Skalduggery

Tired of the same old accusations about your character simply because you don’t believe the popular line of mind numbingly stupid political positions? Visit a bit of Thomas Paine… you know, common sense discourse and exposition. Watch, enjoy, act!

Sketchbook Pro by Autodesk and a great new tablet 🙂

Sometimes veterans are in the unenviable position of being called a patriot when that word is not quite in vogue. When in fact, many of the self-proclaimed “educated” call these same men and women “jingoists” or worse. I wished to those I know on Facebook – yes… I am on Facebook – and  to those I knew, I wished:

Best of Veterans Day to everyone, but especially to those for whom the holiday is named! I’m proud to say it includes my immediate family (my father and daughters) my extended family (sons-in-law, fathers-in-law, and fellow parents!), and a myriad of friends that extend through all these wonderful patriots! I call them patriots not because our political views are the same, but because despite the differences, they wrote a blank check to their country with their lives.

Strength and Honor, Woodstock.

“Woodstock” is a name some brothers-in-arms call me – a group of motorcycle riding veterans – and those brothers exemplify what is best in our country. We (Spirit Warriors – a group of vets whose mission is service to veterans in need) were honored to participate in Albany, Oregon’s celebration of Veterans’ Day – from the early morning benediction through the parade at midday.  I’m not sure how many motorcycles, or for that matter, how many clubs showed up… but it seemed to number beyond a hundred bikes! Rolling thunder? Louder. As my son-in-law encouraged me, “Ride LOUD pops!” It was definitely that!

In any detachment, squad, battalion or other group, there are few who could truly be called heroes.  I had the pleasure of serving with a no bullshit hero – and the rest of us followed him – and by extension we became brave because we followed him into hell. I like to remember a quote by Mark Twain when I run across those who think, by virtue of their education, that they somehow know better how to characterize a veteran’s service:

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain

I suppose I could quote Harry Reid next, you know, his comments about how the war was already lost, not winnable, ad nauseum. Instead, I offer a celebration of Veterans’ Day by a bunch of  young and old vets on motorcycles, and a crowd of Albany’s finest joining in the fun! So here’s a not so professional video of a few moments in the day.

Strength, honor, and courage!

The Skald 😉

P.S. ~that’s my life long honey(aka “Weasel”) on the back of my Harley trying to catch bits on her little video camera!

Update: Switched to YouTube for the video… it provides for HD much easier – hope you like it.

Take a look here and here. Finally, take a look at her original post and hit the ABC link… and send a nasty gram that highlights the double-standard so starkly displayed by that… umm, woman. While the management at ABC is not likely to share the values or see the hypocrisy, they are likely to notice a hit to the bottom line. Make it hurt financially if they don’t support fair play.

Cheers all.

Had to throw this up!! Follow it back to see all the pieces… WOW!  VOTE!!

Remember November: The Final Act from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Watch the video that tells the story of why every American should Remember November! Please click “Share” to help spread the message about the most important election in our lifetime.

Cheers All!

Equal Treatment?

This post is a result of a post by my blogger buddy, Tom, over at Responsibility – Freedom Demands It. There were a series of topics he listed – all relating to things we should look for in our representatives – to choose from to help Tom finish off a list he started near the beginning of the year. I chose numbers five and fifteen… then figured I’d better combine the two. I’m not certain I’m the “expert” he suggests, but I’m sure happy to at least address a portion of our legal system and crime and punishment. So then, here goes:

I learned early that it is sometimes imprudent to “volunteer” oneself for anything. In fact, when I joined the Navy (thinking “navy” was actually a word describing an armed fleet) I discovered that the word navy is actually an acronym! Never Again Volunteer Yourself. Though that was often said tongue-in-cheek, the underlying thought that bad things happen when you volunteer never strayed far from our minds – especially in troubled waters.

That’s where I find myself here, trying to write something on crime and punishment and our legal system… troubled waters. First, it’s a huge subject with a wealth of material when it comes to deciding where to place one’s vote. Second, our country has strayed so far from the “Common Law” of our country’s birth that discussing any portion of contract, tort or criminal law is often fraught with built in misunderstandings because of several differences: education, ethnicity, and birthright to name a prominent few. Third, and last, the consequence of the criminal law in our country is almost a taboo subject… Prisons.

To try and pull these disparate parts together, and to focus our attention on “what we’re looking for in a representative,” I’m going to jump in to the middle of things and hope for the best… in other words, “let the chips fall where they may.” Up front full disclosure – I am a correctional officer working for the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and the views expressed here are mine alone. Additionally, much of the material I’ll draw from is found in the links at the end of this article. So then, here is the first jump into the middle of things:

Let’s try a definition or three.

Rule of Law: “The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions.  In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.” [6&7]

Now this next definition may draw the ire of some fellow conservatives – so be it. A common wailing in the conservative ranks is that the legislature, not the judiciary, creates law. Our legal heritage derives from the English common law, and for circumstances not covered by statute, judges did indeed create law in what was known as a “court of equity.” So let’s be careful with our hand wringing when it comes to judicial decisions, and be reasonably certain that a situation is either covered by statute or is unconstitutional.

Common Law: That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was later adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws. [8]

Common Law, also known as case law, or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A “common law system” is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. [9] (emphasis mine)

And third, the notion of fairness (I greatly admire Thomas Sowell, and the notion of fairness is covered in links 1-4 below) as it commonly gets thrown around is NOT how I will be using the word myself.

Fairness: equity, conformity with rules or standards, or the ability to make judgments free from discrimination and dishonesty [10]. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), definition #4, being fair connotes behaving “equitably, honestly, impartially, justly: according to rule.”

In other words, according to philosopher John Rawls, I believe in merely “formal fairness.” That’s right. In his book, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls popularized the notion of “social justice.” Now some may quibble here, but Rawls’ notion of “distributive justice” focused on outcomes… and he ruined the word fairness for an entire generation and beyond. What do I mean?

Professor Rawls advocated “a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstances.” He called for a society which “arranges” end results, rather than simply treating everyone the same and letting the chips fall where they may [3].

When we speak of “leveling the playing field,” let’s make sure our representatives mean that when the ball field gets leveled, it is so anyone playing is running on the same grade! We do not mean handicapping a superior athlete so he’ll be “equal,” or run only as fast as the slowest member of the team. With these thoughts in mind, watch the following video, please! I think you’ll appreciate just how important Bill Whittle’s reiteration of Richard Maybury’s “Two Laws” is: it occurs at about 6:10!

The foundation of our model is the two laws that make civilization possible: do all you have agreed to do and, do not encroach on other persons or their property. The first is the basis of contract law, the second, the basis of tort law and some criminal law.  ~Richard Maybury

That should boil the big mess of our legal system down to a few elements worth looking at when reviewing candidates for office. Now let me take the time to quote Tom on his very concise thoughts on questions for Topic #5 – Law/Legal System:

We have too many laws. We would do well to have candidates who campaign on the basis of laws they will repeal more than on those they will write. If we do not fund the enforcement of a law, what is the point of passing the law? That only breeds more scofflaws. I think we should look at our court system and consider courts as a tool of last resort, after mediation and arbitration. I would welcome incentives towards mediation and against going to court.

Yup. Equal Treatment Under the Law.

What a word! Scofflaws. The OED reports that there was a contest “…for a word to characterize the lawless drinker of illegally made or illegally obtained liquor.” Ahhhh, a law that wasn’t obeyed for reasons best left to the reader (yeah, I’m talking about prohibition). The OED then provides this: “One who treats the law with contempt, esp. a person who avoids various kinds of not easily enforceable laws.” Both Tom and Bill state the obvious problems with too many laws… so, let’s not defund laws. Let’s get them off the books if they’re not worth the considerable amount of paper they’re printed on!

Phew!! Crime and punishment anyone?! Considering what we’ve just covered, I am only going to mention a few things. The Duke Rape Case. Beer Summit. Panthergate. In all of these, some element of the rule of law, the common law, or fairness was obviously violated. Worse, they were violated for the very reasons our political masters campaigned to fix… oops, I meant political servants of the people of course. How much really needs to be said here? Crime and punishment? Seriously? The cartoon and the Washington Post quote say more than enough and provide a starting point for anyone interested in the lack of justice in the Obama Department of Justice.

The WaPo quote??

Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs “absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case,” said one lawyer.

“There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.”

Cheers all!

AND VOTE!!!

The Links:

1. The Fallacy of Fairness: Part I
2. ‘Fairness’ in Education (The Fallacy of Fairness: Part II)
3. Rawls and Fairness (The Fallacy of Fairness: Part III)
4. Innate Superiority: An Inferior Idea (The Fallacy of Fairness: Part IV)
5. Washington Post confirms politics comes before justice at Obama DOJ
6. Wiki: The Rule of Law
7. University of Iowa: What is the Rule of Law?
8. LectLaw: Common Law
9. Wiki: Common Law
10. Princeton Wordnet: Fairness

My Sincerest Apologies

I’m not much of a fan of overly private/personal websites – on the other hand, when one is making excuses for failing at a job… well; offer the “reasons and explanations” prior to failing to meet a deadline! So then, without too much private information, it seems I’ve a chronic medical condition that is a little more challenging than I had anticipated. That’s my excuse for the past weeks. I’ll do my damndest to put up a post to notify before any other hospital stays in the future. Moreover, I’ll also work on trying to figure out the “automatic” posting that I know is possible – but have never tried to accomplish. Despite the excuses, reasons, and explanations I am old enough to feel an apology is in order: You all have my sincerest!

And here, because it’s so much better than I have on hand, is another great video by Andrew Klavan. ENJOY!

Suess Appeasement

Bill Whittle, in this installment of Afterburner, takes us to school on the consequences of appeasement and cowardice – a demonstration of head in the sand suicide. The cartoon’s link lead’s to Bill Whittle’s video – a worthy dozen minutes or so – and before you go, here’s a spot from The Weekly Standard that is definitely worth the entire read… but here is the closing paragraph that speaks to the same subject:

We need to recover our sense that, while any regime is capable of lapses in the protection of human rights, for democracies like the United States and Israel, these are lapses from their own standards, lapses which they work to redress. For tyrannies like Iran and Syria, as for jihadist revolutionaries, by contrast, human rights abuses are not lapses from a higher standard. On the contrary: The behavior we term “abuse” is their standard, one they strive to implement every day. We must also overcome our discomfiture at being labeled enemies of “the Muslim world” or the Iranian or Syrian “people.” Tyrants and dictators, and the jihadists who aspire to join them, do not represent their peoples, and they cannot represent high religious values. The West’s unambiguous moral opposition to such regimes and the terrorism they sponsor, whether deployed against their own populations or against innocents abroad, is at the service of liberating their peoples from fear and oppression.

Cheers you princes of our future!

This is a Monday Morning Quickie! Hat Tip to American Digest! If you haven’t seen this… what are you waiting for? I’m getting the movie!!!

Seriously, are you pansies gonna cry?

Here is what I am trying to tell you: the country is not ready for conservatism.  It flirts with it, as it did with the Bush’es and Reagan, but doesn’t fight for it.  It sits in a stupor while some goofball from Chicago openly and consciously kills the constitution.  No, ladies and gentlemen, you are not the men and women your grandparents hoped you would be.  Your old man “didn’t get his seed back”, as my Dad used to say.

Virgil and I spend a fair amount of time talking about whether the real change will come along as catastrophic, or slow-burn.  It could be either, after all.  And somehow, before all this can be resolved, it will be strong folks of character, at the local level, who put it back together.  The question I have for you is, will you take your power back, before they bankrupt you completely and put you into permanent servitude?  I don’t think you will.  But you’ll probably fight like hell for marijuana. The Daily Bayonet

Huge HatTip to the American Digest! Take a trip over to the ‘Bayonet’ and read the whole article… and according to the author it was “calculated to make some o’you pansies cry, so you might as well get started now.” I’m of a mind to write something similar with some of the same kind of old pictures of family. It would be worth doing just for my daughters – because their grandparents and great grandparents were remarkable people. Maybe it’s time we take back our communities to recreate a country.

Cheers all, and

Happy Sunday 😉

The courage to get it right?

Last year, during black history month, Eric Holder, our first black AG, called us “a nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race. That was the single phrase seized on by many in the media, on both the right and the left, and it was the phrase used to praise or denigrate Holder’s speech and the current state of racial affairs in the United States. The speech itself was lengthy and only somewhat nuanced, but there was a lot more there than most people were willing to discuss – black or white… or any other color for that matter. Let me use a part of the same sentence where the offending phrase was found: I believe that “in too many ways,” Eric Holder was right. Whether you agree with him or not, I’d urge you to listen to the entire speech in context, or of course, read the text of the speech – much faster results.

Part of his point is that while Americans have moved to the point of working, lunching, and attending functions together, on weekends, we pretty much self segregate… and that isn’t good in his view. I am more sanguine about our progress than Holder, but I do believe he is right about our general unwillingness to discuss racial matters in an open and honest manner. Lots of reasons for that little problem, but I’d like to open up this can of worms… because “in too many ways,” not many people are willing to expose themselves to the consequences Holder so blithely suggests we all should risk.

I had several people at work try to dissuade me from heading in this direction (I often bounce some of my more controversial ideas off of several folks I know), but I thought, “Hey, screw it. This blog has had me on the carpet more than once.” And, as some of you know, I have often argued that courage is a thing to value.

Rather than throw a rant on why I think the AG is full of it, I’ll just throw out a few facts, a few statistical certainties, and wait for the charges to fly. Keep in mind here, that I am NOT offering explanations at this point, nor am I making any allegations or interpretations of the facts I’ll be laying out. I’d really like to hear what you have to say – providing you can keep the conversation civil, accurate to the best of your ability (in other words, be prepared to back it up), and really aimed at affording all of us the opportunity to get a better grasp of the realities involved.

In addition to the Bureau of Justice Statistics site, you can also find some of this information at Heather Mac Donald’s Weekly Standard article, Excusing the Oakland Rioters: Looting is not a form of civil rights protest, and the city of New York’s crime statistics.

• Blacks commit nearly 6,000 murders annually (most of whom are black), and whites & Hispanics commit a little more than 5,300 murders a year (most of whom are white or Hispanic). Whites & Hispanics comprise about 81% of the population, while blacks comprise about 13% of the population. Since the US has just over 300,000,000 people, the math is pretty straight forward. Blacks murder almost 154 people per 100,000 of their own population. Whites & Hispanics murder almost 2.2 people per 100,000. The murder rate for blacks is 70 times higher than the murder rate for whites and Hispanics.
• The 73^rd precinct in New York is mostly black, and “the per capita rate of shootings there is 81 times higher than in the mostly white 68^th precinct…”
• The police stop rate of vehicles in the 73^rd precinct is 15 times higher than in the 68^th precinct.
• In New York City, blacks “commit 80 percent of all shootings, whites 1.4 percent, though blacks are 23 percent of the population, and whites 35 percent.”
• At the beginning of 2009, there were nearly 1800 whites on death row and there were just over 1300 blacks on death row (both the white and black numbers include some Hispanics).
• During 2008, there were 20 white and 17 black people executed.

As I said earlier, at this point I’m not trying to explain these numbers, nor will I offer any interpretations of the meaning in these numbers. I’ve got questions about these and other numbers. Why are these kinds of numbers rarely if ever mentioned when discussing race in America? Especially on the “big three” news stations, PBS, NPR, CNN when their prolific little series on race air on national television? For the elites that are concerned with the brutality of the police and their unnecessary taking of black lives, why are they not equally concerned with the unnecessary taking of black lives in the inner city? Why don’t these victims get the same care and concern from our nation’s elite, the media, and the professoriate? Especially when they are so obviously more numerous?? Why doesn’t the unnecessary taking of white lives by the police rate the same air time and outrage?

Finally, in closing this post, remember, please keep the comments and email civil, and as important, let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt about our honesty and earnestness in seeking out the truth. I’ll be using the replies to guide some of my follow up posts – posts aimed more at our nation’s intellectuals than at everyday Americans.

Cheers – all of you!