He sounds very argumentative, except at one moment where he agrees that he 'understands that' it is important to protect the confidentiality of Lynch's team.
Her argument is that it's very important that these decisions not be touched by politics. That is to say, in this case, that it is important that they not have to explain themselves to the American people. This is being presented as an interest in justice: that it is important to justice itself that these decisions not only be made out of the public square, but that the explanation for the decisions never be revealed to the public at all.
And that's the part that Gowdy buys.
Trump Has A Point Here
Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton doesn't make any sense. It is like Occupy endorsing Wall Street.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
The Clintons' actual word is worthless, but they do carry out their threats and fulfill at least those promises for which they were paid large sums of money. I suppose some combination of threats and promises must have carried the day.
Republicans Adopt Very Pro-Israel Platform Plank
You can read it here. I certainly do support Israel, for a number of reasons, but I have some questions about this plank.
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Of greatest interest to me is the commitment to help Israel maintain a qualitatively superior military force. Barack Obama has been fueling both sides of an arms race in the Middle East. On the one hand he has guttied provisions that restrained Iran's development of ballistic missile technology, while allowing them to purchase upgraded missiles from Russia, and heavy weapons from China and elsewhere. He's also provided them with a vast windfall from the end of sanctions, cutting free tons of money that Iran is now using in large part for military upgrades (and support to its network of proxy fighters like Hezbollah). On the other hand, he has been trying to buy support for this Iran policy from Sunni states by selling them advanced American weapons in much larger quantities than ever before.
Thus, maintaining a "qualitatively superior military" in Israel has gotten a lot harder. A cynical man might see this plank as a gift to the 'military-industrial complex' of which we've heard so much. Even a non-cynical man who is a true friend to Israel might wonder about what exactly this entails, given that we are already in back of a major escalation in the Middle East's arms race. Are we going to cut sales to other nations? Can we re-impose sanctions on Iran in a meaningful way, given that the UN Security Council ruling is going to prevent most other countries from going along with it even if we try? Or -- should this plank become America's foreign policy -- are we just committing to pumping even more weapons and technologies into Israel to try to keep them ahead of the flood?
Not Getting It
The President fails to understand the shooting in Dallas, in two different and predictable ways.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
The president met for nearly two hours with leaders of eight law enforcement groups Monday, informing them that he considered the killing of the five police officers in Dallas on Thursday “a hate crime” and that he would work actively to serve as an intermediary between minority activists and police.Once more, it's all about him and his unique and pivotal role in human history. I'm reminded of his comments at the time of the financial crisis that he was the 'only one between the banks and the pitchforks.'
“I’m your best hope,” Obama remarked at one point, according to the Fraternal Order of Police’s James O. Pasco, one of the meeting’s attendees.
The far more dangerous misunderstanding is the idea that this was a "hate crime." This was not a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. It was an act of war. It was not a terrorist attack either, but a guerrilla attack that was consonant with most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions -- especially if you include Protocol I, which the United States has not ratified, but which intends to clarify the status of guerrillas in the laws of war. The only questionable provision is the one requiring them to be under the command of a central authority: this group may have had a commanding officer among them, but it does not appear to have been part of a larger movement. Their status is therefore unclear pending the resolution of that question, and whether a 'central' authority can be derived from such a small group.
The reason this is important is not to say that the shootings were morally better or worse than a terrorist attack or a hate crime. That's a debatable question at best, and one that can be set aside completely at the moment. The reason that it's important is that the solution set is different. If it's a terrorist attack, you kill the terrorists. Terrorists are hostis humani generis. They target civilians, destroy the infrastructure on which life depends, and so forth. This attack waited until civilians dispersed, and targeted only armed agents of the state.
If it's a hate crime, you can be satisfied with merely arresting and prosecuting the hateful criminals. That sets a standard of what is acceptable within the community that will be persuasive, such that even those who are hateful will mostly be motivated by the fear of punishment not to commit such crimes.
A guerrilla swims in a sea of popular support, however. A guerrilla movement cannot exist without such a sea, as Mao pointed out. If you are dealing with a guerrilla movement, you need to address the underlying problems that are giving rise to the support for the killers.
It should be clear from the reaction nationwide that there is a sea for these fish to swim in. Likewise, the fact that "20 to 30" people brought rifles to the BLM protest suggests that there is a strong message being sent to the government that it has reached the limits of patience, and that armed force is the next option. I support such armed, peaceful protests. It's true that armed protesters can confuse police in the case of an actual attack. In that case, the police are justified in treating armed protesters as shooters until they prove themselves otherwise. But it is important that the government recognize that this willingness to take that kind of risk onto one's self is an indicator that political legitimacy has become strained. Legitimacy derives from consent of the governed. A polity that brings rifles to confront the government is still consenting to be governed: they are lawfully protesting and not shooting. But they are an important warning siren that the limits of consent have been reached, and the government should reform itself.
Ultimately I think it would make more sense for the armed protesters from the III% movement and the ones from the BLM movement to get together, and present a unified challenge to a government that has grown accustomed to exceeding its authority. A shift to a more consensual model of government would benefit all of us. There is a common flaw in the approach that gives rise to BLM -- that's "Bureau of Land Management" -- abuses out West, and the shift by localities into using police to generate revenue through the constant extraction of fines.
Nor have I any patience for the liberal/progressive tendency to sing songs of love for BLM -- that's "Black Lives Matter" -- while suggesting that they should definitely disarm themselves and pursue only fully peaceful and nonviolent resistance. If you really respect what they're doing, have the decency to recognize their right to arms. Free citizens don't submit to tyranny, nor are they under any moral obligation to endure it peacefully while begging for relief. Martin Luther King, Jr., was as successful as he was in part because he could point to the crazy radicals like Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X. 'Deal with my movement of Christians adhering to ordinary middle-class morality,' he did not even have to say, 'or, if you will not work with us, deal with the radicals your resistance to change creates.' If you really want to see change, rich white progressives, you should be glad to see this dynamic emerging. Your attempt to marry gun control to loud public signalling of your support for BLM sounds to me like an attempt to slip in submission to your own preferred moral scheme -- a centralized, powerful government with authority to regulate all aspects of American life, and with the sole claim to the legitimate use of force. If you really care about this as you claim to do, progressives, have the courage to dare a potentially revolutionary conflict.
Sometimes violence is a good thing. Violent resistance to overbearing authority gave us Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. None of those things would have existed without men taking up arms to fight for liberty against powerful authority. Political violence also often leads to bad results. You should recognize, however, that this particular moment is not a moment of crime, or hate, or terrorism. Those solutions aren't adequate or appropriate to this situation.
Haidt on Globalism v. Nationalism
He has the rare insight, for a member of his class, that the debate is not about why a healthy and sane globalism is being overtaken by a virulent nationalism. Rather, he says, we have to explain why globalism is attractive to anyone -- it cuts against several very normal moral senses.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
It's a good piece, although as usual Haidt strikes me as wrong about some important aspects of things. Still, he is wrong with an open mind that is trying to grasp the other side's position. That's worth something.
Rather than tell you what I think is wrong, though, I'll leave the matter open in case you want to discuss it in the comments.
What'd They Need a Pilot For? They Found Canada Fine the First Time
Draken Harald Hårfagre, the Viking ship currently visiting the Americas, has been forced to withdraw from "the Tall Ships Challenge 2016," an event held on the Great Lakes. The reason is that Canada decided to slap them with a massive pilotage fee in spite of having promised them that they wouldn't.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
The ship was invited to participate in the Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016 and entered the waters of St Lawrence and the Great Lakes with information from the Great Lakes Pilotage Authorities that a ship of the size and variety of Draken Harald Hårfagre would be excepted the requirement of pilotage. “…Foreign ships of less than 35 meters in overall length are not subject to compulsory pilotage in the Great Lakes Region”Indeed not, though I think there's a decimal point missing in that fee. It looks like the charge is going to be closer to four thousand dollars than four hundred thousand.
The expedition relied on the information from the Pilotage Authorities and the possibility not to be a subject to compulsory pilotage. Unfortunately the project learned, when entering the St Lawrence Seaway, that the ship is required a pilot at all times while at sea with no possibility of reduction in cost. The cost for the pilotage, if the ship were to participate in the schedule for Tall Ships Challenge Great Lakes 2016, is well over 400 000 USD.
The fees are not within reason for a non profit sail training vessel, it blocks the opportunity for any foreign tall ship to enter the Great Lakes and visit the ports.
Still, that's silly given that this is a Viking ship conducting a nonprofit educational mission and not a commercial freighter. You'd think some good-spirited pilot would volunteer his time, and Canada would have the decency to waive the fees. The only thing more rapacious than a boatload of Viking warriors is a Canadian tax collector, I suppose.
"My Biggest Flaw? I Just Work Too Darned Hard."
The coverage of Hillary Clinton at Vox is shamefully in-the-tank, and never moreso than when Ezra Klein is writing it. He sounds like one of those too-clever job interviewees, except he's making the case for her getting the job instead of himself.
My favorite example remains his piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." It purports to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton for not trusting the voters, but it is really a criticism of the voters for not really meriting her trust. The idea is to immunize her for a real flaw by admitting the flaw's existence, but then casting it as a strength. You're supposed to come away with a new respect for her wisdom in not trusting the American people, and maybe even a sense of guilt for not being worthy of her.
Today, he has a longer and more in depth version of the same rhetorical trick. Why is it that people inside Hillary's circle describe her in such different terms, adoring and glorious, when the average person doesn't trust her? Once again, he admits the problem exists, and pretends that he is going to criticize her faults as a candidate. But the real answer? "Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns.... Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens."
Oh, yeah. That's why I don't trust her. Because she listens.
Or maybe, you know, it could be this.
My favorite example remains his piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust You." It purports to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton for not trusting the voters, but it is really a criticism of the voters for not really meriting her trust. The idea is to immunize her for a real flaw by admitting the flaw's existence, but then casting it as a strength. You're supposed to come away with a new respect for her wisdom in not trusting the American people, and maybe even a sense of guilt for not being worthy of her.
Today, he has a longer and more in depth version of the same rhetorical trick. Why is it that people inside Hillary's circle describe her in such different terms, adoring and glorious, when the average person doesn't trust her? Once again, he admits the problem exists, and pretends that he is going to criticize her faults as a candidate. But the real answer? "Every single person brought up, in some way or another, the exact same quality they feel leads Clinton to excel in governance and struggle in campaigns.... Hillary Clinton, they said over and over again, listens."
Oh, yeah. That's why I don't trust her. Because she listens.
Or maybe, you know, it could be this.
Scots Wha Hae
A small poem on the occasion of the Highland Games.
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
"Lay the proud usurpers low,
Tyrants fall in every foe,
Liberty is in every blow,
Let us do or die!"
Was Off to the Wild
I spent the weekend in the Pisgah National Forest, and at the Grandfather Mountain Scottish Highland Games.
Plenty of time for hiking and camping. If you get up early enough, you'll find yourself completely alone in the Linville Gorge. It is named after a Long Hunter who was killed by the Shawnee, along with his son. Those "Long" hunts for furs could go on for as much as a year, during which time you might amass quite a store of hides. Of course, this made you an ever-more tempting target.
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
The Grandfather Games
Linville Gorge
Saw a black bear again this weekend, a charming young male who pause and stood up to look me in the eye before continuing on his way. No aggression at all, just curiosity. I also saw a double rainbow after an evening rainstorm, the first one I've ever seen that you could fully see both of the two bows from horizon to horizon. It was especially intense in its color.
They did "Britannia Rules the Waves" at the games, as well as all the military service songs. People who had served stood up while their service's song played. Turns out bagpipes can't play the Air Force song because it features "chromatics," whatever that means.
A bit of appropriate music for the Celtic Carolina homeland. This instrument is the Appalachian Dulcimer, a simplified version of a very old instrument -- and, in its hammered form, a much more capable one. You see the Appalachian form throughout Western North Carolina. You see the hammered form more rarely.
The national animal of Scotland, by the way, is the unicorn.
A Little Bit of Craig Morgan
I recently got the chance to see him live over the long 4th holiday.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Morgan spent nearly a decade on active duty with the 82nd and 101st, and another six in the reserves, before releasing his first country album in 2000. In the GWOT, he toured Iraq & Afghanistan with the USO.
Keeper of Antiquities: Irish Sacrificed their Kings Horribly if Things Turned Bad in the Kingdom
A kind of early 'checks and balances,' if you will.
"The king had great power but also great responsibility to ensure the prosperity of his people. Through his marriage on his inauguration to the goddess of the land, he was meant to guarantee her benevolence. He had to ensure the land was productive, so if the weather turned bad, or there was plague, cattle disease or losses in war, he was held personally responsible."There's a famous similar argument made by Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker in the Heimskringla. The pagan mythos has been bleached out, but the 'checks and balances' sentiment remains.
[Our king] wants to have the Norway kingdom laid under him, which no Swedish king before him ever desired, and therewith brings war and distress on many a man. Now it is our will, we bondes, that thou King Olaf make peace with the Norway king, Olaf the Thick, and marry thy daughter Ingegerd to him. Wilt thou, however, reconquer the kingdoms in the east countries which thy relations and forefathers had there, we will all for that purpose follow thee to the war. But if thou wilt not do as we desire, we will now attack thee, and put thee to death; for we will no longer suffer law and peace to be disturbed. So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us. Now tell us [king], in all haste, what resolution thou wilt take.
3 Dead Police in Dallas, 10 Injured
So I hear. More of the injured are in critical condition.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
The point at which they started shooting cops was the point at which the police will no longer listen to arguments about adjusting their training to adopt a less-aggressive posture. The window for fixing the problem just closed, at least for quite a while. Nothing good will come from this.
Requiescat in pace.
According to the live feed at this link (local NBC), it was 11 officers shot of 100 total.
Regarding the Intellectual Arguments in Captain America: Civil War
Yes, this post is all of the horrifying things that title implies.
However, before I tear it apart, I'd like to say I really enjoyed this movie. I've gone to see it twice, now. Also, despite what I am about to say about it, I think it is about as balanced as a left-wing studio echo chamber can be expected to create. That said, I have some issues with it.
But first, the trailer:
Since this is kinda long, the rest is below the fold. Mild spoiler alert, mostly if you consider the intellectual side of an Avengers movie a spoiler.
However, before I tear it apart, I'd like to say I really enjoyed this movie. I've gone to see it twice, now. Also, despite what I am about to say about it, I think it is about as balanced as a left-wing studio echo chamber can be expected to create. That said, I have some issues with it.
But first, the trailer:
Since this is kinda long, the rest is below the fold. Mild spoiler alert, mostly if you consider the intellectual side of an Avengers movie a spoiler.
A Point Worth Making Right Now
How to restore oversight, checks and balances? Vote Trump.
The smaller point, but also important, is that Trump's likely foolishness will give Congress, the media, and the courts a chance to rebuild their atrophied muscles. By the end of Trump's term (which I still think would highly likely end in impeachment and removal from office, especially if he picks a VP that people like better than him), the next President will come into office with a clear example of the dangers of transgressing boundaries in front of their eyes.
With Clinton, if we even get to a President after her, the lesson would be that there no limits. Only power.
Think of it. A Congress that finally finds a spine in the face of the president. And that’s not just Democrats – even the posing goofs on the Republican side of the aisle would be falling over themselves to take a whack at the orange executive. What court would shrug and defer to El Presidente Little Digits? Even the mainstream media would rediscover the curiosity about West Wing wrongdoing that disappeared back in January 2009. Imagine their delight to once again be able to preen and strut while babbling about how they speak truth to power instead of groveling and bussing the rear of their White House master.Actually, that's two points worth making. The bigger point is that a Hillary Clinton administration would be the end of the Constitution, via her hand-picked SCOTUS, as well as the rule of law by her actively abetted acts of fiat.
America will have never seen checking and balancing like President Trump would experience. And that is exactly, precisely what America must have right now.
Hillary Clinton will roll into office unhindered and unaccountable. We know what Clintons do when there is oversight; any sane person should shudder at the thought of them not merely unaccountable, but actively abetted by the entire elite.
The smaller point, but also important, is that Trump's likely foolishness will give Congress, the media, and the courts a chance to rebuild their atrophied muscles. By the end of Trump's term (which I still think would highly likely end in impeachment and removal from office, especially if he picks a VP that people like better than him), the next President will come into office with a clear example of the dangers of transgressing boundaries in front of their eyes.
With Clinton, if we even get to a President after her, the lesson would be that there no limits. Only power.
Reason: "Where's the NRA on Philando Castile?"
A fair question, although a fair answer might be, "Waiting until more facts come in before committing to a public position."
Still, the NRA could come out with a statement that doesn't take a position on the facts of the case, but that does reassert that police training should embrace the reality that there are millions more Americans lawfully carrying arms. The presence of a weapon should not be taken to indicate that the officer's life is in immediate jeopardy. Some new mode of training needs to be developed that doesn't go to DEFCON 1 at the first sign of a weapon.
Still, the NRA could come out with a statement that doesn't take a position on the facts of the case, but that does reassert that police training should embrace the reality that there are millions more Americans lawfully carrying arms. The presence of a weapon should not be taken to indicate that the officer's life is in immediate jeopardy. Some new mode of training needs to be developed that doesn't go to DEFCON 1 at the first sign of a weapon.
An Old Man From Britain Has Some Harsh Words For "Generation Snowflake"
Here in the US, "Generation Snowflake" has borne the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- though plenty of my own generation made it out there too. Let's make sure to remember to carve out an exception for that element of the generation.
With that said, let's proceed with the verbal beatdown.
Hopefully he's right that, someday, they'll appreciate what has been saved for them.
With that said, let's proceed with the verbal beatdown.
Hopefully he's right that, someday, they'll appreciate what has been saved for them.
Interesting
James Comey was asked directly about whether there was an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Comey responded: “I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existince of any other investigations.”
But when they asked if he had investigated whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath in her testimony to Congress -- committed perjury, in other words -- he specifically denied the existence of that investigation, and told Congress they'd have to request one. (They are going to do so.)
The other big news is that the FBI did not record Clinton's testimony, nor place her under oath. "Still a crime to lie to us," Comey noted, but now no one can prove that she did.
But when they asked if he had investigated whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath in her testimony to Congress -- committed perjury, in other words -- he specifically denied the existence of that investigation, and told Congress they'd have to request one. (They are going to do so.)
The other big news is that the FBI did not record Clinton's testimony, nor place her under oath. "Still a crime to lie to us," Comey noted, but now no one can prove that she did.
Captain's Journal: Cf. Hillary and the New SCOTUS Ruling on Guns
It's been a while since I looked at Herschel Smith's page. I should drop by more often.
That's just a matter of your fundamental rights as a citizen, the protection of which is the whole and only purpose of the government of the United States according to the Declaration of Independence. This was a much more important question of preserving Hillary Clinton's power.Whereas Hillary can skate on perceived reckless conduct when Comey himself acknowledges it is “a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,” gun owners also deemed guilty of recklessness now face a “terrifying new precedent,” per a Conservative Review analysis of the Supreme Court’s 6 -2 decision in the Voisine case.But it gets even worse than that. As we’ve seen, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “… the word “use” does not demand that the person applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Or, otherwise said, that word is indifferent as to whether the actor has the mental state of intention, knowledge, or recklessness with respect to the harmful consequences of his volitional conduct.”
“[T]he court ruled that crimes of recklessness rise to the same level as ‘misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence’ which preclude individuals convicted of such a crime from firearm ownership by federal law,” the article explains...
Notice the words intention, substantial likelihood, and recklessness.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)