Tea Party-But Why Again?
The Tea Party Federation has kicked out Mark Williams, and since his group the Tea Party Express will not follow suit, they are out of the federation as well. The stated reason has to do with a satirical post Williams posted on his blog which he has since removed. The real reason might not be so apparent, obvious though it is to some insiders. I'll go into that at the end. But first-
The Tea Party Federation is a loose organization of groups of individuals who are against increased taxes, burdensome government regulations, and further growth of big government. Their main focus is on spending deficits and the national debt, though your mileage may vary thanks to other additives, be it Christian Conservatives, Libertarians, or national defense hawks.
How do you fight something like that? Well, if you're the NAACP, you accuse them of racism, of course. It's a tried and true tactic that has worked well in the past, and unfortunately, this time is no different. Last Sunday, on Face The Nation, David Webb, spokesman for the Tea Party Federation, played defense against the accusations of Benjamin Jealous, Chairman of the NAACP, over accusations which conservative pundit George Will has described as "left-wing McCarthyism".
Webb in the course of his appearance announced that Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams would no longer be a part of the movement, and further stated it would disassociate from the Tea Party Express.
ROUND ONE-NAACP
With this move, the Tea-Party Federation has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt one charge that is constantly hurled at them. They are, after all, a Republican organization. It's impossible to find a bigger wuss than people who cave in to unmerited charges of racism by firing a leader for expressing, however clumsily, what is after all a pretty prevalent attitude among not just the Tea Party, but a broad segment of Americans, including Independents. Yet, Webb seems willing to go along with a vague plan to appear with Jealous in a series of Town-Hall meetings. Of course, Jealous congratulated Webb on removing those racists from their ranks, and encouraged Webb to "keep up the good work" in what has to be seen as a purge almost worthy of Stalin.
In the meantime, Ben Jealous ignores the rants of New Black Panther leaders who express such sentiments as "crackers should be killed" and that they should "kill cracker babies". Cracker, of course, is a pejorative term for white people. Yet Jealous justifies this lapse due to the Black Panthers not being members of his group. So then, the Tea-Party is? Bullshit! If a group of fourteen whites, of any affiliation or none, expressed the desire to "kill niggers" and "jigaboo babies", all hell would break loose, and Jealous would be at the forefront of demanding some kind of prosecution for terrorist threats. incitement to violence, possible civil rights violations, and God knows what else. Yet, such threats uttered by the New Black Panthers are none of his concern? Incredible!
Meanwhile, as the media jumped at the opportunity to engage in the public humiliation of the Tea Party at the hands of the NAACP, it blatantly ignores the Justice Departments alleged memo to refrain from investigating and prosecuting African Americans like the New Black Panther Party accused of poll tampering and voter intimidation. When Bob Schieffer had Eric Holder also on a different segment of Face The Nation, he refused to ask him anything pertaining to this charge, later having the chutzpah to claim that he knew nothing about it. I have this strange idea the real reason might be Schieffer is just another one of those cowards Holder was talking about some months back. Or maybe this is one of those conversations about race Holder isn't quite courageous enough to hold himself. Why do I feel this point was made clear to Schieffer prior to the segment?
The Tea Party has lost the opportunity to score a big touchdown. David Webb, as the designated quarterback of the movement, had the opportunity to lob a thirty yard pass but while he had wide receivers down field, open and waiting, he spiked the ball unnecessarily. Twenty yard penalty. Second down and thirty. Most of the Tea-Party leaders are on the defensive about these ridiculous allegations. Mark Williams has been one of the few exceptions to this rule, the response of most of the rest being tepid at best.
The irony is, Williams has been made a scapegoat in a sacrifice to the demons of political correctness, by a federation of groups that outwardly oppose the stifling atmosphere of that political hell. And what is even worse, they do so with a black man, David Webb, who is probably now being derided in leftist circles as the "house Negro" of the Tea Party movement, much as Michael Steele is considered more or less the lawn jockey of the Republican Party, unfortunately for valid reason. The GOP doesn't get it, and that's understandable. I had hoped the Tea Party would know better than to play such a transparent game. "Oh, we're not prejudiced, look we have some black members, and one of them is one of our leaders, and he'll tell it like it is."
Could anything possibly be more humiliating that to trot out a black person to reassure people that you're not prejudiced, only to have him act as club bouncer to somebody who allegedly is. And for what?
Here's the piece Williams wrote on his blog, which has now been taken down, though thankfully copied and pasted by Gawker, which did so as an attack on Williams and on the Tea-Party. It's a satire, based on what Ben Jealous might have written to President Abraham Lincoln concerning the Emancipation Proclamation, had he been alive and the head of the NAACP at the time.
Dear Mr. Lincoln
We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.
The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.
And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!
The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.
Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?
Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.
Sincerely
Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person
So there you have it. Like I said, clumsily written and not really that funny as a piece of satire, perhaps somewhat over the top. Yet, perfectly illustrative of the mind-set of the "leaders" of many liberal black citizen's advocate groups, including but by no means limited to the NAACP, who tend to support the big government and entitlement policies of the Democratic Party.
I reproduced it not to disparage Williams, but because its right on. Ben Jealous is nothing more nor less than a would-be Democratic Party Plantation straw boss protecting his own position and personal interests. And while it might be clumsily expressed, and a bit over-the-top, that makes it no less relevant. Bear in mind, Williams wrote this as though Jealous on behalf of the NAACP organization might have written it-not as how black people as a whole might have felt. To ignore that misses the whole point.
So was this the real reason Williams was kicked out of the movement? I doubt it, though it did provide the perfect excuse many have been looking for. The Tea Party Express is actually an arm of a Republican Party PAC called Our Country Deserves Better, and as such, has been at the forefront of trying to bring the Tea Party and all its disparate groups into the political mainstream. As in any such situation, it has attracted rivals who have their own ideas as to who should set the pace and control the Tea Party agenda, and all the power that might ultimately bring. Those ideas, of course, chiefly revolve around themselves to no less an extent than Williams or Robert Kaloogian, founder of Our Country Deserves Better, might like to see themselves as the movement leaders.
There might be valid reason to remove the Tea Party Express, and Williams, I don't know. I can see where there are other ways in which he can be and has been a divisive influence. When Williams makes statements to the effect that his purpose is to jump in front of the parade and say follow me, on the grounds that somebody needs to lead what amounts to a herd of cats, it becomes pretty clear that he wants a leadership role. It becomes pretty disingenuous then for him to claim that there are no Tea Party leaders, that they are merely concerned citizens who are all their own leaders, to paraphrase him.
But if the Tea Party Federation has a valid reason to remove Williams and the Express, they should do it for those reasons, and do so openly, without opting for the appearance of placating a group of race hustlers like the NAACP and their made up controversy in which, thus far, even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson has avoided entangling themselves.
The best response thus far to the NAACP charges of racism, that I have heard, was the response by Andrew Breitbart to NAACP head Ben Jealous. It was brief, and to the point.
"You can go to hell" he told Jealous.
That's really all that needs to be said.
The Tea Party Federation is a loose organization of groups of individuals who are against increased taxes, burdensome government regulations, and further growth of big government. Their main focus is on spending deficits and the national debt, though your mileage may vary thanks to other additives, be it Christian Conservatives, Libertarians, or national defense hawks.
How do you fight something like that? Well, if you're the NAACP, you accuse them of racism, of course. It's a tried and true tactic that has worked well in the past, and unfortunately, this time is no different. Last Sunday, on Face The Nation, David Webb, spokesman for the Tea Party Federation, played defense against the accusations of Benjamin Jealous, Chairman of the NAACP, over accusations which conservative pundit George Will has described as "left-wing McCarthyism".
Webb in the course of his appearance announced that Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams would no longer be a part of the movement, and further stated it would disassociate from the Tea Party Express.
ROUND ONE-NAACP
With this move, the Tea-Party Federation has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt one charge that is constantly hurled at them. They are, after all, a Republican organization. It's impossible to find a bigger wuss than people who cave in to unmerited charges of racism by firing a leader for expressing, however clumsily, what is after all a pretty prevalent attitude among not just the Tea Party, but a broad segment of Americans, including Independents. Yet, Webb seems willing to go along with a vague plan to appear with Jealous in a series of Town-Hall meetings. Of course, Jealous congratulated Webb on removing those racists from their ranks, and encouraged Webb to "keep up the good work" in what has to be seen as a purge almost worthy of Stalin.
In the meantime, Ben Jealous ignores the rants of New Black Panther leaders who express such sentiments as "crackers should be killed" and that they should "kill cracker babies". Cracker, of course, is a pejorative term for white people. Yet Jealous justifies this lapse due to the Black Panthers not being members of his group. So then, the Tea-Party is? Bullshit! If a group of fourteen whites, of any affiliation or none, expressed the desire to "kill niggers" and "jigaboo babies", all hell would break loose, and Jealous would be at the forefront of demanding some kind of prosecution for terrorist threats. incitement to violence, possible civil rights violations, and God knows what else. Yet, such threats uttered by the New Black Panthers are none of his concern? Incredible!
Meanwhile, as the media jumped at the opportunity to engage in the public humiliation of the Tea Party at the hands of the NAACP, it blatantly ignores the Justice Departments alleged memo to refrain from investigating and prosecuting African Americans like the New Black Panther Party accused of poll tampering and voter intimidation. When Bob Schieffer had Eric Holder also on a different segment of Face The Nation, he refused to ask him anything pertaining to this charge, later having the chutzpah to claim that he knew nothing about it. I have this strange idea the real reason might be Schieffer is just another one of those cowards Holder was talking about some months back. Or maybe this is one of those conversations about race Holder isn't quite courageous enough to hold himself. Why do I feel this point was made clear to Schieffer prior to the segment?
The Tea Party has lost the opportunity to score a big touchdown. David Webb, as the designated quarterback of the movement, had the opportunity to lob a thirty yard pass but while he had wide receivers down field, open and waiting, he spiked the ball unnecessarily. Twenty yard penalty. Second down and thirty. Most of the Tea-Party leaders are on the defensive about these ridiculous allegations. Mark Williams has been one of the few exceptions to this rule, the response of most of the rest being tepid at best.
The irony is, Williams has been made a scapegoat in a sacrifice to the demons of political correctness, by a federation of groups that outwardly oppose the stifling atmosphere of that political hell. And what is even worse, they do so with a black man, David Webb, who is probably now being derided in leftist circles as the "house Negro" of the Tea Party movement, much as Michael Steele is considered more or less the lawn jockey of the Republican Party, unfortunately for valid reason. The GOP doesn't get it, and that's understandable. I had hoped the Tea Party would know better than to play such a transparent game. "Oh, we're not prejudiced, look we have some black members, and one of them is one of our leaders, and he'll tell it like it is."
Could anything possibly be more humiliating that to trot out a black person to reassure people that you're not prejudiced, only to have him act as club bouncer to somebody who allegedly is. And for what?
Here's the piece Williams wrote on his blog, which has now been taken down, though thankfully copied and pasted by Gawker, which did so as an attack on Williams and on the Tea-Party. It's a satire, based on what Ben Jealous might have written to President Abraham Lincoln concerning the Emancipation Proclamation, had he been alive and the head of the NAACP at the time.
Dear Mr. Lincoln
We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.
The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.
And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!
The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.
Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?
Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.
Sincerely
Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person
So there you have it. Like I said, clumsily written and not really that funny as a piece of satire, perhaps somewhat over the top. Yet, perfectly illustrative of the mind-set of the "leaders" of many liberal black citizen's advocate groups, including but by no means limited to the NAACP, who tend to support the big government and entitlement policies of the Democratic Party.
I reproduced it not to disparage Williams, but because its right on. Ben Jealous is nothing more nor less than a would-be Democratic Party Plantation straw boss protecting his own position and personal interests. And while it might be clumsily expressed, and a bit over-the-top, that makes it no less relevant. Bear in mind, Williams wrote this as though Jealous on behalf of the NAACP organization might have written it-not as how black people as a whole might have felt. To ignore that misses the whole point.
So was this the real reason Williams was kicked out of the movement? I doubt it, though it did provide the perfect excuse many have been looking for. The Tea Party Express is actually an arm of a Republican Party PAC called Our Country Deserves Better, and as such, has been at the forefront of trying to bring the Tea Party and all its disparate groups into the political mainstream. As in any such situation, it has attracted rivals who have their own ideas as to who should set the pace and control the Tea Party agenda, and all the power that might ultimately bring. Those ideas, of course, chiefly revolve around themselves to no less an extent than Williams or Robert Kaloogian, founder of Our Country Deserves Better, might like to see themselves as the movement leaders.
There might be valid reason to remove the Tea Party Express, and Williams, I don't know. I can see where there are other ways in which he can be and has been a divisive influence. When Williams makes statements to the effect that his purpose is to jump in front of the parade and say follow me, on the grounds that somebody needs to lead what amounts to a herd of cats, it becomes pretty clear that he wants a leadership role. It becomes pretty disingenuous then for him to claim that there are no Tea Party leaders, that they are merely concerned citizens who are all their own leaders, to paraphrase him.
But if the Tea Party Federation has a valid reason to remove Williams and the Express, they should do it for those reasons, and do so openly, without opting for the appearance of placating a group of race hustlers like the NAACP and their made up controversy in which, thus far, even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson has avoided entangling themselves.
The best response thus far to the NAACP charges of racism, that I have heard, was the response by Andrew Breitbart to NAACP head Ben Jealous. It was brief, and to the point.
"You can go to hell" he told Jealous.
That's really all that needs to be said.
Friday, July 16, 2010
All Right, If You Won't Listen To Me-
Maybe you'll listen to Charles Krauthammer.
The short version-Even if the GOP wins big this year, if they aren't careful Obama could win re-election in 2012 and pick up seats, maybe regain or retain his majority in one or both Houses of Congress, and go on from there to fundamentally change America, for conceivably far into the future.
Krauthammer goes me one better though. According to him, Obama and his inner circle are counting on it, and are not at all blind to the coming election loss for their party that this year seems to portend. For them, it might well be an acceptable trade off.
In other words, Obama is looking at the long-term and couldn't really care less about short term losses.
It's actually scary, sobering reading, and I would advise all libertarian, conservative, federalist, and independent minded Americans-and even some honest, well-meaning liberals (deluded however they might be) to read the article linked above.
If conservative Republicans take the House, and/or the Senate, they need to be very careful. They need to be more than just obstinate opponents of the Obama leftist agenda. They need to offer worthy, compelling alternatives, and they need to set the tone of the debate, not let the Democrats define it, or especially not define them. They need to be combative, but reasoned. They need to be passionate, but rational.
They need to, like Obama, think of the long term.
Thanks to Sarah Palin for this article.
The short version-Even if the GOP wins big this year, if they aren't careful Obama could win re-election in 2012 and pick up seats, maybe regain or retain his majority in one or both Houses of Congress, and go on from there to fundamentally change America, for conceivably far into the future.
Krauthammer goes me one better though. According to him, Obama and his inner circle are counting on it, and are not at all blind to the coming election loss for their party that this year seems to portend. For them, it might well be an acceptable trade off.
In other words, Obama is looking at the long-term and couldn't really care less about short term losses.
It's actually scary, sobering reading, and I would advise all libertarian, conservative, federalist, and independent minded Americans-and even some honest, well-meaning liberals (deluded however they might be) to read the article linked above.
If conservative Republicans take the House, and/or the Senate, they need to be very careful. They need to be more than just obstinate opponents of the Obama leftist agenda. They need to offer worthy, compelling alternatives, and they need to set the tone of the debate, not let the Democrats define it, or especially not define them. They need to be combative, but reasoned. They need to be passionate, but rational.
They need to, like Obama, think of the long term.
Thanks to Sarah Palin for this article.
McCain-Hayworth Debates
Tonight and tomorrow night will be the only scheduled debates between John McCain and JD Hayworth. Hayworth, a former House member, is running against McCain in the GOP primary for the Arizona Senate seat McCain currently holds.
I have mixed feelings here. My hope would be Hayworth would win the primary, but only if I was dead sure he would go on to win the general election. That I'm not so sure about, but its probably a moot point anyway. In most polls, McCain is holding a ten point plus lead over Hayworth, who lost his House seat some years earlier over his propensity to support bills that were considered by many to be examples of bloated government spending. Since then, Hayworth has worked as a right-wing talk radio host. He is supported by the Tea Party, although interestingly enough, McCain has the backing of former VP running mate Sarah Palin. I chalk this up to gratitude on her part, but it could also be she thinks she sees the writing on the wall. Without McCain, the seat will go Democratic.
If that's true, then I guess its worth putting up with the old RINO, to a point. And I have always been at the forefront about this. If the Tea-Party expects to wrest control of the GOP they can probably do that in incremental stages, but if they expect to do so and at the same time make and keep the Republicans the majority party, then they have to accept that some of their members, by virtue of their constituencies, are going to be RINOs. That's just the world we live in. Nobody ever said it was easy.
I have mixed feelings here. My hope would be Hayworth would win the primary, but only if I was dead sure he would go on to win the general election. That I'm not so sure about, but its probably a moot point anyway. In most polls, McCain is holding a ten point plus lead over Hayworth, who lost his House seat some years earlier over his propensity to support bills that were considered by many to be examples of bloated government spending. Since then, Hayworth has worked as a right-wing talk radio host. He is supported by the Tea Party, although interestingly enough, McCain has the backing of former VP running mate Sarah Palin. I chalk this up to gratitude on her part, but it could also be she thinks she sees the writing on the wall. Without McCain, the seat will go Democratic.
If that's true, then I guess its worth putting up with the old RINO, to a point. And I have always been at the forefront about this. If the Tea-Party expects to wrest control of the GOP they can probably do that in incremental stages, but if they expect to do so and at the same time make and keep the Republicans the majority party, then they have to accept that some of their members, by virtue of their constituencies, are going to be RINOs. That's just the world we live in. Nobody ever said it was easy.
Texas-Number One
The number one state in the Union for business is Texas, according to CNBC, which ranked all the states according to the following criterion-
cost of doing business, workforce, economy, education, quality of life, technology and innovation, transportation, cost of living, business friendliness, and access to capital.
Governor Rick Perry credits "low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulations, and a skilled workforce" with Texas's success.
Last year, Texas ranked number two, behind Virginia. This year, the two states have traded places. But the most surprising thing about the top ten states in the list?
Massachusetts is number five, and Minnesota is number eight. I'm guessing it must have something to do with availability of capital and tax incentives, along with a skilled workforce. I wouldn't count on any of that lasting long. Here's the complete list-
* Texas
* Virginia
* Colorado
* North Carolina
* Massachusetts
* Iowa
* South Dakota
* Minnesota
* Utah
* Georgia
UPDATE-I just got a comment from Quimbob, who provided a link to a different survey which relates a slightly different survey which, while still ranking Texas number one, ranks North Carolina, not Virginia, at number two behind Texas and, more importantly in contrast to the CNBC survey, puts Massachusetts in the bottom five. I tend to believe this survey over CNBC.
It also goes into some striking detail regarding the problems in California, which according to one respondent is so bad that, according to him, if they could grow their crops in Reno, they'd move their plants there tomorrow. He goes on to say that businesses have completely opted out of doing business with Sacramento, so bad is the anti-business environment there. And of course, when they leave, the jobs go with them.
This serves to verify my feelings that, before long, California will be the American Greece. Actually, it already is. It just hasn't gotten around to asking for a bail-out. Give it time, because as I said before, California will be considered "too big to fail".
This also goes a long way towards explaining Scott Brown's recent vote in favor of the Financial Reform bill. If California is the American Greece, Massachusetts is probably in line to be the American Portugal. Brown's vote makes sense in the context of laying the groundwork for federal aid, and even if the GOP takes over both houses of Congress in 2010 (unlikely as far as the Senate goes), the infrastructure will be in place, and the onus will be on the new Republican House and possibly Senate majorities to accede or deny to any such aid. Such a scenario is unlikely before this November, but between then and November 2012, it becomes a near probability, and will provide the Democrats a hammer with which to hit Republicans. And it might well work, as the majority of people in dire straights by that time will be, shall we say, not looking at the long term, but living in the moment.
In the meantime, I have to wonder how Massachusetts could end up in such wildly different positions in two different polls. Bear in mind that CNBC is a sister network to NBC and MSNBC, and they might have a reason to paint Massachusetts in a more flattering light than what it really deserves. I was so stunned by the first poll it was hard to let it pass without comment. Consider the "Big Dig" which lasted for years longer than anticipated at staggeringly high cost overruns. It is a state where bureaucracy and inefficiency is the normal cost of doing business, where labor unions are a malignant influence, and state regulations are on the one hand a drain and an obstacle, and at the same time a cash cow for crooked regulators and for contractors looking for kick-backs.
If you really want to know why the business community is holding onto 1.4 trillion dollars of assets, and why many others want to outsource production to more friendly business climates, look no further than the current state of affairs, and try to understand that its probably only going to get worse-much worse-because of it.
And the liberals still don't get it. They never will understand that the business community is under no obligation to invest their money-and the operative term is THEIR MONEY-in what they can't help but see as a losing proposition, one that if they play along with, will only result in even more massive business failures down the line.
Government make-work is not the answer. That is just temporary relief for a relative few, at best. At worse, it just adds to the tax burden. Nor can the private business sector be expected to invest their money in what would amount to a charitable enterprise that would leave their companies in danger of collapse.
There has to be a better way, but it will require some more pain, and more sacrifice, before people get it.
cost of doing business, workforce, economy, education, quality of life, technology and innovation, transportation, cost of living, business friendliness, and access to capital.
Governor Rick Perry credits "low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulations, and a skilled workforce" with Texas's success.
Last year, Texas ranked number two, behind Virginia. This year, the two states have traded places. But the most surprising thing about the top ten states in the list?
Massachusetts is number five, and Minnesota is number eight. I'm guessing it must have something to do with availability of capital and tax incentives, along with a skilled workforce. I wouldn't count on any of that lasting long. Here's the complete list-
* Texas
* Virginia
* Colorado
* North Carolina
* Massachusetts
* Iowa
* South Dakota
* Minnesota
* Utah
* Georgia
UPDATE-I just got a comment from Quimbob, who provided a link to a different survey which relates a slightly different survey which, while still ranking Texas number one, ranks North Carolina, not Virginia, at number two behind Texas and, more importantly in contrast to the CNBC survey, puts Massachusetts in the bottom five. I tend to believe this survey over CNBC.
It also goes into some striking detail regarding the problems in California, which according to one respondent is so bad that, according to him, if they could grow their crops in Reno, they'd move their plants there tomorrow. He goes on to say that businesses have completely opted out of doing business with Sacramento, so bad is the anti-business environment there. And of course, when they leave, the jobs go with them.
This serves to verify my feelings that, before long, California will be the American Greece. Actually, it already is. It just hasn't gotten around to asking for a bail-out. Give it time, because as I said before, California will be considered "too big to fail".
This also goes a long way towards explaining Scott Brown's recent vote in favor of the Financial Reform bill. If California is the American Greece, Massachusetts is probably in line to be the American Portugal. Brown's vote makes sense in the context of laying the groundwork for federal aid, and even if the GOP takes over both houses of Congress in 2010 (unlikely as far as the Senate goes), the infrastructure will be in place, and the onus will be on the new Republican House and possibly Senate majorities to accede or deny to any such aid. Such a scenario is unlikely before this November, but between then and November 2012, it becomes a near probability, and will provide the Democrats a hammer with which to hit Republicans. And it might well work, as the majority of people in dire straights by that time will be, shall we say, not looking at the long term, but living in the moment.
In the meantime, I have to wonder how Massachusetts could end up in such wildly different positions in two different polls. Bear in mind that CNBC is a sister network to NBC and MSNBC, and they might have a reason to paint Massachusetts in a more flattering light than what it really deserves. I was so stunned by the first poll it was hard to let it pass without comment. Consider the "Big Dig" which lasted for years longer than anticipated at staggeringly high cost overruns. It is a state where bureaucracy and inefficiency is the normal cost of doing business, where labor unions are a malignant influence, and state regulations are on the one hand a drain and an obstacle, and at the same time a cash cow for crooked regulators and for contractors looking for kick-backs.
If you really want to know why the business community is holding onto 1.4 trillion dollars of assets, and why many others want to outsource production to more friendly business climates, look no further than the current state of affairs, and try to understand that its probably only going to get worse-much worse-because of it.
And the liberals still don't get it. They never will understand that the business community is under no obligation to invest their money-and the operative term is THEIR MONEY-in what they can't help but see as a losing proposition, one that if they play along with, will only result in even more massive business failures down the line.
Government make-work is not the answer. That is just temporary relief for a relative few, at best. At worse, it just adds to the tax burden. Nor can the private business sector be expected to invest their money in what would amount to a charitable enterprise that would leave their companies in danger of collapse.
There has to be a better way, but it will require some more pain, and more sacrifice, before people get it.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Alvin Greene's Job Creation Program
UPDATE-Alvin Greene now has his own Twitter account, GreeneForSenate. You can also access it and others from my new Twitter Sidebar, The Twitterbug Corral.
UPDATE UPDATE-Well, its probably not him after all, but its a pretty damn good satire site if its not him. Not too much over the top. Well, unless you discount the bit about giving the keynote address at the next NAACP meeting. DAMN!
Unemployment is now somewhere around ten percent, more than that if you include the people who've stopped looking for work. We've got to put people back to work in this country, but how remains elusive, or at least it has until-well, it might actually hinge on the outcome of the up-coming South Carolina Senate race.
South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene has a solution. It's so brilliant I have to wonder if he thought it up all by himself, or rather some, er, genius, maybe an unnamed adviser, gave him this plan over a couple of six-packs and a reefer or two.
Alvin's plan, in his own words-
“ Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke. ”
Of course, Alvin is by no means a "typical person". And you know what? I'm starting to think he's going to win. I'll go you one better. I would almost be willing to bet good money he will be the one Senate candidate who will keep the Democrats in the Senate majority.
Because, let's face it, the Universe hates all of us, and I think it might have a special degree of loathing for South Carolina-especially the no-count Upcountry.
Hat Tip-Rusty of The Jawa Report.
UPDATE UPDATE-Well, its probably not him after all, but its a pretty damn good satire site if its not him. Not too much over the top. Well, unless you discount the bit about giving the keynote address at the next NAACP meeting. DAMN!
Unemployment is now somewhere around ten percent, more than that if you include the people who've stopped looking for work. We've got to put people back to work in this country, but how remains elusive, or at least it has until-well, it might actually hinge on the outcome of the up-coming South Carolina Senate race.
South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene has a solution. It's so brilliant I have to wonder if he thought it up all by himself, or rather some, er, genius, maybe an unnamed adviser, gave him this plan over a couple of six-packs and a reefer or two.
Alvin's plan, in his own words-
“ Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke. ”
Of course, Alvin is by no means a "typical person". And you know what? I'm starting to think he's going to win. I'll go you one better. I would almost be willing to bet good money he will be the one Senate candidate who will keep the Democrats in the Senate majority.
Because, let's face it, the Universe hates all of us, and I think it might have a special degree of loathing for South Carolina-especially the no-count Upcountry.
Hat Tip-Rusty of The Jawa Report.
Black Gold-Texas Tea
Venezuela might have more oil than Saudi Arabia, huh? That settles it. What say we pull ourselves up by our boot straps. Let's kick Chavez's ass out of there and take dat shit. Muahahahahahahaaaaaaaa
Camelot's Round Table Found-Or So They Say
.jpg)
At first glance, the reports out of England make a lot of sense. According to some archaeologists, the Round Table of King Arthur was not a piece of furniture after all. It was, instead, an abandoned Roman amphitheater (pictured in the above drawing at bottom left corner of town square) that could seat as many as one thousand people. They say this because they think they have discovered it in a town called Chester, sometimes called West Chester. It was abandoned by the Romans after the fall of Rome to Odoacer and the subsequent large scale invasions of Britain by the Saxons. But the native Britons of the day held off the invading hordes until well into the sixth century, when the Saxons and some other Germanic tribes finally overwhelmed the former Roman province. But until that time, Chester might have been a major point of defensive operations. A headquarters, if you will.According to the archaeologists making these claims, the amphitheater contains an execution stone, and a wooden shrine to Christian martyrs, as detailed long ago by the Christian monk and later canonized Saint Gildas.
There's only one problem. Gildas, who wrote extensively about this era and in fact was at least a near contemporary-never mentioned King Arthur. Or Camelot. Or the Round Table. The closest he came was a mention of a certain Ambrosius, who is said, by later sources, to have been an elder brother of Arthur's father Uther, and father to Merlin.
This of course does not prove Arthur didn't exist, as Gildas mentions several kings of the era, though not by name. What it does seem to imply is that, if Arthur did exist, he might not have been that big a deal. He might not have even been a king, but a kind of warlord. And of course we can't discount the possibility that he may have been mentioned under another name, possibly one of the five kings Gildas excoriated, the most important of whom was Maelgyn Gwynned, a Welsh king whose name sounds or looks just enough like Guinevere to grab your attention. In fact, that was the name of his kingdom, and Gildas seems to have hated him for some reason that is not completely known or understood, though I suspect it to be for corruption of the clergy-i.e., bribery. Or, it could have been the opposite. Gwynned might not have been sufficiently impressed by Gildas to have patronized his support. Unfortunately, that is probably something else that will forever remain a mystery.
One of Gwynned's fellow kings, who due to his association also earned Gildas's ire, was judging by his name a seeming descendant of the aforementioned Ambrosius.
A more trustworthy source for information about Arthur, however, might be the bard Taliesin, also a near contemporary of the day, who might have mentioned Arthur, or might not have. That depends on whether the alleged oral history by him in which Arthur is briefly mentioned, as written down in the eleventh century, is an accurate reflection of his work, or whether elements were added. Even if the account is accurate, it is not good for much beyond that, as the account is short both in duration and detail. Still, it would prove Arthur existed, as Taliesin's work is generally considered historical, and more than likely accurate.
My own feelings about the Arthurian legend is mixed. I want to believe it. I'm not meaning by this the more obviously fantastical tales of supernatural fantasy, but just the basic facts, if they exist, that might have provided inspiration for the medieval tales.
My objective feelings, however, are that Arthur, even if he really existed, represents as we have come to know him a symbol more of Medieval ideals transposed onto a period of time called the Dark Ages for a good reason. Nobody knows but very precious little about them. Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table provided a historical facade that served to fill in some much needed blanks, and at the same time imposed on the public imagination of the day an idealized personification of the very sort of medieval ideals of chivalry that could not have possibly existed under such conditions as existed during the Dark Ages.
And if Arthur really did exist, we must also realize that most of those who are listed as his contemporaries did not. Lancelot and his affair with Arthur's Queen, for example, are obvious fictions, as is Merlin, Gawain's battle with the Green Knight, Galahad's search for the Grail, etc.
At most and at best, what we have is a brave king, who might have led a relatively small force of desperate allies in a last ditch effort to save their formerly civilized country from invading hordes of savage barbarians, and who may have been lost to history for all his efforts, save for a few sentences strung together almost as an afterthought, and who was for whatever reason made the central focus of a magnificent legend that would have probably been a source of great mirth to the genuine article and to those who actually knew him.
Perhaps we need our King Arthur's, our Robin Hood's, and all our other heroes, and have needed them since long before there was ever a movie or television medium, or even printing press to help us fulfill our need for such inspirational tales of heroism, back in days when the written medium and a few rare traveling minstrel shows were all that served to fill such needs.
And of course, they also might conceivably help you get funding for your next archaeological project.
Monday, July 12, 2010
World Cup Follies
When I learned a friend of mine was going to attend the World Cup, I knew I might hit the mother-lode, since everybody that was anybody was going to be there. As fate would have it, my friend Mohammed Shahiri, who used to blog quite some time back at Aladdinslad, was lucky enough to get a place in proximity to two of the most recognizable faces to attend the South African event.
Although he was shocked at what transpired, he was good enough to relay the information to me. One should not be too surprised at what I will soon relate.
After all, Mick Jagger has a mouth that practically begs, "Please let me suck your dick." Whereas former President Bill Clinton has a libido that practically begs, "Please suck my dick."
So then it stands to reason that, when these two get together, you know that nothing but hi-jinks could possibly ensue.
And so, without further ado, I present to you the basic transcription of what was said at the time the various following pictures were taken.
As we shall see, Mick was initially reluctant. But, Bill was insistent. And determined.
"Oh come on Mick, you can do it. We've got enough cover down here no one will see it."
Naturally, though, Mick had concerns. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
"Okay Bill, but before I go through with this I have to ask you-is it bigger than this?"
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you go through something, there are some things that are just impossible to prepare for.
"Damn Bill that tasted like rotten death. You need vitamins mate."
But, as it turns out, all was not as it seemed, and Bill wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was. There are always those ready to exploit your weaknesses. But, we suppose Bill will make the best of what might otherwise be a, let us say, embarrassing situation. Because, no sooner had Mick taken his leave than-
"Damn, all right Wolf, Katie, I'll keep you two in the loop whenever something goes down, I promise. Damn that fucking Mick."
Even though Mick seems to have helped set Bill up after all, I'm sure he will make it up to Bill someway. Maybe he'll sing Tumbling Dice at Chelsea's wedding.
Although he was shocked at what transpired, he was good enough to relay the information to me. One should not be too surprised at what I will soon relate.
After all, Mick Jagger has a mouth that practically begs, "Please let me suck your dick." Whereas former President Bill Clinton has a libido that practically begs, "Please suck my dick."
So then it stands to reason that, when these two get together, you know that nothing but hi-jinks could possibly ensue.
And so, without further ado, I present to you the basic transcription of what was said at the time the various following pictures were taken.
As we shall see, Mick was initially reluctant. But, Bill was insistent. And determined.
"Oh come on Mick, you can do it. We've got enough cover down here no one will see it."
Naturally, though, Mick had concerns. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
"Okay Bill, but before I go through with this I have to ask you-is it bigger than this?"
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you go through something, there are some things that are just impossible to prepare for.
"Damn Bill that tasted like rotten death. You need vitamins mate."
But, as it turns out, all was not as it seemed, and Bill wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was. There are always those ready to exploit your weaknesses. But, we suppose Bill will make the best of what might otherwise be a, let us say, embarrassing situation. Because, no sooner had Mick taken his leave than-
"Damn, all right Wolf, Katie, I'll keep you two in the loop whenever something goes down, I promise. Damn that fucking Mick."
Even though Mick seems to have helped set Bill up after all, I'm sure he will make it up to Bill someway. Maybe he'll sing Tumbling Dice at Chelsea's wedding.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
John LeCarre Couldn't Have Made This Up
While many have been fascinated by tales of Russian spies spending years in deep cover while living fairly ordinary lives and pretty much accomplishing nothing of known or revealed importance, another tale of espionage is unfolding, one that might well be considerably more serious and damaging. It is now being alleged that something like 260,000 documents have been pilfered from the State Department.
I want to stress, not a mere 260,000 PAGES of documents, but 260,000 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS!
So what do these documents contain? It is said that they include blistering assessments of foreign leaders, operational details involving covert activities, information regarding foreign policy decisions, and even classified files of meetings with Israeli officials, among many other embarrassing and damaging files of information.
The culprit, supposedly, is U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Bradley Manning, who was arrested sometime in June of this year in connection with the leaking of an explosive video of attack-helicopter gun camera footage from Iraq. Whether that arrest is what led to the discovery of the leak of these documents is not exactly clear.
The alleged recipient of the documents are, like in the Iraq video case, Wikileaks, a website that specializes in serving as a repository for whistle blowers to leak documents that prove unscrupulous and criminal actions by government agencies and officials.
Manning is currently in jail, and Wikileaks has issued a denial as to its own involvement in the case of the disappearing documents.
Julian Assange, the Australian born founder of Wikileaks, has curiously seemed to disappear over the last few days. No one seems to know where he is.
What I wouldn't give to get to read these documents, if that is they really exist. I guess that's the point. No one knows for sure where they went, or who has them, or how and when they might turn up, or where. But if and when they do, I can almost promise you they would be worth their weight in gold to certain relevant parties.
Hat Tip-Defense Tech
UPDATE-Although it is not really surprising, Bradley Manning has his supporters, and one of them, Mike Gogulski, has started a web-site called Help Bradley Manning, with the tag-line "Because True Heroism Merits No Punishment".
The site seems clearly based only on his status as a whistle-blower related to the release of the aforementioned video. There is no mention on the site, that I have seen, related to the release of the 260,000 documents. I want to be clear, however, that there is no proof Manning himself was involved in this. But if he was, he is obviously going away for a very long time, more than likely for the rest of his life. He might even conceivably face the prospect of execution.
I should also mention that Julian Assange, the co-founder of Wikileaks, is being sought in connection with the leaking of the helicopter-attack video leaked by Manning.
CORRECTION-I stated in the post that Manning was arrested earlier this month, which was incorrect. I have corrected it. He was evidently arrested sometime last month, as the first post in the aforementioned blog Help Bradley Manning is dated June 17th of 2010.
I want to stress, not a mere 260,000 PAGES of documents, but 260,000 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS!
So what do these documents contain? It is said that they include blistering assessments of foreign leaders, operational details involving covert activities, information regarding foreign policy decisions, and even classified files of meetings with Israeli officials, among many other embarrassing and damaging files of information.
The culprit, supposedly, is U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Bradley Manning, who was arrested sometime in June of this year in connection with the leaking of an explosive video of attack-helicopter gun camera footage from Iraq. Whether that arrest is what led to the discovery of the leak of these documents is not exactly clear.
The alleged recipient of the documents are, like in the Iraq video case, Wikileaks, a website that specializes in serving as a repository for whistle blowers to leak documents that prove unscrupulous and criminal actions by government agencies and officials.
Manning is currently in jail, and Wikileaks has issued a denial as to its own involvement in the case of the disappearing documents.
Julian Assange, the Australian born founder of Wikileaks, has curiously seemed to disappear over the last few days. No one seems to know where he is.
What I wouldn't give to get to read these documents, if that is they really exist. I guess that's the point. No one knows for sure where they went, or who has them, or how and when they might turn up, or where. But if and when they do, I can almost promise you they would be worth their weight in gold to certain relevant parties.
Hat Tip-Defense Tech
UPDATE-Although it is not really surprising, Bradley Manning has his supporters, and one of them, Mike Gogulski, has started a web-site called Help Bradley Manning, with the tag-line "Because True Heroism Merits No Punishment".
The site seems clearly based only on his status as a whistle-blower related to the release of the aforementioned video. There is no mention on the site, that I have seen, related to the release of the 260,000 documents. I want to be clear, however, that there is no proof Manning himself was involved in this. But if he was, he is obviously going away for a very long time, more than likely for the rest of his life. He might even conceivably face the prospect of execution.
I should also mention that Julian Assange, the co-founder of Wikileaks, is being sought in connection with the leaking of the helicopter-attack video leaked by Manning.
CORRECTION-I stated in the post that Manning was arrested earlier this month, which was incorrect. I have corrected it. He was evidently arrested sometime last month, as the first post in the aforementioned blog Help Bradley Manning is dated June 17th of 2010.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Red State-A Sorry State Of Affairs
NOTE: IMPORTANT UPDATE APPEARS AT BOTTOM OF POST
I said a long time ago, there's a war going on for control of the Republican Party, and at the rate its going, its going to tear the party apart. That is yet another reason why I say its really presumptuous to assume a sure victory for any side, this year or any year.
I was reminded of this today, when my new diary at Red State, that I started under the name Federalist Pagan, was unceremoniously dumped. Well, I assume it was, since I have been barred from the site, thanks to the machinations of a man named Art Chance.
So who is Art Chance? Well, it so happens that he is a retired labor relations thug formerly in the employee of the Administration of former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski. Yes, as you might have guessed, he has a hard-on for Sarah Palin, but not in a good way. My first, and apparently last post at Red State, was a re-post of this one here in which I mused about her potential as a possible future Chairwoman of the RNC to replace the bumbling Michael Steele.
Chance started trolling my blog, saying nothing of substance, just insulting me, and the Governor, while accusing me of having the hots for her.
Although I did engage him in this dispute, I was incredibly restrained, and avoided engaging in foul language or inordinate name-calling. Amazingly, I was still banned from Red State for stating the obvious, that this outrageous thug was a troll, and evidently for daring to debate the issue with him to begin with. Before they banned me, however, I was deluged with some friends he brought over to my site, assuring me I didn't know what I was talking about, in so many words. One asshole told me I had said quite enough, and that I should leave, and perhaps pray to Zeus for wisdom. He and the others were amazed that I dared to engage in open dispute with the mighty Chance.
Obviously, I was supposed to be impressed by this cretin's credentials. Unfortunately for him and his band of sycophants, who had the unmitigated gall to call me a Palin sycophant, I am not impressed with anyone. I support Palin, but I am not part of any personality cult that might surround her, nor do I have the "hots" for the lady. I just happen to be impressed with her resume as a reformer of Alaska politics who stood up to the good old boys, and the corrupting influence of the oil industry.
Chance, meanwhile, worked for Frank Murkowski. Whoooooo, everybody should bow down, or you might get shot down by a corrupt retired government official who worked for one of the most corrupt Republican Governors in Alaskan history.
I am not the only one who has run afoul of him on Red State, nor am I the first to be banned from the site because of it. Nor are criticisms of him and his tactics the exclusive purview of the left. His victims on Red State, such as myself, are conservatives, anyone who is a Tea-Party member or sympathizer, or most especially it would seem, anyone who is a Palin supporter. A post from the blog Conservatives4Palin goes into some detail about his pervasive influence at Red State, which they claim due to mainly his influence is becoming another Little Green Footballs.
What he did as a labor relations leader in Murkowski's administration was threaten workers who tried to organize. He even brags about it. Mess with him, go against the system, and your livelihood is at stake. That is the attitude he carries with him even today, it seems. He will make an example out of you. There is a special place in hell for people like that. But while he is in this world, he is going to make sure that he has a special place on the payroll of the good old boys of Alaska, and the Republican Party of Frank Murkowski. Anyone who sets out to reform the party and its corruption, or the corruption of the state in general, or Gods willing, the national party, and end the inordinate influence of the oil industry, will earn his special ire.
And that in a nutshell explains his attitude towards Sarah Palin, or anyone who supports her. Amazingly, he calls her ruthless for the way she exposed the corruption and used this as a means to achieve power in Alaska politics.
Yet, for all his talk, this is a guy who works for a system that doesn't mind one whit whether the Republican Party stays in permanent minority status, which in a sense would be the status it would deserve. People outside the party tend not to understand this. These kind of Republicans have no ideology to speak of. They are anti-communist, but that is only for self-serving reasons. They are not concerned with your freedom and liberties, or even your basic human rights. They just don't want their property expropriated.
But at the same time, they are more than willing to compromise on issues that would make it tough on the average person, most especially their smaller, weaker business rivals, so long as they get to maintain a certain status quo, which amounts to a small set of goals-
One-Tax breaks for they and their more important, well-connected contributors. It doesn't have to be enshrined in the tax code, a few well-placed loopholes will do just fine, thank you. In fact, that might even be preferable.
Two-Pork to take home to the folks in their states and districts.
Three-Government contracts for their contributors.
Four-A hefty retirement package with medical care and the ability to use their contacts to gain further enrichment in the private sector once their career in public service, if you really must dignify it with such a term, is over.
There you have it. These people are more than willing to talk shit about religion and patriotism, as long as they don't actually have to walk the walk. The knuckle-dragging base can do that for them. They just better not expect too much in return. They just better get their asses out and vote for what little they do get, if they don't want the Democrats to take away the few crumbs the Republican insiders throw their way in their vast munificence.
And what is really maddening is, they are so cocksure of themselves, they don't even try to hide it anymore. They are aware that the base hates Obama to such an extent, the Republicans are likely to make big gains in the next mid-terms.
They'll be damned if they are going to let Sarah Palin and those Tea-Party nut jobs oust them from their perches of power in the GOP. They got a good thing coming their way, and by God nobody is going to take it away from them. Not Sarah Palin, not the Tea-Party crowd, and most certainly no small-time blogger like me. At least, not as long as they can sew up the bigger conservative blogs, like Red State, to such an extent that anybody who dares speak out against them or for their inter-party rivals, are shut down, shut up, and shut out.
UPDATE:
A person affiliated with Red State has made a couple of comments here in which he alleges that I made several provocative statements, inferring that I engaged in name calling and foul language, something which in fact I did not do.
He then went out of his way to inform another commenter that my diary has not been removed from Red State, though I have been banned. I just lately learned of a bizarre tactic utilized by the site's moderators against banned commenters. In effect, they edit their diaries to make them appear to have said things to justify their being banned. If anyone calls them on it, they use the vandalized diary as "evidence" against the banned diarist.
Here's the link to the Wikipedia page.
Here's a specific quote from the text of the article-
While any person may sign up to write blog posts in RedState's diary section, moderators have banned users identifying as conservative due to specific policy disagreements, replacing their signature line and all previous diaries with taunting messages.[3][4]
And here's another paragraph that goes into a bit more detail.
The site's moderators have been criticized for banning some users who disagree or dissent permanently from the site. Responses to any viewpoints deemed unwanted by site moderators have included replacing all of a person's diaries with messages designed to be offensive.[8] Banned users may be accused of being "progressive trolls"[4] or "moby," the latter being a person with over-the-top political positions making conservatives look bad.[9] Banned users may be greeted with an error message reading "601 Database redigestation error." The site moderators' behavior is a topic of discussion among moderate conservatives and internet discussion sites.[10]
Some will point out that this is Wikipedia, but I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the article's claims.
Red State, from my experience with it, might best be compared to a large public school system run by a disorganized, dysfunctional school board made up of high school dropouts, and who are in fact teenagers themselves, either in years or in intellectual and emotional capacity.
Unfortunately, they are a privately run company, owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events. As such, the best thing to do is simply stay away from them, and find another source for your political news and conservative commentary. There are certainly more choices out there-bigger ones, better ones, and certainly, one should hope, more ethical ones.
I said a long time ago, there's a war going on for control of the Republican Party, and at the rate its going, its going to tear the party apart. That is yet another reason why I say its really presumptuous to assume a sure victory for any side, this year or any year.
I was reminded of this today, when my new diary at Red State, that I started under the name Federalist Pagan, was unceremoniously dumped. Well, I assume it was, since I have been barred from the site, thanks to the machinations of a man named Art Chance.
So who is Art Chance? Well, it so happens that he is a retired labor relations thug formerly in the employee of the Administration of former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski. Yes, as you might have guessed, he has a hard-on for Sarah Palin, but not in a good way. My first, and apparently last post at Red State, was a re-post of this one here in which I mused about her potential as a possible future Chairwoman of the RNC to replace the bumbling Michael Steele.
Chance started trolling my blog, saying nothing of substance, just insulting me, and the Governor, while accusing me of having the hots for her.
Although I did engage him in this dispute, I was incredibly restrained, and avoided engaging in foul language or inordinate name-calling. Amazingly, I was still banned from Red State for stating the obvious, that this outrageous thug was a troll, and evidently for daring to debate the issue with him to begin with. Before they banned me, however, I was deluged with some friends he brought over to my site, assuring me I didn't know what I was talking about, in so many words. One asshole told me I had said quite enough, and that I should leave, and perhaps pray to Zeus for wisdom. He and the others were amazed that I dared to engage in open dispute with the mighty Chance.
Obviously, I was supposed to be impressed by this cretin's credentials. Unfortunately for him and his band of sycophants, who had the unmitigated gall to call me a Palin sycophant, I am not impressed with anyone. I support Palin, but I am not part of any personality cult that might surround her, nor do I have the "hots" for the lady. I just happen to be impressed with her resume as a reformer of Alaska politics who stood up to the good old boys, and the corrupting influence of the oil industry.
Chance, meanwhile, worked for Frank Murkowski. Whoooooo, everybody should bow down, or you might get shot down by a corrupt retired government official who worked for one of the most corrupt Republican Governors in Alaskan history.
I am not the only one who has run afoul of him on Red State, nor am I the first to be banned from the site because of it. Nor are criticisms of him and his tactics the exclusive purview of the left. His victims on Red State, such as myself, are conservatives, anyone who is a Tea-Party member or sympathizer, or most especially it would seem, anyone who is a Palin supporter. A post from the blog Conservatives4Palin goes into some detail about his pervasive influence at Red State, which they claim due to mainly his influence is becoming another Little Green Footballs.
What he did as a labor relations leader in Murkowski's administration was threaten workers who tried to organize. He even brags about it. Mess with him, go against the system, and your livelihood is at stake. That is the attitude he carries with him even today, it seems. He will make an example out of you. There is a special place in hell for people like that. But while he is in this world, he is going to make sure that he has a special place on the payroll of the good old boys of Alaska, and the Republican Party of Frank Murkowski. Anyone who sets out to reform the party and its corruption, or the corruption of the state in general, or Gods willing, the national party, and end the inordinate influence of the oil industry, will earn his special ire.
And that in a nutshell explains his attitude towards Sarah Palin, or anyone who supports her. Amazingly, he calls her ruthless for the way she exposed the corruption and used this as a means to achieve power in Alaska politics.
Yet, for all his talk, this is a guy who works for a system that doesn't mind one whit whether the Republican Party stays in permanent minority status, which in a sense would be the status it would deserve. People outside the party tend not to understand this. These kind of Republicans have no ideology to speak of. They are anti-communist, but that is only for self-serving reasons. They are not concerned with your freedom and liberties, or even your basic human rights. They just don't want their property expropriated.
But at the same time, they are more than willing to compromise on issues that would make it tough on the average person, most especially their smaller, weaker business rivals, so long as they get to maintain a certain status quo, which amounts to a small set of goals-
One-Tax breaks for they and their more important, well-connected contributors. It doesn't have to be enshrined in the tax code, a few well-placed loopholes will do just fine, thank you. In fact, that might even be preferable.
Two-Pork to take home to the folks in their states and districts.
Three-Government contracts for their contributors.
Four-A hefty retirement package with medical care and the ability to use their contacts to gain further enrichment in the private sector once their career in public service, if you really must dignify it with such a term, is over.
There you have it. These people are more than willing to talk shit about religion and patriotism, as long as they don't actually have to walk the walk. The knuckle-dragging base can do that for them. They just better not expect too much in return. They just better get their asses out and vote for what little they do get, if they don't want the Democrats to take away the few crumbs the Republican insiders throw their way in their vast munificence.
And what is really maddening is, they are so cocksure of themselves, they don't even try to hide it anymore. They are aware that the base hates Obama to such an extent, the Republicans are likely to make big gains in the next mid-terms.
They'll be damned if they are going to let Sarah Palin and those Tea-Party nut jobs oust them from their perches of power in the GOP. They got a good thing coming their way, and by God nobody is going to take it away from them. Not Sarah Palin, not the Tea-Party crowd, and most certainly no small-time blogger like me. At least, not as long as they can sew up the bigger conservative blogs, like Red State, to such an extent that anybody who dares speak out against them or for their inter-party rivals, are shut down, shut up, and shut out.
UPDATE:
A person affiliated with Red State has made a couple of comments here in which he alleges that I made several provocative statements, inferring that I engaged in name calling and foul language, something which in fact I did not do.
He then went out of his way to inform another commenter that my diary has not been removed from Red State, though I have been banned. I just lately learned of a bizarre tactic utilized by the site's moderators against banned commenters. In effect, they edit their diaries to make them appear to have said things to justify their being banned. If anyone calls them on it, they use the vandalized diary as "evidence" against the banned diarist.
Here's the link to the Wikipedia page.
Here's a specific quote from the text of the article-
While any person may sign up to write blog posts in RedState's diary section, moderators have banned users identifying as conservative due to specific policy disagreements, replacing their signature line and all previous diaries with taunting messages.[3][4]
And here's another paragraph that goes into a bit more detail.
The site's moderators have been criticized for banning some users who disagree or dissent permanently from the site. Responses to any viewpoints deemed unwanted by site moderators have included replacing all of a person's diaries with messages designed to be offensive.[8] Banned users may be accused of being "progressive trolls"[4] or "moby," the latter being a person with over-the-top political positions making conservatives look bad.[9] Banned users may be greeted with an error message reading "601 Database redigestation error." The site moderators' behavior is a topic of discussion among moderate conservatives and internet discussion sites.[10]
Some will point out that this is Wikipedia, but I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the article's claims.
Red State, from my experience with it, might best be compared to a large public school system run by a disorganized, dysfunctional school board made up of high school dropouts, and who are in fact teenagers themselves, either in years or in intellectual and emotional capacity.
Unfortunately, they are a privately run company, owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Regnery Publishing and Human Events. As such, the best thing to do is simply stay away from them, and find another source for your political news and conservative commentary. There are certainly more choices out there-bigger ones, better ones, and certainly, one should hope, more ethical ones.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
NASA-Just Don't Go There
NASA Director Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al-Jazeera English, claims NASA's major goal under Obama is to reach out to the Islamic world. I agree with what Charles Krautheimer had to say on Fox news about that.
"This is a new height in fatuousness," Krauthammer said. "NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. This idea to feel good about their past and to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."
I can't put it any better than that.
The Obama White House, though, claims that Bolden misspoke. Our main mission will always be to boldly go where no man has gone before, its just that as it happens, the moon no longer qualifies. Been there done that. On to Mars and beyond. Some day. And when we do, we will have the cooperation of the Muslim world, and in fact, the whole world. That is the Obama space program, in a nutshell. That's what the outreach to Muslims via NASA is all about.
However, recognition of their contributions in science and math notwithstanding, I'm thinking there might well be a cultural sensitivity issue at work here as well, one that might well go beyond appreciation of the science and math traditions the Muslim world mostly lifted from the Chaldeans and other ancient cultures whom they conquered, many of who have strangely all but disappeared from the face of the earth. No, they did not journey off to another galaxy. Another dimension, perhaps, one somewhat of a spiritual nature, but that's another issue of ethnic and cultural genocide best reserved for a future post.
In fairness, the Islamic world did supposedly make one important contribution, in the invention of Algebra, but that's not exactly what I'm getting at either.
Some of the greatest insults in all Islam involve the lowly shoe-showing the heel, or throwing a shoe, or striking a person or image with a shoe, or walking upon a person's face or image with the soles of one's shoes.
Therefore, it stands to reason that in going to the moon lo, these many moons ago, we committed a grievous insult to Islam by-walking on the moon, which is sacred to their God Allah, for this you see is the sacred boat in which he sails across the heavens.
We Americans are such outrageous and disrespectful infidels. Our tax money sponsored Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and more who followed on their insensitive journey to what may well the holiest place in all of Islam. And in so stepping on the surface of the moon, these satanic people thus pressed the accursed soles of their space shoes-in a very real way, mind you-onto the face of Allah himself.
Is it any wonder God-fearing Muslims the world over despise us so much?
Hat Tip-NewsBusters
Monday, July 05, 2010
Who Should Replace Michael Steele As RNC Chairman
Its beginning to look like Michael Steele has said one stupid thing too many, and now almost everybody in the Republican Party wants him to resign or be removed from his position as Chairman of the RNC. Although I'm technically not a Republican, I have to weigh in here and say that I think it would really be better all the way around if he would step down. But if worse comes to worse, he should be removed, if that's the only way to solve this problem. I just can't see him sticking around any longer.
The question then becomes, who to replace him with. I think the answer is obvious.
I can think of a few negatives, of course. The most obvious one is, she is unlikely to gain the approval of the Inside-The Beltway crowd that actually control the GOP. There is also the potential that she would be such a lightning rod she might actually increase Democratic voter turnout. Finally, if she wishes to run for President in 2012, it might hinder her prospects were she to take such a position this relatively close to that next election.
But, on the plus side, the most obvious response to problem number one is if enough people, especially Tea party folks, demand she be appointed as Steel's replacement, we could make it awful difficult for the party apparatchiks to refuse to accede.
For every one Democrat that comes out in force, the Republicans should at least be able to go them half a one better, and probably more than that. But I would take a 3-2 advantage in increased turnout any time, especially since the GOP currently already enjoys an advantage. It would still be a rout in favor of the Republicans. It might even be a massacre.
As for the final point, there's always 2016, which might be better for her anyway. I am not one of these who assumes Obama is sure to go down to defeat in his re-election bid. That assumes a lot of facts that aren't in evidence, nor could they be. A lot can change in a year and a half. Those who are willing to bet the farm that Obama is sure to suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter in 1980 tend to forget the outcome of the 1994 mid-term elections that swept the Democrats out of power in both houses of Congress, and how that led, just two years later, to Bill Clinton easily winning re-election in 1996. One is well-advised to recall that, during those '94 mid-terms, Clinton was probably more unpopular than Obama is now. Obama's approval ratings are still hovering well into the forty percent range. Clinton would have killed for that high a poll rating in '94. Yet, by the time the '96 election rolled around, nobody seriously gave Bob Dole any chance of pulling out what would have been a shocking upset victory.
There are times for cheerleading, and then there are times for serious contemplation and practical considerations.
Sarah Palin brings both qualities as a potential Chairwoman of the RNC. It would be an appointment that would rock the world and I believe it would usher in the worse defeat in the history of the Democratic Party.
I should conclude by pointing out the fact that, although you never heard it trumpeted in the MSM, Sarah Palin was just last month cleared of all ethics charges filed against her. Think of how much fun it would be when Democrats brought up all those bogus complaints, for Brian Williams, for just one example, to have to explain that, "well, she was actually cleared of those charges as of around June 8th of this year-I just forgot to mention it. Must have been the oil spill."
Of course, the news media was out in force in reporting the charges, and investigating them, and probably in some cases filing them. But when it came to reporting that she was cleared, of every single one of them, they suddenly had other things to do.
There couldn't be a better example of poetic justice than Sarah Palin being named as the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
The question then becomes, who to replace him with. I think the answer is obvious.
I can think of a few negatives, of course. The most obvious one is, she is unlikely to gain the approval of the Inside-The Beltway crowd that actually control the GOP. There is also the potential that she would be such a lightning rod she might actually increase Democratic voter turnout. Finally, if she wishes to run for President in 2012, it might hinder her prospects were she to take such a position this relatively close to that next election.
But, on the plus side, the most obvious response to problem number one is if enough people, especially Tea party folks, demand she be appointed as Steel's replacement, we could make it awful difficult for the party apparatchiks to refuse to accede.
For every one Democrat that comes out in force, the Republicans should at least be able to go them half a one better, and probably more than that. But I would take a 3-2 advantage in increased turnout any time, especially since the GOP currently already enjoys an advantage. It would still be a rout in favor of the Republicans. It might even be a massacre.
As for the final point, there's always 2016, which might be better for her anyway. I am not one of these who assumes Obama is sure to go down to defeat in his re-election bid. That assumes a lot of facts that aren't in evidence, nor could they be. A lot can change in a year and a half. Those who are willing to bet the farm that Obama is sure to suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter in 1980 tend to forget the outcome of the 1994 mid-term elections that swept the Democrats out of power in both houses of Congress, and how that led, just two years later, to Bill Clinton easily winning re-election in 1996. One is well-advised to recall that, during those '94 mid-terms, Clinton was probably more unpopular than Obama is now. Obama's approval ratings are still hovering well into the forty percent range. Clinton would have killed for that high a poll rating in '94. Yet, by the time the '96 election rolled around, nobody seriously gave Bob Dole any chance of pulling out what would have been a shocking upset victory.
There are times for cheerleading, and then there are times for serious contemplation and practical considerations.
Sarah Palin brings both qualities as a potential Chairwoman of the RNC. It would be an appointment that would rock the world and I believe it would usher in the worse defeat in the history of the Democratic Party.
I should conclude by pointing out the fact that, although you never heard it trumpeted in the MSM, Sarah Palin was just last month cleared of all ethics charges filed against her. Think of how much fun it would be when Democrats brought up all those bogus complaints, for Brian Williams, for just one example, to have to explain that, "well, she was actually cleared of those charges as of around June 8th of this year-I just forgot to mention it. Must have been the oil spill."
Of course, the news media was out in force in reporting the charges, and investigating them, and probably in some cases filing them. But when it came to reporting that she was cleared, of every single one of them, they suddenly had other things to do.
There couldn't be a better example of poetic justice than Sarah Palin being named as the Chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Independence Day
This fall on the UB Network, there will be yet another in a long line of incarnations of the character Nikita, based on the French film of the same name, which has spawned three remakes and an earlier television series on USA-and all of which managed to miss the point of the original film.
All of the films, and the first series, were targeted at a young demographic, and the newer version will doubtless be unique probably for merely being targeted at an even younger demographic, American teens.
Many of these teens will have a chance to view the series on DirecTV, which lately has been advertising its services as allowing a program or movie to be filmed in one room, to be viewed in a different room at a later date. Many of these teens will doubtless view the film in privacy of their own private bedroom or lounge.
It's a far cry from the days of yesteryear, when our great-grandparents to a large extent walked miles to go to school, often in inclement weather, in clothes stitched together from whatever fabric was available, using hand-me-down books. Over the years, however, these children of the past helped build the America of recent years, ultimately serving to enhance its already considerable reputation as the envy of the world.
Now, children in other parts of the world, in South and Central America, Asia,and Africa, are gladly walking miles to school, and are delighted to have a chance to study out of six year old math and science books and to eat a bowl of rice to see them through their day, while enduring conditions some of our hardiest pioneers might well have balked at, existing in the atmosphere of repressive and often violent murderous regimes, some of them playing soccer to relieve their frustrations, or just for a brief interval of fun and escape.
While they waste their time, our children are lucky enough to get to engage in advanced learning, in subjects such as women's studies, ebonics, sociology, comparative religions, and ethnic studies. Its not that none of them have any problems, to be sure. Why, many of them do not even have their own private bathrooms, believe it or not. And that is the least of it. Many of them will now, this year, face the horror of not being able to travel from the Northeast go to the beach in the Gulf States region this summer, due to the oil spill. Somebody should arrange for therapy to help them deal with this deprivation, but never fear-somebody probably will.
In the meantime, we have lately heard news of a Russian spy ring operating out of New York, New Jersey, and (where else) Massachusetts. They were basically trying to make contacts through social circles, and were engaged in money laundering activities, establishing covers as American citizens, all in an attempt to get next to people from whom they might eventually derive valuable information, or whom they might be able to blackmail into giving them said information, or opening other doors for them.
The most reported aspect of the story thus far is how cute and alluring is Anne Chapman, the name one of them goes by. I swear, the main interest in the story seems to be, judging by media reports-guys might want to do her. Well, hell, why not, she's kind of a real life Nikita, only Russian, not French, and not a heroin addicted assassin, we should hope. That would really make her irresistible.
As for the film and tv series franchise Nikita, a couple of points to the target demographic audience-
When the original film was released in the US, it was given the name La Femme Nikita.
For roughly twenty-seven percent of you, this was so you would not mistakenly think the film was about Nikita Khruschev. As to how these people thought for sure you would know the French term "La Femme" means "the girl" in English, you'll have to take that up with them.
For the remaining roughly seventy-three percent of you, Nikita Khruschev was a former Premiere of the Soviet Union.
I'm seeing and hearing a lot of fireworks this night, but what I'm not seeing is much of a light at the end of the tunnel.
All of the films, and the first series, were targeted at a young demographic, and the newer version will doubtless be unique probably for merely being targeted at an even younger demographic, American teens.
Many of these teens will have a chance to view the series on DirecTV, which lately has been advertising its services as allowing a program or movie to be filmed in one room, to be viewed in a different room at a later date. Many of these teens will doubtless view the film in privacy of their own private bedroom or lounge.
It's a far cry from the days of yesteryear, when our great-grandparents to a large extent walked miles to go to school, often in inclement weather, in clothes stitched together from whatever fabric was available, using hand-me-down books. Over the years, however, these children of the past helped build the America of recent years, ultimately serving to enhance its already considerable reputation as the envy of the world.
Now, children in other parts of the world, in South and Central America, Asia,and Africa, are gladly walking miles to school, and are delighted to have a chance to study out of six year old math and science books and to eat a bowl of rice to see them through their day, while enduring conditions some of our hardiest pioneers might well have balked at, existing in the atmosphere of repressive and often violent murderous regimes, some of them playing soccer to relieve their frustrations, or just for a brief interval of fun and escape.
While they waste their time, our children are lucky enough to get to engage in advanced learning, in subjects such as women's studies, ebonics, sociology, comparative religions, and ethnic studies. Its not that none of them have any problems, to be sure. Why, many of them do not even have their own private bathrooms, believe it or not. And that is the least of it. Many of them will now, this year, face the horror of not being able to travel from the Northeast go to the beach in the Gulf States region this summer, due to the oil spill. Somebody should arrange for therapy to help them deal with this deprivation, but never fear-somebody probably will.
In the meantime, we have lately heard news of a Russian spy ring operating out of New York, New Jersey, and (where else) Massachusetts. They were basically trying to make contacts through social circles, and were engaged in money laundering activities, establishing covers as American citizens, all in an attempt to get next to people from whom they might eventually derive valuable information, or whom they might be able to blackmail into giving them said information, or opening other doors for them.
The most reported aspect of the story thus far is how cute and alluring is Anne Chapman, the name one of them goes by. I swear, the main interest in the story seems to be, judging by media reports-guys might want to do her. Well, hell, why not, she's kind of a real life Nikita, only Russian, not French, and not a heroin addicted assassin, we should hope. That would really make her irresistible.
As for the film and tv series franchise Nikita, a couple of points to the target demographic audience-
When the original film was released in the US, it was given the name La Femme Nikita.
For roughly twenty-seven percent of you, this was so you would not mistakenly think the film was about Nikita Khruschev. As to how these people thought for sure you would know the French term "La Femme" means "the girl" in English, you'll have to take that up with them.
For the remaining roughly seventy-three percent of you, Nikita Khruschev was a former Premiere of the Soviet Union.
I'm seeing and hearing a lot of fireworks this night, but what I'm not seeing is much of a light at the end of the tunnel.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
She Shoulda Said No (1949) Pts. 7 And 8
The final two segments of the film are followed by my own thoughts and reflections on it.
* Alan Baxter - Markey
* Lyle Talbot - Captain Hayes
* Lila Leeds - Ann
* Michael Whelan - Treanor
* Mary Ellen Popel - Rita
* Doug Blackley - Lieutenant Mason
* David Holt - Bob Lester
* Don Harvey - Lieutenant Tyne
* David Gorcey - Ricky
* Jack Elam - Raymond
* Dick Cogan - Edmunds
* Knox Manning - Narrator
Previously-Captain Hayes sends Mason and Tyne out on an undercover assignment to find a lead on the marihuana racket; Anne throws herself into the party life; In no mood for games, Raymond warns Markie that his mouth might get him in trouble; Anne's new lifestyle leads to a tragedy; Markie gets his chance for advancement when Treanor entrusts him with an important job; and an uncooperative Anne spends time in jail.
She Shoulda Said No which was originally titled "Wild Weed", among many other titles, didn't really find success until it was marketed as a release in conjunction with the US Government in an effort to warn about the scourge of "marihuana". This was a blatant lie. The government was in no way connected with its production, distribution, or promotion during any of its stages.
It was actually an attempt to exploit the arrest in late 1948, for marijuana possession, of Robert Mitchum and film starlet Lila Leeds, the latter of whom is featured in the film in the role of Ann Lester. It would be her last film role of any significance. Whereas Mitchum played up on public empathy and used the arrest as a springboard to further enhance his career, Leeds was a hot potato. No one would touch her. This is perhaps a glaring example of the rampant sexism of the times, and Leeds felt she had no choice but to take the role, feeling it might be her one chance to salvage her career. In fact, perhaps the most cumbersome of the movies many titles was "The Story Of Lila Leeds And Her Expose Of The Marijuana Racket".
Ironically, during the period of time when she was in jail, and just prior to the making of the film, Leeds became a heroin user, and was in all likelihood addicted to the drug by the time this film was made.
She disappeared from public view until the mid-fifties, when she named a Chicago Democratic Party leader in a paternity suit. Sometime during this period, she was also arrested in Chicago for soliciting, a charge which she denied, but for which she was fined ten dollars.
In the seventies, she turned up as a minister in a group devoted to helping addicts recover from their addictions. She died in 1999, a virtual unknown, with no mention in any obituaries, her death being discovered almost by accident, through a perusal years later of her Social Security records.
The film featured a motley crew of performers, for the most part, the most significant of whom was Lyle Talbott in the role of Captain Hayes. Talbott had been a union activist for the Screen Artists Guild, and so of late his roles did not come easy. He had been a leading man much in demand up until then, but soon was relegated to B movies and roles in the early years of television, his most notable one perhaps being a recurring role as a neighbor on the Ozzie and Harriet Show.
Alan Baxter, who played Markie, was a well-respected actor who achieved some success on stage and in B movies, but never rose above that level.
David Gorcey, who played Ricky, had been a former Bowery Boy, but though he was in more of these films than any of the others, including his better known brother who was one of the leads in the film series, he was one of the minor characters.
David Holt, who played Ann's sister Bob, lived a life almost as tragic as that of his character in the film. Plagued by health problems and on the outs with his father, he never rose higher than this role, and died soon after.
Mary Ellen Popel, who played Ann's friend Rita, appeared in frequent films, but very seldom was she credited, mainly subsisting as little more than an extra in films where she was mainly one of a group. She was one of the Hebrews, for example, in the Golden Calf scene of The Ten Commandments.
And so it goes for practically every member of the cast, to whom this exploitation flick represented one last lifeline to a very unlikely successful career, or a revival of one that had floundered for whatever reason. Yet another irony was, by the time this film finally found some degree of success-nearly a decade after it was made-it was far too late to make any difference for most of them.
The one fortunate exception to this, of course, was Jack Elam, who appeared here in his first role as the bodyguard and thug named Raymond, and who probably would have just as soon the film never again saw the light of day.
Yet, it is interesting as a reflection of the attitudes of the day.
* Alan Baxter - Markey
* Lyle Talbot - Captain Hayes
* Lila Leeds - Ann
* Michael Whelan - Treanor
* Mary Ellen Popel - Rita
* Doug Blackley - Lieutenant Mason
* David Holt - Bob Lester
* Don Harvey - Lieutenant Tyne
* David Gorcey - Ricky
* Jack Elam - Raymond
* Dick Cogan - Edmunds
* Knox Manning - Narrator
Previously-Captain Hayes sends Mason and Tyne out on an undercover assignment to find a lead on the marihuana racket; Anne throws herself into the party life; In no mood for games, Raymond warns Markie that his mouth might get him in trouble; Anne's new lifestyle leads to a tragedy; Markie gets his chance for advancement when Treanor entrusts him with an important job; and an uncooperative Anne spends time in jail.
She Shoulda Said No which was originally titled "Wild Weed", among many other titles, didn't really find success until it was marketed as a release in conjunction with the US Government in an effort to warn about the scourge of "marihuana". This was a blatant lie. The government was in no way connected with its production, distribution, or promotion during any of its stages.
It was actually an attempt to exploit the arrest in late 1948, for marijuana possession, of Robert Mitchum and film starlet Lila Leeds, the latter of whom is featured in the film in the role of Ann Lester. It would be her last film role of any significance. Whereas Mitchum played up on public empathy and used the arrest as a springboard to further enhance his career, Leeds was a hot potato. No one would touch her. This is perhaps a glaring example of the rampant sexism of the times, and Leeds felt she had no choice but to take the role, feeling it might be her one chance to salvage her career. In fact, perhaps the most cumbersome of the movies many titles was "The Story Of Lila Leeds And Her Expose Of The Marijuana Racket".
Ironically, during the period of time when she was in jail, and just prior to the making of the film, Leeds became a heroin user, and was in all likelihood addicted to the drug by the time this film was made.
She disappeared from public view until the mid-fifties, when she named a Chicago Democratic Party leader in a paternity suit. Sometime during this period, she was also arrested in Chicago for soliciting, a charge which she denied, but for which she was fined ten dollars.
In the seventies, she turned up as a minister in a group devoted to helping addicts recover from their addictions. She died in 1999, a virtual unknown, with no mention in any obituaries, her death being discovered almost by accident, through a perusal years later of her Social Security records.
The film featured a motley crew of performers, for the most part, the most significant of whom was Lyle Talbott in the role of Captain Hayes. Talbott had been a union activist for the Screen Artists Guild, and so of late his roles did not come easy. He had been a leading man much in demand up until then, but soon was relegated to B movies and roles in the early years of television, his most notable one perhaps being a recurring role as a neighbor on the Ozzie and Harriet Show.
Alan Baxter, who played Markie, was a well-respected actor who achieved some success on stage and in B movies, but never rose above that level.
David Gorcey, who played Ricky, had been a former Bowery Boy, but though he was in more of these films than any of the others, including his better known brother who was one of the leads in the film series, he was one of the minor characters.
David Holt, who played Ann's sister Bob, lived a life almost as tragic as that of his character in the film. Plagued by health problems and on the outs with his father, he never rose higher than this role, and died soon after.
Mary Ellen Popel, who played Ann's friend Rita, appeared in frequent films, but very seldom was she credited, mainly subsisting as little more than an extra in films where she was mainly one of a group. She was one of the Hebrews, for example, in the Golden Calf scene of The Ten Commandments.
And so it goes for practically every member of the cast, to whom this exploitation flick represented one last lifeline to a very unlikely successful career, or a revival of one that had floundered for whatever reason. Yet another irony was, by the time this film finally found some degree of success-nearly a decade after it was made-it was far too late to make any difference for most of them.
The one fortunate exception to this, of course, was Jack Elam, who appeared here in his first role as the bodyguard and thug named Raymond, and who probably would have just as soon the film never again saw the light of day.
Yet, it is interesting as a reflection of the attitudes of the day.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Gibson-Off The Wall
Gibson's really done it this time. It doesn't really matter that much that his ex-girlfriend and mother of his love-child might well have purposely set him up, and baited him into going off on a rant. She admitted, in fact, recording him for what she claimed was evidence, for her own protection against him, explaining that he had threatened her and even physically assaulted her by knocking out her teeth-a charge he has denied.
But you know, even if that could be conclusively proven to be a lie, and that she did go so far as to bait him into engaging in a rant, perhaps while he was intoxicated, its almost totally irrelevant. He said what he said, and what he said is beyond the pale.
Of course, his detractors are mainly focused on the racial slurs and the misogyny, even though they occurred in what Gibson assumed was the privacy of his own home. True, Gibson is a public figure and so is held to a higher standard, but by the same token you get a distinct impression that many of his detractors, such as Jesse Jackson, and the LA Chapter of the NAACP, would like to use this as an example of the kind of covert racism that is endemic in a large percentage of American households. And then there is the misogynistic nature of Gibson's tirade, which is receiving a great deal of attention as well.
He called her a "cunt" and declared that she deserved to be "raped by a pack of niggers", telling her that "it would be your fault". Yet, as bad as all this is, it actually pales beside a couple of other factors that aren't getting one fourth the coverage as the racist and misogynistic nature of what has been described as a thirty minute "demonic" rant.
One, their child was there, apparently in the same room, while this roughly thirty minute tirade was on-going. She can be heard clearly, crying in the background.
Two, and perhaps more disturbingly, he did threaten her, telling her he would burn down the house, adding "but first you will blow me."
I doubt this tape can be used as evidence in a court of law, or even in a civil suit, but that's almost beside the point as well. Gibson has dug himself a hole now for sure, one that all of the sensitivity training and tear-jerk apologies on all the late night talk shows and cable news channels in the world isn't going to pull him out of. In fact, that might only serve to dig the hole deeper at this point. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to just shut the fuck up and try to work out some kind of arrangement for the good of the kid involved. He has backed himself into a corner now, and the overt publicity, as well as common decency, will demand that he step up and try to make things right as far as his financial obligations to the child and to its future well-being.
His career as he has known it is probably in the crapper at this point. His next best shot at a major role might well be as a WCW wrestling villain-if he's lucky.
Without a doubt, people will go to see his next movie, or would do so if he can find a distributor, and a studio or company to finance it. He certainly can't count on financing it himself and ending up with yet another success on the level of Passion of The Christ. I hate to say it, but maybe he should just think about retiring at this point. Nothing he could ever do is likely to please the vast majority of the people he has offended here. Perhaps that is wrong, but it is probably a fact.
I would go see anything he made, and so would many others, but that is by no means an endorsement. I would buy an original Charles Manson recording, and if a museum featured an exhibit of Hitler's artwork, I would go to see it, if possible. That should not be construed as any kind of agreement or affinity for such people as they. I would simply try to judge the works of both on the basis of their artistic merits, or the lack thereof, but for the most part would view it more as an historical oddity and curiosity.
In that same spirit, while I certainly don't mean to imply that Gibson is anywhere near on the same level of monstrosity as Manson or Hitler, I can't defend this. I'm not sure how it would be possible even if I wanted to, which I do not.
But you know, even if that could be conclusively proven to be a lie, and that she did go so far as to bait him into engaging in a rant, perhaps while he was intoxicated, its almost totally irrelevant. He said what he said, and what he said is beyond the pale.
Of course, his detractors are mainly focused on the racial slurs and the misogyny, even though they occurred in what Gibson assumed was the privacy of his own home. True, Gibson is a public figure and so is held to a higher standard, but by the same token you get a distinct impression that many of his detractors, such as Jesse Jackson, and the LA Chapter of the NAACP, would like to use this as an example of the kind of covert racism that is endemic in a large percentage of American households. And then there is the misogynistic nature of Gibson's tirade, which is receiving a great deal of attention as well.
He called her a "cunt" and declared that she deserved to be "raped by a pack of niggers", telling her that "it would be your fault". Yet, as bad as all this is, it actually pales beside a couple of other factors that aren't getting one fourth the coverage as the racist and misogynistic nature of what has been described as a thirty minute "demonic" rant.
One, their child was there, apparently in the same room, while this roughly thirty minute tirade was on-going. She can be heard clearly, crying in the background.
Two, and perhaps more disturbingly, he did threaten her, telling her he would burn down the house, adding "but first you will blow me."
I doubt this tape can be used as evidence in a court of law, or even in a civil suit, but that's almost beside the point as well. Gibson has dug himself a hole now for sure, one that all of the sensitivity training and tear-jerk apologies on all the late night talk shows and cable news channels in the world isn't going to pull him out of. In fact, that might only serve to dig the hole deeper at this point. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to just shut the fuck up and try to work out some kind of arrangement for the good of the kid involved. He has backed himself into a corner now, and the overt publicity, as well as common decency, will demand that he step up and try to make things right as far as his financial obligations to the child and to its future well-being.
His career as he has known it is probably in the crapper at this point. His next best shot at a major role might well be as a WCW wrestling villain-if he's lucky.
Without a doubt, people will go to see his next movie, or would do so if he can find a distributor, and a studio or company to finance it. He certainly can't count on financing it himself and ending up with yet another success on the level of Passion of The Christ. I hate to say it, but maybe he should just think about retiring at this point. Nothing he could ever do is likely to please the vast majority of the people he has offended here. Perhaps that is wrong, but it is probably a fact.
I would go see anything he made, and so would many others, but that is by no means an endorsement. I would buy an original Charles Manson recording, and if a museum featured an exhibit of Hitler's artwork, I would go to see it, if possible. That should not be construed as any kind of agreement or affinity for such people as they. I would simply try to judge the works of both on the basis of their artistic merits, or the lack thereof, but for the most part would view it more as an historical oddity and curiosity.
In that same spirit, while I certainly don't mean to imply that Gibson is anywhere near on the same level of monstrosity as Manson or Hitler, I can't defend this. I'm not sure how it would be possible even if I wanted to, which I do not.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Elena Kagan-The Rule Of Sentiment
Ruthfully Yours has a comprehensive rundown on all the various reasons she feels that Elena Kagan would be a disastrous choice for the Supreme Court. Although I agree with her in nearly every case, I want to especially draw attention to the following-
We know she deliberately ignored the law while at Harvard, and unfairly besmirched our military in time of war. The facts are simple. A law known as the Solomon Amendment made it illegal to keep military recruiters off of college campuses. An appeals court ruled that the law should be overturned but immediately made its own ruling inapplicable until it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Then-Dean Kagan barred the recruiters from campus anyway, thus flouting the law. She called the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule on homosexual practices “a moral injustice of the first order,” even though she herself had served in the Clinton White House that developed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule in the first place. Then, when she supported a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled against her position 8-0 – an overwhelming rejection of her anti-military stance.
There is something about that which I find especially troubling coming from someone who is being considered for a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land. The post in question points out how Kagan is seemingly willing to flout the law, but that's the least of it.
Its important now to think clearly about this-Kagan was attempting to ban the military from recruiting at Harvard because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So what, you might ask?
DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS A GOVERNMENT LAW THE MILITARY HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ADHERE TO!!!!
Moreover, although some might make a bit too much of it in this case, Kagan worked for the Clinton Administration, which of course was the one that issued this rule as a Defense Directive-
The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[13] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[11] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
So what to make of this? Does Kagan feel the military should ignore the constitutional mandate of civilian rule of the military? What about the rest of us? Do we have the right, for that matter the responsibility, to defy the law when we feel it might be odious? Admittedly, that might be a strong temptation when it comes to laws this cretin is likely to uphold, but I seriously doubt that's what she has in mind. Maybe she doesn't have anything in particular in her mind, other than a vain, vapid attachment to her own sentiments. Is that now a viable qualification for a judicial appointment?
Much has been made of Kagan's intellect, education, and abilities. One thing is for sure, she has accomplished what has heretofore been seemingly impossible. She has created a situation in which the Supreme Court felt obliged to rule against her by a unanimous verdict, 8-0, something that is almost unheard of with this ideologically divided court. On this matter, at least, she manages to make even Ruth Bader Ginsburg seem moderate and reasoned, while one lone holdout (I don't yet know who this was, but I suspect Breyer) apparently, while he might have liked to have voted for her position, was unable to think of a legitimate reason to do so and therefore was too embarrassed to vote at all.
Yet Obama, who himself, at least at one point, supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, somehow feels this fruit loop is qualified to hold a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And barring something really momentous, there is little if any doubt that she will be confirmed.
To say it boggles the mind would be a gross understatement.
We know she deliberately ignored the law while at Harvard, and unfairly besmirched our military in time of war. The facts are simple. A law known as the Solomon Amendment made it illegal to keep military recruiters off of college campuses. An appeals court ruled that the law should be overturned but immediately made its own ruling inapplicable until it could be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Then-Dean Kagan barred the recruiters from campus anyway, thus flouting the law. She called the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule on homosexual practices “a moral injustice of the first order,” even though she herself had served in the Clinton White House that developed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule in the first place. Then, when she supported a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled against her position 8-0 – an overwhelming rejection of her anti-military stance.
There is something about that which I find especially troubling coming from someone who is being considered for a lifetime appointment on the highest court of the land. The post in question points out how Kagan is seemingly willing to flout the law, but that's the least of it.
Its important now to think clearly about this-Kagan was attempting to ban the military from recruiting at Harvard because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". So what, you might ask?
DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS A GOVERNMENT LAW THE MILITARY HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ADHERE TO!!!!
Moreover, although some might make a bit too much of it in this case, Kagan worked for the Clinton Administration, which of course was the one that issued this rule as a Defense Directive-
The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[13] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[11] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
So what to make of this? Does Kagan feel the military should ignore the constitutional mandate of civilian rule of the military? What about the rest of us? Do we have the right, for that matter the responsibility, to defy the law when we feel it might be odious? Admittedly, that might be a strong temptation when it comes to laws this cretin is likely to uphold, but I seriously doubt that's what she has in mind. Maybe she doesn't have anything in particular in her mind, other than a vain, vapid attachment to her own sentiments. Is that now a viable qualification for a judicial appointment?
Much has been made of Kagan's intellect, education, and abilities. One thing is for sure, she has accomplished what has heretofore been seemingly impossible. She has created a situation in which the Supreme Court felt obliged to rule against her by a unanimous verdict, 8-0, something that is almost unheard of with this ideologically divided court. On this matter, at least, she manages to make even Ruth Bader Ginsburg seem moderate and reasoned, while one lone holdout (I don't yet know who this was, but I suspect Breyer) apparently, while he might have liked to have voted for her position, was unable to think of a legitimate reason to do so and therefore was too embarrassed to vote at all.
Yet Obama, who himself, at least at one point, supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, somehow feels this fruit loop is qualified to hold a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. And barring something really momentous, there is little if any doubt that she will be confirmed.
To say it boggles the mind would be a gross understatement.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
McDonald vs Chicago
Here's the pdf from the Court. Here is a post on Scotusblog from Alan Gura, who was McDonald's attorney in the case.
The Left got a well-deserved ass-kicking in the McDonald case, and now they are in an introspective rage. They aren't going away any time soon.
The oldest gun control laws in the US actually establishes the gun control movement as an old southern tradition, and Democratic Party one, an attempt by the KKK and its followers to disarm blacks. That tradition has continues up to today. Go to any city that has the most restrictive gun laws, and on any given day count the number of black faces. It doesn't matter whether its LA, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, or of course Chicago, blacks make up a significant percentage of the population, in many if not most cases the majority. The plaintiff in this case, McDOnald, was one such victimized black, a community alternative policing activist hated by the drug gangs he opposed. His house was invaded three times in the past. Yet, he had no means of self-defense so far as guns were concerned.
It's in black and other minority and poor neighborhoods in cities and smaller communities across the nation where you will find the greatest numbers of violent crimes and deaths relating to guns. Many times, it will be gang on gang violence, but far too often it is innocent citizens, the vast majority of whom are unarmed.
The protests from the hard anti-gun left fall more and more on deaf ears, and rightly so, despite the relatively rare though certainly tragic occurrences of domestic violence with guns, the accidental shootings, and of course the cases where a home invasion results in the theft of guns by the criminal culprit-which amounts to nothing more nor less than the criminal adding to his already considerable stockpile of weapons in some cases. But at least in those cases when homeowners have guns, the home invasion is far more likely to occur at those times when the homeowner in question is away.
The Second Amendment originally was intended to allow the states to maintain a militia of armed citizens. These armed citizens were never intended to be an actual standing army, however. "Well-regulated militia" meant in eighteenth century terms, a well-armed citizenry, and those citizens kept their arms where they could have them at the ready-in their own homes. However, many states and local communities did "regulate" guns, and established their own laws. The aforementioned southern states passed such laws so as to enable black citizens, along with white Republicans, to become fair prey. The Cruikshank decision which was mentioned in the case was regarding an incident in which the person in question, Cruikshank, had led and participated in the massacre of numerous unarmed blacks, many of whom were marched through the streets to their execution.
Gun control laws found extension in the West in some locales, and other areas of the country notable for gun violence, but for the most part such laws were purposely discriminatory.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, made it clear that not only could the Federal Government not interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens, or the states, it established that the states themselves could not interfere with the rights of its own citizens. That was the basis of the McDonald ruling, and it has been far too long coming. Previously, this aspect has been ignored, and when it has been brought up, it has been denied. Such determinations have been tolerated due to the precedent set in regulations limiting other rights under the Bill of Rights. Free speech, after all, is not an unlimited right. There are laws against slander and libel, there are community standards that deal with pornography, etc. Freedom of Religion is not unlimited. You can become a Mormon or a Muslim, but you can only marry one woman, or man. A man cannot marry multiple wives, nor a wife multiple husbands. Nor can a man marry young prepubescent girls, nor kill their wife or daughter when they displease him. You can extend it further to Freedom of Association. You can join the Hibernian Society, but if you associate with the Irish Mob or the IRA, you will likely at some point find yourself subject to investigation and possibly prosecution, and rightly so. These are just a few of the things where society draws a line in the sand and declares "Thou Shalt Not Cross".
Because of this inherent reality, gun restrictions have been tolerated, but with this ruling, it has been clearly established that the right of states and local communities to restrict and regulate the right to bear arms is not absolute nor is it unlimited, as is the case in the other aforementioned rights. Were this not so, it might be possible for some states and local communities to totally outlaw free speech or association, or freedom of religion, etc., on completely spurious grounds based on a supposed common good.
Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms is warranted the same degree of interpretation and respect. There will doubtless be a number of future cases which will challenge the laws in certain jurisdictions. Some will meet with different results than in others, and in some cases, some should probably fail. If I own a bar or nightclub, and I don't want armed drunks patronizing the place, I would have serious problems with a law declaring I had to allow and and all of them to carry firearms in my place of business every bit as much as I would if I had to allow anyone that come into my my own home to bring their firearm.
In my opinion, universities similarly have the right to restrict gun ownership on their campuses only to those students who have demonstrated the proper training and self-discipline. I don't think any reasonable person wants to see a house full of drunken frat boys carrying Glocks and Uzis all over campus, or students who have demonstrated disciplinary problems of one stripe or another walking around with guns on their hips and chips on their shoulders.
By the same token, I think some reasonable recognition of the right to bear arms, albeit limited, is certainly warranted, and may even have contributed to the prevention of certain tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, or at the very least such laws might have enabled an armed and trained, responsible student or faculty member to have ended the problem more quickly and lessened the ultimate body count.
But when exactly does a reasonable regulation and requirement become overreaching and repressive? If a person has a number of unpaid parking tickets or has spent a number of nights in the drunk tank, or even if he has a record of assault, domestic or otherwise, does it render him or her incompetent or a danger to society in all cases? How far back does the record have to go? Does a drug arrest twenty years in the past disqualify a person from gun ownership? Will there be shoot to wound laws, or a requirement to fire a warning shot at home invaders before actually taking aim in some jurisdictions? Is it really necessary in some cases to wait until a burglar actually threatens one physically, or wait until he actually breaks down your door and steps inside, even though you see clearly he's about to do just that, carrying a gun or a crowbar as he kneels by your door or window, or is skulking behind the bushes? If you see him outside, should you be required to first call the police before you take matters into your own hands? What if he's already cut your land line and your cellphone isn't working?
What about training? Should a private citizen be required by local law to become proficient in firearms before owning one, as is currently being discussed in Chicago? If so, what should be the level of proficiency? Could this be a way to continue the restrictions, by setting the bar so high most people might not ever pass it without taking an inordinate amount of time at great expense? These are questions that are probably going to be raised in some cases multiple times in different jurisdictions.
No, this isn't the end of the war, this is just one very fortunately won battle, and at a vote of 5-4, barely won at that.
But its a good and historic first step.
The Left got a well-deserved ass-kicking in the McDonald case, and now they are in an introspective rage. They aren't going away any time soon.
The oldest gun control laws in the US actually establishes the gun control movement as an old southern tradition, and Democratic Party one, an attempt by the KKK and its followers to disarm blacks. That tradition has continues up to today. Go to any city that has the most restrictive gun laws, and on any given day count the number of black faces. It doesn't matter whether its LA, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, or of course Chicago, blacks make up a significant percentage of the population, in many if not most cases the majority. The plaintiff in this case, McDOnald, was one such victimized black, a community alternative policing activist hated by the drug gangs he opposed. His house was invaded three times in the past. Yet, he had no means of self-defense so far as guns were concerned.
It's in black and other minority and poor neighborhoods in cities and smaller communities across the nation where you will find the greatest numbers of violent crimes and deaths relating to guns. Many times, it will be gang on gang violence, but far too often it is innocent citizens, the vast majority of whom are unarmed.
The protests from the hard anti-gun left fall more and more on deaf ears, and rightly so, despite the relatively rare though certainly tragic occurrences of domestic violence with guns, the accidental shootings, and of course the cases where a home invasion results in the theft of guns by the criminal culprit-which amounts to nothing more nor less than the criminal adding to his already considerable stockpile of weapons in some cases. But at least in those cases when homeowners have guns, the home invasion is far more likely to occur at those times when the homeowner in question is away.
The Second Amendment originally was intended to allow the states to maintain a militia of armed citizens. These armed citizens were never intended to be an actual standing army, however. "Well-regulated militia" meant in eighteenth century terms, a well-armed citizenry, and those citizens kept their arms where they could have them at the ready-in their own homes. However, many states and local communities did "regulate" guns, and established their own laws. The aforementioned southern states passed such laws so as to enable black citizens, along with white Republicans, to become fair prey. The Cruikshank decision which was mentioned in the case was regarding an incident in which the person in question, Cruikshank, had led and participated in the massacre of numerous unarmed blacks, many of whom were marched through the streets to their execution.
Gun control laws found extension in the West in some locales, and other areas of the country notable for gun violence, but for the most part such laws were purposely discriminatory.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, made it clear that not only could the Federal Government not interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens, or the states, it established that the states themselves could not interfere with the rights of its own citizens. That was the basis of the McDonald ruling, and it has been far too long coming. Previously, this aspect has been ignored, and when it has been brought up, it has been denied. Such determinations have been tolerated due to the precedent set in regulations limiting other rights under the Bill of Rights. Free speech, after all, is not an unlimited right. There are laws against slander and libel, there are community standards that deal with pornography, etc. Freedom of Religion is not unlimited. You can become a Mormon or a Muslim, but you can only marry one woman, or man. A man cannot marry multiple wives, nor a wife multiple husbands. Nor can a man marry young prepubescent girls, nor kill their wife or daughter when they displease him. You can extend it further to Freedom of Association. You can join the Hibernian Society, but if you associate with the Irish Mob or the IRA, you will likely at some point find yourself subject to investigation and possibly prosecution, and rightly so. These are just a few of the things where society draws a line in the sand and declares "Thou Shalt Not Cross".
Because of this inherent reality, gun restrictions have been tolerated, but with this ruling, it has been clearly established that the right of states and local communities to restrict and regulate the right to bear arms is not absolute nor is it unlimited, as is the case in the other aforementioned rights. Were this not so, it might be possible for some states and local communities to totally outlaw free speech or association, or freedom of religion, etc., on completely spurious grounds based on a supposed common good.
Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms is warranted the same degree of interpretation and respect. There will doubtless be a number of future cases which will challenge the laws in certain jurisdictions. Some will meet with different results than in others, and in some cases, some should probably fail. If I own a bar or nightclub, and I don't want armed drunks patronizing the place, I would have serious problems with a law declaring I had to allow and and all of them to carry firearms in my place of business every bit as much as I would if I had to allow anyone that come into my my own home to bring their firearm.
In my opinion, universities similarly have the right to restrict gun ownership on their campuses only to those students who have demonstrated the proper training and self-discipline. I don't think any reasonable person wants to see a house full of drunken frat boys carrying Glocks and Uzis all over campus, or students who have demonstrated disciplinary problems of one stripe or another walking around with guns on their hips and chips on their shoulders.
By the same token, I think some reasonable recognition of the right to bear arms, albeit limited, is certainly warranted, and may even have contributed to the prevention of certain tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, or at the very least such laws might have enabled an armed and trained, responsible student or faculty member to have ended the problem more quickly and lessened the ultimate body count.
But when exactly does a reasonable regulation and requirement become overreaching and repressive? If a person has a number of unpaid parking tickets or has spent a number of nights in the drunk tank, or even if he has a record of assault, domestic or otherwise, does it render him or her incompetent or a danger to society in all cases? How far back does the record have to go? Does a drug arrest twenty years in the past disqualify a person from gun ownership? Will there be shoot to wound laws, or a requirement to fire a warning shot at home invaders before actually taking aim in some jurisdictions? Is it really necessary in some cases to wait until a burglar actually threatens one physically, or wait until he actually breaks down your door and steps inside, even though you see clearly he's about to do just that, carrying a gun or a crowbar as he kneels by your door or window, or is skulking behind the bushes? If you see him outside, should you be required to first call the police before you take matters into your own hands? What if he's already cut your land line and your cellphone isn't working?
What about training? Should a private citizen be required by local law to become proficient in firearms before owning one, as is currently being discussed in Chicago? If so, what should be the level of proficiency? Could this be a way to continue the restrictions, by setting the bar so high most people might not ever pass it without taking an inordinate amount of time at great expense? These are questions that are probably going to be raised in some cases multiple times in different jurisdictions.
No, this isn't the end of the war, this is just one very fortunately won battle, and at a vote of 5-4, barely won at that.
But its a good and historic first step.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Son Of Hamas
Mosab Hassan Yosef is a son of a leader of Hamas, who at some point became a spy for the Israeli Mossad. Sometime later he converted from Islam to Christianity, and later wrote a book called Son Of Hamas.
Now he's in the US, seeking asylum.
Oh yeah, and his deportation hearing is tomorrow.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican, on Monday evening sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano protesting her department’s attempt to deport Mosab Hassan Yosef, a former spy for Israel, Christian convert, outspoken critic of Islam and disowned son of jailed Hamas leader Sheik Hassan Yousef.
Obviously, if he is deported back to Gaza his life won't be worth the cost of his ticket back, or for that matter the cost of printing it. Due to the direness of the situation, Lamborn has twenty-two co-signers from among his colleagues in the House, all of them Republicans-not one single Democrat.
Tick
Tock
Now he's in the US, seeking asylum.
Oh yeah, and his deportation hearing is tomorrow.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican, on Monday evening sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano protesting her department’s attempt to deport Mosab Hassan Yosef, a former spy for Israel, Christian convert, outspoken critic of Islam and disowned son of jailed Hamas leader Sheik Hassan Yousef.
Obviously, if he is deported back to Gaza his life won't be worth the cost of his ticket back, or for that matter the cost of printing it. Due to the direness of the situation, Lamborn has twenty-two co-signers from among his colleagues in the House, all of them Republicans-not one single Democrat.
Tick
Tock
Senator Robert Byrd-End Of An Era (Well, We Can Always Hope)
Somewhere in hell-
Now relax, for all we know, the old former Kleagle might have fooled his old friends by not showing up. After all, he did claim to have disavowed the Klan, and regretted (letting it become public knowledge) that he ever joined them. We should honor his years of public service by taking him at his word.
Wait a minute, what am I saying-he's a politician. Excuse me, slight relapse there.
As you might imagine, folks have different takes on Byrd's death. Sister Toldjah is gracious, even for her, while Pat at Belschspeak seems more sure of his ultimate destination than I.
My take on Byrd, his life, career, and death, takes into consideration the totality of his contributions to public life and society.
He was born in 1917, the same year that progressive Democratic President Woodrow Wilson broke his earlier vow to enter World War One-after winning re-election in part with the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War"-by entering the war, and then arresting and harassing any who protested his actions. Like Wilson, Byrd was a Southerner, and a racist, who later became progressive in his policies. Wilson promoted the same Klan which later Byrd joined, and in his public career, Byrd was every bit as segregationist and bigoted as Wilson, only more openly so, as witness this bit of charming prose from the Gentleman of the Senate-
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
- Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Byrd of course opposed segregation in more matters than merely Truman's integration of the Armed Forces, and did so rigorously, until it became obvious to him, not so much that it was the wrong thing to do and that he was on the wrong side of history, nor because he knew he might lose his Senate seat if he failed to change his stance, but in all likelihood because he knew current realities in the Senate demanded he change if he had any intention of keeping his seniority in regards his committee assignments. Robert Byrd was too much of a pragmatist to be content to remain as a mere back-bencher. He had votes to buy and loyalties to maintain, and that required Congressional largess for his state and constituents. He was richly rewarded for his years of past service and the promise of future service to come to the Democratic Party, which for most of his career was the majority party. West Virginia, while consistently one of the poorest states in the country, nevertheless benefited from Byrd's legendary ability to bring home the pork, and such was the level of gratitude from state officials that, had he lived much longer, there is every indication the state of West Virgina might well have been re-named Byrdvania.
Doubtless it was explained to Byrd how the black vote was becoming more vital than ever in certain constituencies of the nation due to years of progressively increasing black migration from the South to the North and the Midwest and other areas over the course of the preceding fifty years, and that in addition to its stated objectives, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs would help keep blacks docile, restrained to a type of welfare plantation. It might even encourage more blacks to migrate out of the South and border states.
Soon, Byrd became a staunch supporter of leftist progressive Democratic policies, while possible acting as a brake on some of the nuttier liberal excesses in the name of electoral viability, while at the same time never appearing as a divisive influence in his own party. However, he was consistent in his Democratic loyalties to the end, supporting for example the recently passed Health Care Bill in one of his last votes.
To the end, he opposed the war in Iraq as an unconstitutional abrogation of the power of Congress to declare war. Well, he had a point there. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.
He was known to carry around a pocket version of the Constitution. We can imagine, though we can not know for sure, that he wept in private whenever he read the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
He openly disliked Bill Clinton, though never expressed this until the end of Clinton's presidency. He was fond of Hillary.
Robert Carlysle Byrd was the penultimate Democrat for his time, a man born into the era that saw the beginning stages of the evolution of the progressive faction of the Democratic Party take root in the midst of its divisive and racist heritage, during a time when most progressives were in fact themselves openly racist, and in some regards irritatingly sanctimonious about it. Like that movement, his own progressive leanings evolved and grew.
And now he's dead, at the time when many of the progressives of the US are coming to grips with their disappointment in the man whom they thought would bring about the hope and change Byrd himself advocated at first reluctantly, and then wholeheartedly.
The progressive movement of course is not dead. It's just, maybe like Byrd, in a state of purgatory.
Now relax, for all we know, the old former Kleagle might have fooled his old friends by not showing up. After all, he did claim to have disavowed the Klan, and regretted (letting it become public knowledge) that he ever joined them. We should honor his years of public service by taking him at his word.
Wait a minute, what am I saying-he's a politician. Excuse me, slight relapse there.
As you might imagine, folks have different takes on Byrd's death. Sister Toldjah is gracious, even for her, while Pat at Belschspeak seems more sure of his ultimate destination than I.
My take on Byrd, his life, career, and death, takes into consideration the totality of his contributions to public life and society.
He was born in 1917, the same year that progressive Democratic President Woodrow Wilson broke his earlier vow to enter World War One-after winning re-election in part with the slogan "He Kept Us Out Of War"-by entering the war, and then arresting and harassing any who protested his actions. Like Wilson, Byrd was a Southerner, and a racist, who later became progressive in his policies. Wilson promoted the same Klan which later Byrd joined, and in his public career, Byrd was every bit as segregationist and bigoted as Wilson, only more openly so, as witness this bit of charming prose from the Gentleman of the Senate-
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
- Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Byrd of course opposed segregation in more matters than merely Truman's integration of the Armed Forces, and did so rigorously, until it became obvious to him, not so much that it was the wrong thing to do and that he was on the wrong side of history, nor because he knew he might lose his Senate seat if he failed to change his stance, but in all likelihood because he knew current realities in the Senate demanded he change if he had any intention of keeping his seniority in regards his committee assignments. Robert Byrd was too much of a pragmatist to be content to remain as a mere back-bencher. He had votes to buy and loyalties to maintain, and that required Congressional largess for his state and constituents. He was richly rewarded for his years of past service and the promise of future service to come to the Democratic Party, which for most of his career was the majority party. West Virginia, while consistently one of the poorest states in the country, nevertheless benefited from Byrd's legendary ability to bring home the pork, and such was the level of gratitude from state officials that, had he lived much longer, there is every indication the state of West Virgina might well have been re-named Byrdvania.
Doubtless it was explained to Byrd how the black vote was becoming more vital than ever in certain constituencies of the nation due to years of progressively increasing black migration from the South to the North and the Midwest and other areas over the course of the preceding fifty years, and that in addition to its stated objectives, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs would help keep blacks docile, restrained to a type of welfare plantation. It might even encourage more blacks to migrate out of the South and border states.
Soon, Byrd became a staunch supporter of leftist progressive Democratic policies, while possible acting as a brake on some of the nuttier liberal excesses in the name of electoral viability, while at the same time never appearing as a divisive influence in his own party. However, he was consistent in his Democratic loyalties to the end, supporting for example the recently passed Health Care Bill in one of his last votes.
To the end, he opposed the war in Iraq as an unconstitutional abrogation of the power of Congress to declare war. Well, he had a point there. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.
He was known to carry around a pocket version of the Constitution. We can imagine, though we can not know for sure, that he wept in private whenever he read the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
He openly disliked Bill Clinton, though never expressed this until the end of Clinton's presidency. He was fond of Hillary.
Robert Carlysle Byrd was the penultimate Democrat for his time, a man born into the era that saw the beginning stages of the evolution of the progressive faction of the Democratic Party take root in the midst of its divisive and racist heritage, during a time when most progressives were in fact themselves openly racist, and in some regards irritatingly sanctimonious about it. Like that movement, his own progressive leanings evolved and grew.
And now he's dead, at the time when many of the progressives of the US are coming to grips with their disappointment in the man whom they thought would bring about the hope and change Byrd himself advocated at first reluctantly, and then wholeheartedly.
The progressive movement of course is not dead. It's just, maybe like Byrd, in a state of purgatory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)