In the movie series Band of Brothers there’s a scene near the end where Major Winters’ former superior, Captain Sobel walks by without saluting. This is the major’s response: Winters/Sobel Encounter. It’s only 56 seconds.
In it Winters admonishes Sobel for not saluting a superior officer. The two had a long, strained history. Winters reminds Sobel the salute is to the rank, not the man.
———
This relates to the absence of AOC and, I read but did not confirm that there were five others, from the SOTU address last night and the tempestuous behavior of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The attendance and decorum typical of most of the previous SOTU speeches ought to have been out of respect for the Office of President more than for the man occupying it.
———-
We do not have a king. But by expressing distaste for the man at an event mandated by the constitution, although the particular form is not, these women, and notably they were all women, have inadvertently, or maybe not, signaled that they consider the man to be a despotic king. Well, as a matter of fact they are on record saying that it is their opinion that Trump thinks himself a king. They just acted as though he were, making for us a king. This is not just how they think. It is how they would do if the office ever changes to a person suiting them. The latin Lex Rex is a phrase meaning law before men. It is our system condensed to its smallest form. AOC, Pelosi and their synchophants would reverse the phrase. They want a King or preferably a Queen.
——
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Thursday, December 5, 2019
How TV and print media online ought to generate revenue
Copied from one of my comments made on
PJ Media
That’s all fine and dandy. But I have doubts the old subscription model is going to work. It’s killing cable and satellite TV. People want ala carte. What would I pay per article? In all honestly, having thought about this for over two decades, about 1/10¢ per article. I read between 50-100 per day. Do the annual cost; way more than subscription offerings. But I refuse to pay every site an annual subscription to read a tiny fraction of all their offerings.
I would also be creating a new. Sector wide payment system like iPass. I would also include credits for responses to commenters, linking to others’ writings and more. They generate clicks and clicks are money. Leverage the internet for chrissakes. Maybe even put pressure on advertisers. I think the whole sector is outdated in its revenue generating model.
Copied from one of my comments made on
PJ Media
That’s all fine and dandy. But I have doubts the old subscription model is going to work. It’s killing cable and satellite TV. People want ala carte. What would I pay per article? In all honestly, having thought about this for over two decades, about 1/10¢ per article. I read between 50-100 per day. Do the annual cost; way more than subscription offerings. But I refuse to pay every site an annual subscription to read a tiny fraction of all their offerings.
I would also be creating a new. Sector wide payment system like iPass. I would also include credits for responses to commenters, linking to others’ writings and more. They generate clicks and clicks are money. Leverage the internet for chrissakes. Maybe even put pressure on advertisers. I think the whole sector is outdated in its revenue generating model.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Training Has Not Made Police Safer with a Weapon
What happened at the White House today with the chase, shooting and killing of a woman who slammed her car into the White House barricades is instructive for several reasons. It seems senseless to try to ram a car through barricades designed to repel just such an act, for one. Go around, idiot. Go around, to borrow from B. Cosby. When the cops decide to shoot they exercise that military cliche', kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. Check lockers for that T-shirt. Firearms training for cops either doesn't stick, isn't very good or unintentionally enables the gunslinger found in some cops.
In D.C., L.A., N.Y., and who knows how many other towns and cities cops can't hit what they're shooting at, don't care what they might and do hit and seem to think the badge gives them the power and right to spray and pray out in a very public place.
It seems that the one correct move the cops made today was that this car had to be stopped. A speeding car, possibly loaded with explosives, chemical or biological weapons leaves No time to assess the situation for purposes of bringing a dangerous situation to a peaceful conclusion. Even though the cops handled their weapons very poorly, the judgement to use them in the heat of the moment was more than likely the correct one.
If the numerous examples of police mishandling of firearms is an indication of the resulting safety, then formal training will not make the private bearing of firearms any safer. I contend that the training, badge, uniform and attending authority brings out the gunslinger in most cops. Instead of making them more careful, it makes them go a bit wild. Why would that be? Because the consequences of a legal but wholly unsafe use of a firearm has only minor repercussions.
Unlike the repercussions of a private citizen who, for perfectly defensible reasons, brandishes and fires even one shot, even finding its mark, God help you if you miss and hit an innocent, a cop who shoots an innocent during a legal use of his weapon is usually immune to any criminal prosecution or civil liability.
What then prompts a rare post from Naut Right? The gun grabbers persistent demands that private gun owners must undergo training to a level somewhat like the police, that's what prompts this post. The liability of private citizens acts as a brake on gunslinger attitudes. Maybe even the relative legal safety of an attacker is a factor in prompting a considerable reluctance of the private citizen to use firearms in self defense. The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects that phenomena. A cop is not immune to human impulses because of firearms training. As previously stated, a set of circumstances unique to police work seem to prompt quite an opposite effect once a justifiable use of a weapon is decided upon, than the training intends, which is a careful use of firearms.
Therefore firearms training isn't the panacea for the safety concerns of the gun grabbers. It only acts as a screening device, taking put those who can't afford the money or time to get the training. The cops prove it more than occasionally.
Let's push back on their demands for training that doesn't impact the problem. Let's flesh out and refine the narrative that the present legal environment supplies the private citizen with the necessary brake upon any tendencies to go all gunslinger and tame the wild west.
In D.C., L.A., N.Y., and who knows how many other towns and cities cops can't hit what they're shooting at, don't care what they might and do hit and seem to think the badge gives them the power and right to spray and pray out in a very public place.
It seems that the one correct move the cops made today was that this car had to be stopped. A speeding car, possibly loaded with explosives, chemical or biological weapons leaves No time to assess the situation for purposes of bringing a dangerous situation to a peaceful conclusion. Even though the cops handled their weapons very poorly, the judgement to use them in the heat of the moment was more than likely the correct one.
If the numerous examples of police mishandling of firearms is an indication of the resulting safety, then formal training will not make the private bearing of firearms any safer. I contend that the training, badge, uniform and attending authority brings out the gunslinger in most cops. Instead of making them more careful, it makes them go a bit wild. Why would that be? Because the consequences of a legal but wholly unsafe use of a firearm has only minor repercussions.
Unlike the repercussions of a private citizen who, for perfectly defensible reasons, brandishes and fires even one shot, even finding its mark, God help you if you miss and hit an innocent, a cop who shoots an innocent during a legal use of his weapon is usually immune to any criminal prosecution or civil liability.
What then prompts a rare post from Naut Right? The gun grabbers persistent demands that private gun owners must undergo training to a level somewhat like the police, that's what prompts this post. The liability of private citizens acts as a brake on gunslinger attitudes. Maybe even the relative legal safety of an attacker is a factor in prompting a considerable reluctance of the private citizen to use firearms in self defense. The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects that phenomena. A cop is not immune to human impulses because of firearms training. As previously stated, a set of circumstances unique to police work seem to prompt quite an opposite effect once a justifiable use of a weapon is decided upon, than the training intends, which is a careful use of firearms.
Therefore firearms training isn't the panacea for the safety concerns of the gun grabbers. It only acts as a screening device, taking put those who can't afford the money or time to get the training. The cops prove it more than occasionally.
Let's push back on their demands for training that doesn't impact the problem. Let's flesh out and refine the narrative that the present legal environment supplies the private citizen with the necessary brake upon any tendencies to go all gunslinger and tame the wild west.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The One Reason for the Second
The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The security of a free state is often found with State capitalized in older references and in the original.
The special purpose of the Second is to guarantee to the citizenry, each in his or her own capacity the right to fend off armies both foreign amd domestic. You see a direct refernce to that another place in the constitution, in the original Article I. The famous gun case called Miller had court dicta that said arms used for military purposes were protected.
The other rights under the umbrella of the Second; the right to hunt, to a personal form of self-defense, to collect firearms, to engage in shooting sports are also covered, quite adequately, under the Ninth Amendment. Even if the Second did not exist, these ancillary rights under the Second would be covered.
To make a special emphasis, the Second guarantees the citizens the right to maintain war making powers. It is only by that ability can a free State be secure. Do not be misled, duped or worse become an unwitting dupe of the anti-gunners or the well meaning but timid gun supporters who rest their case on self-defense or hunting.
The security of a free state is often found with State capitalized in older references and in the original.
The special purpose of the Second is to guarantee to the citizenry, each in his or her own capacity the right to fend off armies both foreign amd domestic. You see a direct refernce to that another place in the constitution, in the original Article I. The famous gun case called Miller had court dicta that said arms used for military purposes were protected.
The other rights under the umbrella of the Second; the right to hunt, to a personal form of self-defense, to collect firearms, to engage in shooting sports are also covered, quite adequately, under the Ninth Amendment. Even if the Second did not exist, these ancillary rights under the Second would be covered.
To make a special emphasis, the Second guarantees the citizens the right to maintain war making powers. It is only by that ability can a free State be secure. Do not be misled, duped or worse become an unwitting dupe of the anti-gunners or the well meaning but timid gun supporters who rest their case on self-defense or hunting.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Don't Fix Obamacare
The howls of protest are coming in about the law nobody read. Here are two links about that:
Key Democrats Turn on Obamacare and this one, New Taxes Bourne by Small Business;Legislation to Repeal
Republicans should spurn efforts to tweak Obamacare. This was the bill that had to be passed, that nobody read and now nobody wants. Republicans should not lend the bill the slightest shade of merit by tweaking it, as though there is an overarching merit in it, in the main.
Let the whole weight of what Obama and the Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts has wrought fall on the country. It will only be through the pain of their mistakes that Republicans will have a chance at complete repeal.
Republicans need to say it clearly and without apology that this law will go into full force, as written, without amendment OR it will be repealed. The all or nothing at all approach is what the Democrats offered. Let them live with it.
Key Democrats Turn on Obamacare and this one, New Taxes Bourne by Small Business;Legislation to Repeal
Republicans should spurn efforts to tweak Obamacare. This was the bill that had to be passed, that nobody read and now nobody wants. Republicans should not lend the bill the slightest shade of merit by tweaking it, as though there is an overarching merit in it, in the main.
Let the whole weight of what Obama and the Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts has wrought fall on the country. It will only be through the pain of their mistakes that Republicans will have a chance at complete repeal.
Republicans need to say it clearly and without apology that this law will go into full force, as written, without amendment OR it will be repealed. The all or nothing at all approach is what the Democrats offered. Let them live with it.
The Glue that Holds Establishment Republicans and Democrats Together
The Tea Party is to establishment Republicans and Democrats alike what Michael Milliken and other hostile takeover artist were/are to bloated businesses. Politics is the business. To stoke business the pendulum of public opinion has to be shoved from time to time. That happens by taking government to the extremes. The Tea Party would severely dampen the swaying to extremes by limiting the movement of government. Can't have that. Money would flow out of the business of politics.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
How Should Republicans Govern the Next Four Years
I am writing five days after the November 6th election. Reading as much of the post-election analysis as my time admits I can't help but wonder how the Republicans in the House, Senate and in the state held offices might try to govern in light of the re-election of Barack Obama and the retention of the Senate by the Democrats.
Only a few items come to mind. In no particular order, the States should muscle up their 10th Amendment rights. The coercive scheme in place between the state and federal government that has gone on for decades should be challenged. States are co-equal units of government with more authority over a larger scope of government responsibility than is commonly known. Time for a few trips to the woodshed behind the supreme court.
The House of Representatives needs to understand the reasons that the House was designed with two features that are unlike their counterparts in the Senate and the other branch, the Executive. Those are popular vote and power of the purse. The popular vote, coming every two years as it does, was a means of keeping government close to the will of the people. It is the design for true self-government. The Senate gets six year terms and are voted in statewide which can be an effective insulator from the will of the people. The Executive being chosen nationally for four years is also insulated from a close association with the people.
The other feature in the Constituion designed for the House of Representatives is the power of the purse. All bills containing provisions to tax or spend must originate in the House. This power is designed to direct the efforts of the government to the will of the people. The current house leadership exercises this power somewhat weakly. When the Speaker says that the House cannot pass a budget without the concurrence of the Senate and President he is correct. When he says he must bend to their will he is not correct. That may be the compromising way to sign a budget into law but it is not a requirement that the House needs to compromise. The House can and should hold the government hostage to its budgetary and tax policy direction. Its a duty they have as evidenced by the power they were given.
The Executive function is to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their House representatives. The Senate function is not to trump the House but to curb its tendencies to extremes. When either the Senate or the Executive attempt to co-opt the power of the House to set tax and spend policy it is the duty of the House to shut government down pending a return to their rightful duties, the Senate and Executive. This also ought to be the check designed to curb the power grabs of the bureaucracy. The House is the protectorate branch of the people. The Senate is the protectorate branch of the States. The Executive is the protectorate branch of the political entity called the United States. The constitution empowers each to be able to fulfill their duty and checks them each from usurping the powers of the others, provided the others jealously guard their powers.
Its up to the House to protect us during the next four years.
Only a few items come to mind. In no particular order, the States should muscle up their 10th Amendment rights. The coercive scheme in place between the state and federal government that has gone on for decades should be challenged. States are co-equal units of government with more authority over a larger scope of government responsibility than is commonly known. Time for a few trips to the woodshed behind the supreme court.
The House of Representatives needs to understand the reasons that the House was designed with two features that are unlike their counterparts in the Senate and the other branch, the Executive. Those are popular vote and power of the purse. The popular vote, coming every two years as it does, was a means of keeping government close to the will of the people. It is the design for true self-government. The Senate gets six year terms and are voted in statewide which can be an effective insulator from the will of the people. The Executive being chosen nationally for four years is also insulated from a close association with the people.
The other feature in the Constituion designed for the House of Representatives is the power of the purse. All bills containing provisions to tax or spend must originate in the House. This power is designed to direct the efforts of the government to the will of the people. The current house leadership exercises this power somewhat weakly. When the Speaker says that the House cannot pass a budget without the concurrence of the Senate and President he is correct. When he says he must bend to their will he is not correct. That may be the compromising way to sign a budget into law but it is not a requirement that the House needs to compromise. The House can and should hold the government hostage to its budgetary and tax policy direction. Its a duty they have as evidenced by the power they were given.
The Executive function is to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their House representatives. The Senate function is not to trump the House but to curb its tendencies to extremes. When either the Senate or the Executive attempt to co-opt the power of the House to set tax and spend policy it is the duty of the House to shut government down pending a return to their rightful duties, the Senate and Executive. This also ought to be the check designed to curb the power grabs of the bureaucracy. The House is the protectorate branch of the people. The Senate is the protectorate branch of the States. The Executive is the protectorate branch of the political entity called the United States. The constitution empowers each to be able to fulfill their duty and checks them each from usurping the powers of the others, provided the others jealously guard their powers.
Its up to the House to protect us during the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)