Legal Fiat.

It's time we talked about "fiat."

Fiat is Latin for "let it be done."  

Merriam-Webster's first definition of the word is thus:

"1. a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort According to the Bible, the world was created by fiat."

It is used in discussions of policy to further the discussion without getting bogged down in detail.
Basically, it means, "For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume that I have a waved a magic wand, and X has occurred."

Back when I was in  high school debate, we used fiat for all of our proposed plans to solve a topic.   An example would be, say, if the topic was on how to solve illegal immigration in the United States. The affirmative team would propose a plan, such as rounding up all the immigrants, or putting up a wall, or putting a border guard every fifty feet along the border, or whatnot, and the negative team would attack Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency (which was easily remembered by a lovely little acronymn) on the plan. Or, the defense could grant that the plan would work, but that there would be SUCH a disadvantage (such as lost cheap labor, or a shortage of cultural exchange (see: cheap taco stands)), that the plan wouldn't be worth it.

At no time, though, could the negative side attack that the plan could actually be effected. For the purposes of our discussion, the plan was put in place by fiat.

So here we are in the gun control debate, and everyone seems to believe that fiat is actually a workable thing.

"We will make it against the law to possess semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles!" would be the surprisingly-well-worded battlecry of the fiat-using gun banner.

Okay.  Let's pretend that passes, and federal law makes it illegal to own such a gun:
--There will be VIGOROUS attack on the law in the lower courts, and then the appellate courts, and then in the Supreme Court.  Let's pretend that the SCOTUS also upholds the law.
--Then, let's pretend that the executive branch mobilizes to enforce the law. How? Um, they'll put out public service announcements demanding that guns be turned in, else those with the guns will suffer severe federal penalties, with time in prison.
--And let's suppose that the good, law-abiding citizens of the U.S. do turn in their guns. Because they are law-abiding.
--And let's suppose that, everytime that they're caught with such a gun, a bad, non-law-abiding person goes to prison.
--And let's suppose that the prisons are able to take the influx of new prisoners.
--And let's suppose that a large quantity of guns remain in the public hands, against the law.
--How will the federal authorities, assisted I suppose by state and local police, get those firearms? 
--Will an order be given to go house-to-house? I assure you, the local cops aren't doing that. No, they will not.
--And remember that SCOTUS which affirmed the ban? They're NOT going to affirm a house-to-house search and arrest.
--And remember how all those good, law-abiding people turned in their guns? Just kidding. You just created a felony criminal class out of OTHERWISE good, law-abiding people. Now, they're legal-neutrals.
--And remember those actual bad guys, who don't follow the rules, and keep their guns, because, you know-- they're criminals? They're going to do what they want.

Fiat is a device for philosophy. Not for improving the nation that you have now.

While Fiats can be a lot of fun, they don't always work.

Photo by Tamara Keel. (Cropped.)

DWI Trial

He had as good a defense as a man could ask for.

The defense attorney got a lot of stuff redacted from the trial: the drugs? Gone. (There was an ownership question, so we couldn't even mention them.) The passenger? Not to be mentioned.  Audio from the video? Muted. (On scene had been discussed the drugs, and the not-to-be-mentioned passenger.) 

Because of technical glitches, one of the three DVDs of the stop didn't work. 

I had made a typo on the PC affidavit, which made it into the text of the report. 

The defendant had refused to give blood, and I had shrugged and decided that my case was strong enough without it, so I didn't seek a blood draw warrant. 

In an interesting twist, the attorney really tried to nail me to the wall for NOT getting a warrant and taking his client's blood. I explained that, before 2007, I had NEVER gotten a warrant for someone's blood, and that I didn't like to bother judges unless I needed to. "It only takes, what, about 20 minutes, to do it?" the defense attorney asked. 

"Is that your experience? Because after hours, I tend to find that it takes longer, sir. In MY experience," I answered. 

The defense attorney really grilled me on Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. That guy knew his NHTSA manual, pretty well. Well, so did I. I guess I answered the questions about the tests fairly competently. Lord knows, I've been administering the tests long enough. He took me to task for presenting all nine steps out and back to the Walk And Turn Test, because the manual says to only demonstrate three, and then turn around and come back. To me, I was being MORE fair, and giving the defendant more of an example to follow, but he pressed the case (and, if I'm fair, made a good case) that by presenting the longer version of the example, I was making the defendant have to stand heel-to-toe for a longer time, thereby increasing the likelihood that he would lose his balance and stand normally. 

He asked me if it was "natural" or "unnatural" to stand like that for any period of time. I answered (perhaps a little impertinently) that, while it probably wasn't natural behavior, the question could be begged as to whether driving was in and of itself unnatural behavior. 

He grilled me hard about the videos. As well he should have. A the attorney for the defense, he should demand to know why a key piece of evidence was missing, and hold our --no, my-- feet to the fire for why I couldn't produce it. I answered honestly that I didn't know, and sure wished that I had it, for our case. (Honestly, he had to be cheering that it was not available, because the other two videos were quite damning.)  In fact, it was that missing video which probably gave him the best glint of hope for the trial. 

The jury returned in an hour and a half with a Guilty verdict. 

I shook the defense attorney's hand afterward. It turned out that he had represented a citizen who had sued my department and me a few years ago (I was eventually dismissed as a defendant.). I don't always wait to shake a defense attorney's hand. But he had stalwartly defended his client, and hadn't attempted to impugn my character while doing so. It was a spirited, honorable defense against a good (but not perfect) case. 

I hope the defendant finishes out his probation, clean. We don't need more guys in jail.

A lot of people --me included-- complain about how the government works. About how it unnecessarily oppresses the public. But in this case and many others, I have seen it made to account for why it charged a citizen with a crime. I have seen the government have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, by the defendant, during the time in question. That is due process. It is what we expect, but it is still a lot of work.

Warrants: how you serve them. (For the cops out there.)

I'm a garden-variety cop. My phone number is not zero, and I'm not a Billy Badass. I believe that I am competent at my job, though, and one aspect of that job is case development and evidence-gathering. Another is making arrests of those whom I have proven had sufficient probable cause to be taken to jail. If the event was on-view, I arrest them then and there. If I put the P.C. together after the fact, I get a warrant, and go arrest them later. 


I list here the steps to getting a warrant, because it seems like there are those who don't follow them, sometimes, and they make the news. Maybe we need to publish a primer, or something. So here's mine:


The first step in getting a warrant is to soundboard your plan against a competent cop. Sometimes this is your boss. Sometimes it's a peer with another agency. But explain what you're trying to do, and what evidence you have, and ask him or her to review your plan to check it for blind spots or subjective assumptions.  This is not just about being a professional-- it's about being fair to the suspect and to the system. Sometimes an investigator will miss a glaring reason why either:
1) The charge is incorrect or less appropriate than another charge,
2) The suspect is exempt from the charge due to statute or case law
3) The investigator needs to recuse himself from further investigation due to a conflict of interest.
4) Reason X, which hasn't been thought of yet.
Lots of cops don't do this, because they don't want to look like they're not capable of handling it by themselves. I used to be like that. Trust me: the seasoned cop soundboards, and does a better job because of it.


A second step (which is not necessary in my jurisdiction but which is a very good idea) is to run your proposed action by the local assistant District Attorney. He or she can often give advice about the procedure which is helpful (after all, they're the ones you're asking to prosecute the case in court). Just as importantly, though, you're getting a D.A. to sign off on your case, and take ownership of the case. This definitely helps.


A third step, in the service of a Search Warrant or Search And Arrest Warrant on a property is to go get photographs of exactly what you plan to search. Is it the shed behind 101 Main St? Get a few digital photos of it. Attach them to your Probable Cause Affidavit for your search warrant. Describe the property carefully in the first paragraph of the Warrant Affidavit.


Go take the affidavit and the warrant (You should have a generic warrant form on your thumb drive and on an office computer. Don't have one? Get one, right now. Save it. Make it editable. Don't wait until you need it; that's too late. Ask your D.A.) to the judge or magistrate. Swear to it, and get the warrant. Attach the photographs to it.  Make a copy of the warrant for the property owner/manager/tenant.


SERVE THE WARRANT YOURSELF.
I'm not saying "serve it all by yourself." But you will physically be there. Even if you need to assemble a team of 20 snake-eating Professional Operators (tm) to help you, you will be present when that warrant is served. You will brief everyone helping you on what to expect, and what you're trying to accomplish.  "They got the wrong address" is not an acceptable excuse. In such an instance, you, the investigator obtaining the warrant, have personally failed.


You will see that everyone on the warrant service team is attired in an easily-recognizable police uniform. Warrant service is not the time to go Office Casual. This is the time for badges displayed, patches displayed, and large patches with the name of your agency presented prominently. You will all carry police identification as well, which you will gladly present if at all possible to do so safely. Every officer present on the warrant service team will be identified, and their role given, on the call for service or incident report.


You will make contact in a courteous, professional manner with the homeowner or resident or manager, and state your business. You will present them with a copy of the judge's order to search the specified property. You will then make clear that you are going to follow that order at that time. While there is a clear imperative, here, this does not have to be an adversarial dialogue. Be respectful to that citizen; you work for him or her.

Document how you go about this. Roll video, with audio. I like car video, backed up by body cameras.


Secure the scene. Be courteous but direct. Screaming "Get On The Ground" and pointing weapons at people who happen to be there is not courteous. Don't point weapons at people just because you're serving a warrant and they're present. You need to be able to articulate why they were a threat before you point a weapon at someone.  I'm serious about this.


As I've written before, don't serve No-Knock Warrants unless there's a hostage present.


Leave a list of what you took as a receipt for the resident or manager. Have a scribe keep the list during the search, and photograph what you took and what the condition of it was.


Get out.


Send a return to the judge or magistrate, showing that the warrant was served, and what you seized.




Lots of cops say, "that's above my pay grade." "That's for the detectives." "That's just the way I was shown how, and we don't have time for that." 


Fellow peace officers, a search warrant is a very specific exception to rights held by our citizens. Take it seriously. Do it right. Even if you don't do them, know HOW to do them. If learning how is too much trouble, then go find other work, please. We've got this.


Let us be professionals.

Test your blood pressure:

I subscribe to Democrats Dot Com Unity. They send me entertaining email alerts. This last one read as follows:

Dear Activist,The irresponsible arms trade fuels serious human rights abuses, armed violence, poverty and conflict around the world.Next week, world leaders will gather at the U.N. to negotiate an international Arms Trade Treaty to establish global arms trade controls to keep weapons out of the hands of war criminals and human rights abusers.Tell President Obama: we need a strong Arms Trade Treaty now.Thanks for all you do!Bob Fertik
Friend –

Join us: fight for an arms treaty that puts human rights first! TAKE ACTION Tell President Obama: We need a strong Arms Trade Treaty now >>

No one – not you, not me, not the millions of responsible gun owners here in the US and around the world – wants to see arms and ammunition fall into the hands of war criminals, terrorists or human rights abusers.
Yet, there are no binding international laws – not one – to regulate the global arms and ammunition trade, making it fairly easy for those dangerous actors to access conventional weapons and commit atrocities.
Such a large global problem requires a global solution: a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty to prevent the irresponsible global transfer of weapons without infringing on domestic rights to bear arms.
Take action: Ask President Obama to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty.
Later this month, world leaders will gather at the United Nations to negotiate the Arms Trade Treaty. Oxfam has been campaigning for a strong treaty for more than a decade, and our fight has never been more important than it is right now.
What's making our work even harder? The National Rifle Association and its allies are spreading lies and misconceptions about the Arms Trade Treaty – and, unfortunately, it's working. That's why we're setting the record straight, right here:
The Arms Trade Treaty will prevent international arms sales to known war criminals while protecting millions of people from human rights abuses. It will have no effect on the Second Amendment right of US citizens to bear arms – domestic rights fall outside the scope of the treaty.
A bulletproof arms trade treaty – and the safety it can bring to families around the world – is a vital part of the fight against poverty and injustice. President Obama needs to know that you support a robust arms trade treaty, and that's why we're asking you to speak up today.
Act now: Write to President Obama and ask him to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty that will save lives and make the world a safer place.
Poor regulation of global arms trade threatens the security and rights of millions of people, exposing them to death, rape, assault and displacement. For people working to lift themselves out of poverty in communities plagued by armed violence, easy access to conventional arms threatens both lives and livelihoods.
It's our job to speak up for those communities and to fight for a strong Arms Trade Treaty – so thank you for taking action and standing with us today.
Sincerely,
Judy Beals
Oxfam America

The green links go to the following online petition: 

We need an international arms trade treaty NOWResponsible gun owners don't want weapons to end up in the hands of criminals. Responsible nations shouldn't either.The irresponsible arms trade fuels serious human rights abuses, armed violence, poverty and conflict around the world. In many areas of the world, armed conflict and poverty go hand-in-hand. For people working to lift themselves out of poverty and living in communities plagued by armed violence, the poor regulation of conventional weapons threatens both lives and livelihoods.From March 18 to 28, world leaders and their negotiating teams will gather at the United Nations to hammer out an international arms trade treaty. The proposed treaty would restrict arms sales to war criminals and human rights abusers, while at the same time not infringe the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.A bulletproof arms trade treaty – and the safety it can bring to families around the world – is a vital part of the fight against poverty and injustice. With it, we can help save lives, prevent human rights abuses and protect the livelihoods of people around the world. President Obama needs to hear that you support a robust arms trade treaty – speak up today.Act now: Ask the President to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty that will save lives and make the world a safer place.

Because it always works so well when we put the ability to defend ourselves into the hands of other nations.


Just thought you might want to know what they're up to.

Amazing article in the Huffington Post.

Radley Balko does a very nice job of presenting the readily-obtainable facts from the FBI's U.C.R., which are easy to digest and which clearly refute our vice president's contention that police today are outgunned.

"There were fewer police being murdered, fewer police being outgunned when the assault weapons ban, in fact, was in existence," Biden said.
That last sentence simply false, on both counts. So is Biden's general premise.

Go read. This is a very clear, very easy-to-understand article, with simple graphs.

Gimme a hand, here:

I'm trying to find a blog. One of the writers in the blogosphere wrote a couple of years ago a story about his past that beautifully illustrated the illusion of doing good with other people's money. He wrote about how, as a teenaged churchgoer, he had joined the church early, and took part in his church's decision-making process. When they had all but decided not to fund a foreign mission, he related, he gave a spirited speech that shamed those who voted against funding the mission, and moved the congregation to vote to spend the money, not yet budgeted. He had been quite proud of himself. Afterwards, one of the church elders took him to lunch, and asked him how much extra he himself planned to contribute to the missionary fund. He, a broke teenager, mumbled that he was kind of short for cash just then. That's when the Dutch uncle of an elder pointed out that it was one thing to have good intentions with other people's money, but that it wasn't genuine charity, and at some point you had to put up or shut up.

I know he's just a degree of separation away.

Help me, friends, to find this blog. I want to print it and present it to a couple of people in my graduate Public Administration class, quite badly. :)

Weather crime doesn't pay.

Maybe you weren't aware of it. Maybe I wasn't aware of it.

But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration* apparently has gun-toting cops, and they need ammo. Bunches of it.

‎"The ammunition is standard issue for many law enforcement agencies and it will be used by 63 NOAA enforcement personnel in their firearms qualifications and training."

NOAA has "enforcement personnel"??

"That's right, buddy-- it doesn't pay to pad your drought by pouring out your rain gauges every night. Book'm, Danno."



_________________
*The very agency from whom for years I've been getting the spectacular sat/radar composite weather images, like the one on the previous blog post.

I don't much care for this.

My elder daughter recently got back from high school band camp, up in Oklahoma. She had a great time, and has a lot of stories to tell, and some T-shirts. One of them was supplied by the local high school, just as freebies to the visiting school's band, which was nice, I thought.

I looked at the back, and there seems to be a pretty major lack of separation of church and state:

Keep in mind that the shirts were given to my kid while she was at a school-sponsored trip, and were provided by another school band. My school district and theirs subsidized this.

Not a problem, you say? Would you be as fine with it if it was like this?

No.

Religion is fine, if that's your gig. But please don't use taxpayer money to put your religion onto my kid's back.

Abolish the TSA.

At the very least, please try to see to the abolition of the current form of the Travel Safety Administration.

I just got an "A" in Homeland Security in my graduate studies this past semester. It is impossible to do this and still believe that the Travel Safety Administration are worthwhile and competant. They are an invasive, ineffective drain on our national resources that take away liberties, destroy an industry, and create new classes of criminals. They are worse than useless.

Define Tea Party Movement for me.

I'm seeing very, very wide variation in perceived planks of the Tea Party movement.

I personally have considered it to be a movement that I would affiliate myself with, because it was based on the idea that we are overtaxed, and that our governments had best not be using our taxes on things not directly mandated in their mission. Fiscal conservatism, in other words.

But I'm being told that Tea Partiers are:

1--Pro Gun (Well, why not? But is that a mandate?)
2--Pro Republican (Wait-- I thought that the Tea Party movement was critical of the Republican Party?)
3--Anti Democrat (Wait-- more so than the Republicans?)
4--Pro Christian (Why? Did Christ say "No taxation without representation!")
5--Anti Gay (You know how they love to spend, spend, spend! That's why all gays are poor, as opposed to us Breeders...)
6--Pro-Whitey
7--Anti freedom of speech
8--Pro War (but wait-- war costs money)
9--Anti Abortion
10--Pro-Death Penalty
11--And maybe, if they get around to it, pro-balanced budget and pro-reduced spending.

So what is it, folks? What's absolutely intrinsic to the Tea Party Movement? Please note whether you identify with it, in your answers.

Necessary evils.

Every once in a while you run across a piece of bureaucracy that is not only needed, but which does its job pretty well.

I called TCLEOSE today with a couple of questions about my peace officer's license, and was struck yet again by how courteous and helpful their small staff always is in helping me with finding out the information that I need. I've heard that their staff is around 20 people, managing the licensing, credentials, and certificates for:

74,913 Peace Officers
283 Reserve Licensees
24,047 Jailers
2,366 Temporary Jailers
8,843 Telecommunicators
940 Temporary Telecommunicators

By my calculator's count, that's 111,392 police, jailer, and telecommunicator licenses that they keep up with. (Note: many of those licenses are redundant. It's not uncommon for a jailer to go to police academy and get his peace officer's license carried, and then also to occasionally work as a telecommunicator as well.)

Every time that I've talked to those people, they were able to get me the information that I needed, and were pleasant. Not just "human," but genuinely pleasant to deal with.

Look, so long as we're going to be licensing peace officers and jailers and the ilk, we'd better have training requirements and such. And if we're going to do that, then we've got to have people administering the licensing. So isn't it nice that these people, paid by taxpayers' dollars and licensing fees, are actually doing a decent job of it?

I may actually send an attaboy letter to their director, I'm so impressed.

And this poor man doesn't think of himself as a libertarian, yet?

Big Bear is a man who just wants to go about his life peacefully.

He happens to be gay. The government says that he can't marry.

He happens to have family spread across the nation. The government says that he must be hassled more now than ever before when he flies.

He happens to wear a kilt.

Hilarity ensues.

Go read.

I'm paying for this, WHY, exactly?

Cell phones are not a "human right;" they are a convenience. For that matter, a telephone is a convenience. You might need one to work (in which case, it's tax-deductible), but you don't need one to live.

That's why I'm wondering why, in the name of a Vulcan deity conning a tugboat, my tax dollars are subsidizing cell phones for the poor.

Anyone have an explanation or elucidation, on this net-widening of necessities for the masses.

This is getting old.

The most common (and apparently powerful) attack on the Tea Party movement that the Obama supporters have is race. You don't like the current administration, and some of you who are critical have been outspoken racists. Ergo: Your entire movement is racist. (Guilt By Association. Circumstantial ad hominem. Hasty Generalization. How many logical fallacies can they employ?)

You get people like those at Don't Tea On Me, who point to a single data point, and conclude that the argument is invalid, and thus the only answer for why you're critical of their side is that you're a racist.

The anonymous author of the story seems to interpret that graph differently than I do.

From what I can see, it shows that spending goes up during war. Even that's lamentable. Reagan ended the Cold War by outspending the communist bloc. Bush I spent in Iraq, Bush II spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I think that both Bushes overspent, I can't help but notice that the graph goes up at its steepest rate during the present President's administration.

That increase was predicted by the critics that heard the amazing array of government spending projects that were promised during the last presidential campaign. Give our President that: he's a man of his word, who spent and spent with his cohorts in Congress.

Again, though: it's offensive to be called a racist, simply for being the loyal opposition. I have NEVER thought of the President's race as a liability. Nor have any of my friends who are critics of him.

The truth is, the biggest wedge between the current President's administration and its critics are the knee-jerk supporters, who mindlessly attack the critical pundits with name-calling.

Mayor Daley: You're Not Listening.

The new Chicago gun restriction ordinance was just passed, supposedly to come into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald, which effectively overturned the 28 year Chicago gun ban. In McDonald, the Supreme Court said that they based their decision in the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, which made the right to bear arms an individual right.

Comes now the new ordinance passed unanimously (45-0) by the Chicago aldermen. This ordinance has laughably been referred to in at least one headline as a "gun rights ordinance."

Look for the violations of equal protection:

1. Only one handgun per licensee per household may be operable. All other handguns must be disassembled, and/or locked up.

2. Each firearm must be registered with the city, for a $15 fee. The gun owner must get a city registration card, for a fee of $100, renewable every three years. If you're late to submit your yearly gun registration, there's an extra $60 fee. The gun owner must obtain 4 hours' worth of classroom training, and an hour of range training. Presumably, for a fee. (Too bad if you're poor; rights are for the wealthy.) Firearms training for a Chicago permit may NOT be held in the city of Chicago.

3. Only one handgun per month may be registered.

4. Registrants may not have their handguns on their porches. They may not have them in their yards. They may not have them in their garages. Only in their homes may registrants posses their single working handgun.

5. Two convictions for DWI, ever? No handguns in Chicago. They will not permit it.

6. Ever violated the city ordinance against possessing laser sights or suppressors? Ever violated the ordinance by loaning someone a gun? No license for you, then.

Text of the ordinance is HERE.

What part of "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" do you not understand?!?

And this last bit amazed me:

Residents convicted of violating the ordinance face a fine of up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense, and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

This is a MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE! In other words, a ticketable offense. In Texas, with few exceptions, a citable offense (class C misdemeanor) may not incur a fine of more than $500. Shoot, there's argument over whether we should even be able to put a person in jail for an ordinance violation. (So far, we still can, but it's a bone of contention.) But, as we know, we here in Texas do not know the Chicago Way.

As I learn more about the Chicago Way (45-0 vote?!?), and consider that our President's career was manufactured by that machine, I get very chilly.

I suppose that we should thank the City Of Chicago for so publicly making clear that they do not consider themselves part of the rest of the nation. Certainly my southern Illinois friend Don Gwinn does not consider Chicago to be a part of the state that he lives in.

Chicago lives Apart.

Come home, Windy City. Abide with us Americans.

Our nation.

Our President said today that we can't do much about the immigration problem until we have done something about the illegal employment problem. I happen to agree. We need to do something about the large pile of sugar that's sitting out.

Well, it appears that our President says that he wants to hold our estimated 11M illegal immigrants accountable. Okay. I agree there, too.

Barack Obama says that deporting them all would be untenable. As much as this irritates me, it's probably partially true, though exporting illegal border-crossers would certainly decrease the work taken to document them. Okay.

He says that we should make them "get right with the law" before they can get in line to apply for citizenship. Okay.

He says that they should be fined* (for a felony), and admit that they did wrong, and lean English, before they can apply for citizenship. Okay. (Side question: When are we ever going to push for English as a national language? Until this is done, frankly, the English language requirement to be a citizen seems unwarranted.)

He claims that this puts them in at the BACK of the line. I wonder.

He also claims that "there are, right now, more boots on the ground on the SouthWest border, than ever before." He also claims that crime on the SW border is down to less than it has been in 20 years. This is clearly a set-up to deny further funding to border security.

So it would appear that the President's answer to Border Security is to largely to make the illegal citizens legal.

As a guy who's constantly dealing with undocumented aliens, I'm actually not quite as disgusted with this as you might suspect.

Understand: I'm NOT anti-Mexican. I'm NOT anti-Hispanic. I'm NOT anti-immigrant. I wish to hell that the race/ethnicity/xenophobe argument was gone, frankly; it's a red herring. I'm first and foremost unhappy that the documented citizen has to pay taxes and answer for violations of the law, which the undocumented alien does not. So I'll admit that our President managed to actually speak to my interests in this speech.

But I suspect that he'll hold border security hostage until the Republican votes for the new immigration bill are in. Mark me on this one.

_______________

By way of Tamara, I read of a little girl who insists that her mama keep her promises to be patriotic. I had to wipe my eyes to see to type a response.
___________________________________
*How much? Set the price point too high, and no one is buying. Set it too low, and everyone will buy.

Lemme get this straight:

TSA screeners get paid about as much or more than city cops on the street.

They receive the same protections and authorities under the law as real police.

They are training their new recruits to make derogatory remarks about the genitalia of those pass through the screening devices?

Friends, the security theater isn't working. What we should have done, September 12, 2001, was require secure doors on the cockpits of common air carriers, allow the pilots to go armed, and gone on with business as usual. Because we did not, the terrorists have won in ways that they never imagined.

______________

Hat tip to Unc, by way of Tam.

Pissed. Off.

Point of fact: I should like to try my hand at distilling spirits.

• As I cannot afford the taxes and permit fees to do so, it would illegal to attempt to do so, regardless of whether or not I ever sold a drop of it.
• As a guy who enforces the law, I do my best not to break it.
• Thus, I can't make moonshine.
• Even though I know I could. It would be easy. I've understood the principles of the process since high school.
• This pisses me off.

Who's surprised? Not you. Certainly not me.

Perhaps another kind of motivation poster should have hung in the boardrooms of those companies that have recently been bailed out by the United States federal government.

I'm thinking that the entire text of the Aesop's Fable about "The Dog And The Wolf."

Hmmm... perhaps there's a shilling or two to be made, printing, mounting, and framing them for sale to businesses teetering on the brink?

Not no, but HELL NO.

Comes now the government's proposal to bail out the flagging newspaper industry.

Come on-- really?

Is this one that hard to see?

Look, I've got newspaper nostalgia, too. My mother was a longtime reporter for a major newspaper, and I grew up a believer in newspapers. In fact, I was invoking her journalistic ethics when I was crying foul over the reporting of our President's "jackass" comment last week. (Good reporters respect "Off The Record.")

But even if you believed that our country had PLENTY of money to just give away (it doesn't), surely anyone can see that you don't want our newspapers to become beholden to the government that they're supposed to be critical of?

If the newspaper industry tanks, then I'm damned sorry to hear it. But that's free enterprise. The people will get their news, and evidently will have to seek it from other sources. But do NOT support the federal bail-out of your news sources, unless the idea of a weekly "Letter From Our Leader" column sounds good, along with White House review of editorial police policies.

The truth will set you free? Set us free from the Pravda.