Via Drudge I learn from this AP story that some private US domestic organisation claims to have "stripped" Lance Armstrong of all of his 7 Tour de France titles - an authority actually exercised by the International Cycling Union. The USADA also claims authority to revoke an International Olympic Committee authorized Bronze Medal awarded to Armstrong for his (carefully drug monitored) performance in the 2000 Olympics, as well as "... any awards, event titles and cash earnings."
I think I begin to smell a motive for all this.
If the USADA does succeed in claiming for it's own all of Lance Armstrong's "earnings" over the course of his sports career, how much of his cancer foundations monies (reportedly some $500+ million) count as his earnings?
Talk about going for the gold.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
"... that are able to penetrate walls."*
Drudge links to an Alex Jones Poopie Pants Prison Planet story that makes eminently clear the level of lunacy that is passed off as "news reporting" these days. If anyone still has any doubts remaining, I am convinced Alex Jones runs a professional dis-information operation very thinly disguised as the ravings of a moron.
But I could be giving him too much credit there.
In any case, Prison Planet dot com (you can waste your time actually going to the site if you want, but you'll have to take responsibility for doing so yourself ... ) "editor and writer" Paul Joseph Watson demonstrates his capacity as a Pant-Shitting Hysteric as he bemoans the purchase of some pretty spendy ammo by what eventually proves to be NOAA's Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. Let's look at a few numbers first.
NOAA (mistakenly identified as NWS on the .gov ammo solicitation form apparently) wants to buy 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP ammo - to be distributed amongst several locations.
" A solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass. A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida."
Along with "being noted for their strength", .40 cal is also noted as the issue handgun caliber for the FBI and one supposes many other .gov badge toters as well. It is common practice for large organisations to require component agencys to use the same equipment so as to reduce the unit cost of each piece of gear bought. Like handguns, just for instance. Not too surprisingly one would have thought, this concept would fairly unremarkably extend to include the ammunition those guns use, but apparently not.
As to the quantities, I probably average shooting something in the near neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of all calibers of ammo for the guns I own in an average year. Now, since I'm spending my own money to buy all that, I tend to go for the Winchester White Box or maybe the Sellier & Beloit if I'm financially more flush than is the norm. If I had access to Uncle Sugar's checkbook (and thereby to your pockets too :)), I'd certainly be tempted to practice with the stuff I intend to carry too! But I don't think that's whats going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that there might be as many as 460 individual Fishy LEO's in NOAA's employ (and we can leave for another occasion the question of why NOAA). Should that prove to be the case, then NOAA will be able to issue each of those people with a whole 100 rounds apiece (one presumes for the year). And if it turns out there are only half that many badge toters, that's still only 200 rounds apiece. That's a whole 4 boxes of 50 rounds each, and the damn gun will hold nearly a third of a box at a time too. Throw in a couple spare magazines (common practice - look at any cops' duty belt) and now we see we're actually talking about a perfectly reasonable quantity of issue duty ammunition for a federal law enforcement agency to provide for its people to use (or hopefully not use) during the course of their day.
I especially like this comment:
"As the Business Insider notes, hollow point bullets have been “illegal in international warfare since 1899.”
I wonder what the Business Insider's opinion is on the law regarding domestic law enforcement's use of hollow point bullets during the course of domestic law enforcement actions?
As to the rest of the article's observations, it's pretty clear that DHS is zeroing out it's budget on law enforcement-type goodies - possibly in anticipation of a different occupant of the White House being less forthcoming with the dosh in the near future. None of them can actually SAY that of course, but it seems at least as likely as anything the Excitable Watson can intimate.
I like a good conspiracy theory/rant as much as the next fellow (and given my family history, quite possibly more than most), but Drudge is going to have to work a good deal harder than this to get a rise out of anyone who owns and shoots a gun and has more than three working brain cells to rub together.
* So can most of my .22's, for a given value of "wall".
But I could be giving him too much credit there.
In any case, Prison Planet dot com (you can waste your time actually going to the site if you want, but you'll have to take responsibility for doing so yourself ... ) "editor and writer" Paul Joseph Watson demonstrates his capacity as a Pant-Shitting Hysteric as he bemoans the purchase of some pretty spendy ammo by what eventually proves to be NOAA's Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. Let's look at a few numbers first.
NOAA (mistakenly identified as NWS on the .gov ammo solicitation form apparently) wants to buy 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP ammo - to be distributed amongst several locations.
" A solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass. A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida."
Along with "being noted for their strength", .40 cal is also noted as the issue handgun caliber for the FBI and one supposes many other .gov badge toters as well. It is common practice for large organisations to require component agencys to use the same equipment so as to reduce the unit cost of each piece of gear bought. Like handguns, just for instance. Not too surprisingly one would have thought, this concept would fairly unremarkably extend to include the ammunition those guns use, but apparently not.
As to the quantities, I probably average shooting something in the near neighborhood of 6,000 rounds of all calibers of ammo for the guns I own in an average year. Now, since I'm spending my own money to buy all that, I tend to go for the Winchester White Box or maybe the Sellier & Beloit if I'm financially more flush than is the norm. If I had access to Uncle Sugar's checkbook (and thereby to your pockets too :)), I'd certainly be tempted to practice with the stuff I intend to carry too! But I don't think that's whats going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that there might be as many as 460 individual Fishy LEO's in NOAA's employ (and we can leave for another occasion the question of why NOAA). Should that prove to be the case, then NOAA will be able to issue each of those people with a whole 100 rounds apiece (one presumes for the year). And if it turns out there are only half that many badge toters, that's still only 200 rounds apiece. That's a whole 4 boxes of 50 rounds each, and the damn gun will hold nearly a third of a box at a time too. Throw in a couple spare magazines (common practice - look at any cops' duty belt) and now we see we're actually talking about a perfectly reasonable quantity of issue duty ammunition for a federal law enforcement agency to provide for its people to use (or hopefully not use) during the course of their day.
I especially like this comment:
"As the Business Insider notes, hollow point bullets have been “illegal in international warfare since 1899.”
I wonder what the Business Insider's opinion is on the law regarding domestic law enforcement's use of hollow point bullets during the course of domestic law enforcement actions?
As to the rest of the article's observations, it's pretty clear that DHS is zeroing out it's budget on law enforcement-type goodies - possibly in anticipation of a different occupant of the White House being less forthcoming with the dosh in the near future. None of them can actually SAY that of course, but it seems at least as likely as anything the Excitable Watson can intimate.
I like a good conspiracy theory/rant as much as the next fellow (and given my family history, quite possibly more than most), but Drudge is going to have to work a good deal harder than this to get a rise out of anyone who owns and shoots a gun and has more than three working brain cells to rub together.
* So can most of my .22's, for a given value of "wall".
Monday, July 16, 2012
To Be A Fly On That Bulkhead
Via Glen Reynolds comes notice of this story about new USN air craft carriers being designed with "heads" (toilet/shower/washroom/pick you euphemism) that have no urinals.
I can just see the faces of all (the males at least) involved in the first Captains Mast proceeding for "leaving the toilet seat up".
I wonder if they're still planning on leaving the stall doors off as was the standard?
I can just see the faces of all (the males at least) involved in the first Captains Mast proceeding for "leaving the toilet seat up".
I wonder if they're still planning on leaving the stall doors off as was the standard?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Wrong question, Prof Hanson
In a recent National Review article, Victor Davis Hanson asks:
What's a few jews more (and more to the point) less compared to all of that?
/sarcasm
h/t Instapundit
Even more surreal, tiny oil-poor Israel, thanks to vast new offshore finds, has been reinvented as a potential energy giant in the Middle East. Such petrodollars will change Israel as they did the Persian Gulf countries, but with one major difference. Unlike Dubai or Kuwait, Israel is democratic, economically diverse, socially stable, and technologically sophisticated, suggesting the sudden windfall will not warp Israel in the manner it has traditional Arab autocracies, but will instead become a force multiplier of an already dynamic society. Will Europe still snub Israel when it has as much oil, gas, and money as an OPEC member in the Persian Gulf?Given the known history of Europe towards Jews generally, would it not be more correct to enquire as to when Europe will invade and conquer Israel and take its new-found petro largess for itself? That ought to add a good deal of padding to all those failing socialist fantasy economies currently dragging down the entire continent, if not quite the entire planet yet.
What's a few jews more (and more to the point) less compared to all of that?
/sarcasm
h/t Instapundit
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Choices Have Consequences
I'm supposed to be coming out of post-surgery general anesthesia recovery about now (for a deviated septum - annoying, but not a life threatening condition). That's not the case due to the Trinity Mother Francis hospitals management recently taking the unilateral decision that general anesthesia patients will not "be allowed" to use public transport to and from the hospital - specifically to include taxi cabs. As a result of this deliberate choice by my medical services provider, I was refused treatment and denied surgery this morning - all because I had the temerity to take a cab to and from the surgery office so as to comply with the request not to drive myself home post-surgery.
As I said in the title, choices have consequences. One result is that I won't be having this (or quite likely any other) elective surgery procedure done at any Mother Francis facility from this point on. Annoying that, as this most likely means I will have to identify and change over to a different source of medical treatment that my health insurance will continue to pay part of. Probably to include having to end my relationship with my current (for the last 15+ years) GP and find another, since I doubt he will be allowed to refer me to some specialist that doesn't work for his employer also.
Since this decision (to restrict the informed choices of its adult patients) was apparently taken more than a year ago now, I find the choice to not inform me of this policy decision - particularly in light of my known-to-the-hospital-staff experience to the contrary in the recent (last 5 years) past - prior to my having paid the $500+ portion of the surgical fee to be a deliberate act of abuse. Especially since I'm confident I will never see that money again as the hospital "stands ready to re-schedule the surgery" just as soon as I dis-order the lives of a sufficiency of my fellow citizens to satisfy the prejudices of the hospital staff who get to impose such tyranny upon the unsuspecting. The very idea that "we won't allow a patient" to make an informed decision regarding their own health care follow up is outrageous in its own right. That this is revealed to said patient only at the last minute (in the present example, literally as they were about to call me in to begin surgery prep) only adds to the insult. The stupefying assumption that anyone's family, friends and neighbors ought to be, indeed necessarily must be inconvenienced and have their lives disrupted in order for a grown human to purchase a service from another is a mind-boggling presumption on anyones part.
I understand that informed consent is critical to making an informed decision. I accept that we are (and ought to be) bound by our choices. I simply categorically reject anyones claim to arbitrarily deny me the most basic of human rights regarding my own person absent my being forced to comply at the (literal) point of a gun. Frankly, I don't care how many years the "facility director" has been swamping out bedpans, her decision to deny me treatment so as to assuage the gas passer's lawyers qualms doesn't cut it.
I'm 58 years old; I came to the abrupt conclusion some 40 years ago now that I was going to live until I died, and that I was going to die of something at some stage of the process no matter how much fiction became actual science along the way. If it turns out that thing should prove to be a stuffy nose then so be it. I also came to the conclusion that I most likely won't be too concerned over the how so much as the what come the day, nor am I likely to care over much after the fact.
So, the $500 is gone, I still have a semi-permanently clogged snot locker and, because I don't have the "cleared to return to work" piece of paper from Mommy Dearest nursey yet, I can't go back to work today either. I wonder if the boss will approve a paid vacation day post hoc as it were? I hate to lose another $150 to this exercise in stupidity.
Just think how much better all this will be once Obama's PPACA policies really kick into effect.
As I said in the title, choices have consequences. One result is that I won't be having this (or quite likely any other) elective surgery procedure done at any Mother Francis facility from this point on. Annoying that, as this most likely means I will have to identify and change over to a different source of medical treatment that my health insurance will continue to pay part of. Probably to include having to end my relationship with my current (for the last 15+ years) GP and find another, since I doubt he will be allowed to refer me to some specialist that doesn't work for his employer also.
Since this decision (to restrict the informed choices of its adult patients) was apparently taken more than a year ago now, I find the choice to not inform me of this policy decision - particularly in light of my known-to-the-hospital-staff experience to the contrary in the recent (last 5 years) past - prior to my having paid the $500+ portion of the surgical fee to be a deliberate act of abuse. Especially since I'm confident I will never see that money again as the hospital "stands ready to re-schedule the surgery" just as soon as I dis-order the lives of a sufficiency of my fellow citizens to satisfy the prejudices of the hospital staff who get to impose such tyranny upon the unsuspecting. The very idea that "we won't allow a patient" to make an informed decision regarding their own health care follow up is outrageous in its own right. That this is revealed to said patient only at the last minute (in the present example, literally as they were about to call me in to begin surgery prep) only adds to the insult. The stupefying assumption that anyone's family, friends and neighbors ought to be, indeed necessarily must be inconvenienced and have their lives disrupted in order for a grown human to purchase a service from another is a mind-boggling presumption on anyones part.
I understand that informed consent is critical to making an informed decision. I accept that we are (and ought to be) bound by our choices. I simply categorically reject anyones claim to arbitrarily deny me the most basic of human rights regarding my own person absent my being forced to comply at the (literal) point of a gun. Frankly, I don't care how many years the "facility director" has been swamping out bedpans, her decision to deny me treatment so as to assuage the gas passer's lawyers qualms doesn't cut it.
I'm 58 years old; I came to the abrupt conclusion some 40 years ago now that I was going to live until I died, and that I was going to die of something at some stage of the process no matter how much fiction became actual science along the way. If it turns out that thing should prove to be a stuffy nose then so be it. I also came to the conclusion that I most likely won't be too concerned over the how so much as the what come the day, nor am I likely to care over much after the fact.
So, the $500 is gone, I still have a semi-permanently clogged snot locker and, because I don't have the "cleared to return to work" piece of paper from Mommy Dearest nursey yet, I can't go back to work today either. I wonder if the boss will approve a paid vacation day post hoc as it were? I hate to lose another $150 to this exercise in stupidity.
Just think how much better all this will be once Obama's PPACA policies really kick into effect.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
In Which He Commits Gunbloggery
Since it has been a recent topic of (sadly mostly mis-)informed discussion, commentary and supposed reporting in the various media available, I thought I would take the opportunity to post the actual facts about "Stand Your Ground" and the "Castle Doctrine" laws as those are presently legislated here in Texas. The following is plagerized cut-n-pasted from the most recent newsletter published by Texas Law Shield:
So, got all that?
Next time you hear/read how easy it is to shoot someone and get away with it here in the wild, wild west (or East if you live in my part of the state) of Texas, do feel free to pass along any or all of the above.
And should you ever have the urge to spend a bit on "prepping", you too can retain legal representation in advance of catastrophe by joining (or possibly creating) your states Firearms Legal Defense Retainer Program too. Last I knew, it's a whopping $120 a year or thereabouts, with an initial ~$20 sign-up fee. I spend more than that on an average Saturday's ammo shopping extravaganza at the local sporting goods outlet personally. If you're one of those people who doesn't have a gun law-savvy lawyer retained in advance of need (and have the emergency contact phone number pre-set on your phone), you're doing the whole gun owner thing wrong.
ETA an observation. In the first segment copied above (What Is The Texas Castle Doctrine?), the second to last paragraph ends with,
That's a real-world example of the distinctions at play in determining whether or not you get no-billed by the grand jury or a closely supervised stay as a guest of the Governor because you stood your ground.
The burden of owning a gun may well be lighter than regret, but don't short change the complexity of the burden either.
Turning to the subject of vehicles, Texas Penal Code §30.01 defines a vehicle "as any device, in, on, or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in the normal course of commerce or transportation." This is a very broad definition and appears to include anything that carries people or property from one place to another, including cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, golf carts, etc. The important point to remember is that you or someone else must be occupying the vehicle to be given the presumption of reasonableness under Texas Penal Code §9.31 and §9.32.What About People Who are Only Trespassers?Make sure that you do not fall victim to the common misconception that the Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to use deadly force merely because someone is on your property. It does not. Many people think that the law allows you to use deadly force against a mere trespasser. In fact, Texas law says the exact opposite. Texas Penal Code §9.41 allows you to use force, not deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on your land.You still have a legal right to exclude or remove trespassers from your land; however you are limited to only using non-deadly force to do so. The use of force can have many different manifestations, from physical confrontation to displaying a weapon. Texas Penal Code §9.04 states that for defensive purposes the display of a weapon in order to create apprehension in another person is considered a use of force, not deadly force. That means if someone trespasses on your property, you may display your firearm to create apprehension that you will use deadly force if necessary. You will not be legally justified in discharging the firearm, but you will be legally justified in displaying it to "create apprehension" under the law. Only if the trespasser is committing other acts where the law states that you are justified in using deadly force would you be allowed to discharge your firearm legally.For example, if you are sitting in your living room and see an individual peering in your window, you will probably not be justified under Texas law in using deadly force against the suspicious person. However, if the same fellow breaks a window and climbs through, you will be legally justified in using deadly force under Texas Penal Code §9.32. If you see the same individual scoping out your detached barn, you will not fall under Texas Penal Code §9.32, because it is not considered an occupied habitation. Note under our examples you may very well be justified under another section of the law in the use of deadly force, but not under Texas Penal Code §9.32, or what the media calls the "Castle Doctrine."What if a Trespasser Starts Committing Other Property Crimes?What about defense of property? The use of deadly force to protect property is contained in Texas Penal Code §9.42. This section of the law lays out a couple of scenarios where you are justified in reasonably using deadly force to protect your property. The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.The second scenario is the law of recovering your property by using deadly force. Texas has a 3-prong test that, if met, gives a justification in using deadly force to recover stolen property. This test is as follows: (1) force is necessary to prevent or terminate another's trespass on land or unlawful interference with the property, (2) deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent another who is immediately fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property, and (3) the person reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other method or that the use of non-deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. We as lawyers cannot stress enough that under this scenario, while the law may allow you to use deadly force - It Is Most Likely A Very Bad Idea!As you see, criminal trespass alone is not one of the crimes listed in Texas Penal Code §9.42 or even as part of the "Castle Doctrine" under §9.31 or §9.32. A mere criminal trespass may, however, evolve into one of the above crimes where you may be justified in using deadly force to protect your property. Let's take another example, if someone decides to sit on your lawn, you holler at them from your bedroom window to "get off my property." If the trespasser refuses to leave, you are almost certainly not justified in using deadly force to remove him. But if that person sitting on your lawn gets up and charges towards your bedroom window with a firearm and a crow bar, you will very likely be legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself and your home. His actions of charging you with a weapon make him more than just a trespasser under Texas law.
Just because Texas law affords you a legal justification for using deadly force when someone attacks you or enters or removes you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or workplace, does not mean you are immune from being arrested or criminally prosecuted - even if you are completely in the "right" as far as the law is concerned. Your right to assert legal justifications is just that: a legal justification. It is not a get out of jail free card, or an "I get to skip the entire legal process" card. In fact, always remember, there is a high possibility that you will go to jail and have to post bond to get out long before the issue of justification is considered by the government. We see cases like this commonly under the firearms program, not to mention seeing cases of this nature unfold in other states everyday. You may ultimately have to go to court and assert your justification defense before a judge or jury. This process may take months or even years to get resolved. You just dont know.Does Texas Have a Stand Your Ground Law?The term "stand your ground" law, again, is not a legal phrase but a phrase the media frequently uses in its reporting. Texas law tells us that there is no duty to retreat if faced with a situation where you have to use force or deadly force to protect yourself or another. Even if by retreating you could avoid the entire confrontation, you do not legally have to. Texas Penal Code §9.32(c) states that in defending yourself or another person, you have no duty to retreat if: (1) you have a legal right to be at the location where deadly force is used, (2) you did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used, (3) and you were not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used. The statute is better classified as a "no duty to retreat" law. Under these very limited circumstances, a prosecutor or law enforcement can no longer argue that you had a reasonable "escape route" or that you should have had to "fall back" before justifiably using deadly force. If you are facing a criminal charge, qualifying under this statute could mean the difference between a conviction or not!
In order to receive the "no duty to retreat" protection from the law, first, you must have been justified under the Texas Penal Code in using force or deadly force. As we discussed above, Texas Penal Code §9.32 states that you will be presumed to be legally justified in using deadly force if someone is entering, attempting to enter, removing you or attempting to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or workplace. Texas Penal Code §9.32 also states that you will be presumed to be justified in using deadly force if someone commits or attempts to commit: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Deadly force can be used to stop any of these crimes, as well as when it may be immediately necessary to protect yourself or another person from the attacker's use of deadly force. If you are anywhere you have a right to be, only then does the use of deadly force with no duty to retreat apply under the statute. To paraphrase a very effective jury argument, the statute is designed to protect you when "trouble finds you, but not when you go looking for trouble."
Disqualifications for No Retreat ProtectionThere are multiple situations where your conduct may potentially disqualify you from the Texas "no duty to retreat" provision. In order to receive Texas Penal Code §9.32(c)'s "no duty to retreat" protection, you must be justified in using force under Texas Penal Code §9.31. Second, the no retreat statute itself has three more qualifications that must be met before you gain the statute's protection.
Disqualifying Under Texas Penal Code §9.31If you want to protect yourself or another person, there are multiple situations under Texas Penal Code §9.31 where you will not be justified in using force or deadly force. If you fall under one of the following situations, you will not be given the "no duty to retreat" protection in the legal system:
1. The use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone. (If someone is only yelling at you, you are not justified in using force against them).
2. You will not be justified in using force to resist arrest or search being made by a police officer. Even if the arrest or search is ultimately proven to be unlawful.
3. The use of force against another is not justified if you consent to the force. (No dueling or consenting to gun fights).
4. If you seek a discussion with another person regarding your differences while unlawfully carrying a weapon, you will not be given the "no duty to retreat" protection. Unlawful carry of a weapon includes:
a. a non-CHL holder carrying in places other than their premises, vehicle or watercraft;
b. having a handgun in plain view;
c. engaging in criminal activity while carrying a weapon; or,
d. carrying a weapon by a person who is a member of a criminal street gang.
So, got all that?
Next time you hear/read how easy it is to shoot someone and get away with it here in the wild, wild west (or East if you live in my part of the state) of Texas, do feel free to pass along any or all of the above.
And should you ever have the urge to spend a bit on "prepping", you too can retain legal representation in advance of catastrophe by joining (or possibly creating) your states Firearms Legal Defense Retainer Program too. Last I knew, it's a whopping $120 a year or thereabouts, with an initial ~$20 sign-up fee. I spend more than that on an average Saturday's ammo shopping extravaganza at the local sporting goods outlet personally. If you're one of those people who doesn't have a gun law-savvy lawyer retained in advance of need (and have the emergency contact phone number pre-set on your phone), you're doing the whole gun owner thing wrong.
ETA an observation. In the first segment copied above (What Is The Texas Castle Doctrine?), the second to last paragraph ends with,
For example, Texas law does not consider your detached garage, shed, and/or barn part of your habitation. However, if your garage, front or back porch is connected to the structure containing your sleeping quarters (as exists in many suburban communities), it is considered part of your habitation as defined by the Texas Penal Code. Yes, this slight distinction in architectural design can affect your legal rights.My daughter and son-in-law own a fairly upscale tract home in one of the suburban communities in the N. Dallas metro area. Their back yard covered patio isn't physically attached to their house, as making it so would raise their property taxes. The result is, while they pay lower property taxes, she and the SiL have to treat the area immediately outside their back door as if it were the yard fence. Its part of their property and the laws governing trespassing apply, but not the laws governing forced intrusion of their "habitation". They can forcibly remove a trespasser from outside their back door, but not with deadly force (until s/he actually attempts forced entry of self-same door).
That's a real-world example of the distinctions at play in determining whether or not you get no-billed by the grand jury or a closely supervised stay as a guest of the Governor because you stood your ground.
The burden of owning a gun may well be lighter than regret, but don't short change the complexity of the burden either.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Arrest That Man!
Over at Joe Huffman's place, a really intriguing question gets a look:
A commenter at the David Hardy link above suggests that leaving AG Holder out of durance vile would be a better strategy, but I think I disagree. The advantage of asking Holder himself, "what did the president know and when did he know it", isn't measurably more effective than is responding to efforts to obtain his release with the same query I think.
One added attraction of sending out the Sergent-at-Arms of the House (with as many Capitol Police as needed for back-up) to arrest the AG is the really strong potential for all the various DOJ gun toters to actively oppose their boss being given the good news. I can see the headlines now; "House Swatties No-Knock AG's Office", "OK Corral, D. C.", "Blood In The (Capitol) Streets".
So, how do you say "snark" in spanish Mr. Calderon?
David Hardy says there are options to be considered now that Holder has been found in contempt of Congress:
The House sends out its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the defendant, he is tried on the spot, and the House decides whether to convict.It is a little bit of a surprise to me but the Capital has a dungeon just for such purposes. And I find it interesting and very pleasing that:
…presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures such as inherent contempt because it is not an “offense against the United States” or an offense against “the dignity of public authority.”
A commenter at the David Hardy link above suggests that leaving AG Holder out of durance vile would be a better strategy, but I think I disagree. The advantage of asking Holder himself, "what did the president know and when did he know it", isn't measurably more effective than is responding to efforts to obtain his release with the same query I think.
One added attraction of sending out the Sergent-at-Arms of the House (with as many Capitol Police as needed for back-up) to arrest the AG is the really strong potential for all the various DOJ gun toters to actively oppose their boss being given the good news. I can see the headlines now; "House Swatties No-Knock AG's Office", "OK Corral, D. C.", "Blood In The (Capitol) Streets".
So, how do you say "snark" in spanish Mr. Calderon?
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
On Strategy
The invaluable Al Fin blog has a post up titled The 48 Laws Of Power ... which lay out in synopsis fashion the 48 "laws" of strategy as defined by Robert Greene. In the comments I pointed out how contradictory Mr. Greene's "laws" are and was invited by the Al Fin blogger to point out other works that I think better describe the precepts of strategic thought. In an effort to avoid tl;dr in their comments at least, I opted to do all that here instead.
You takes your blog fodder where you finds it I suppose.
For the purposes of this post, I stipulate that Mr. Greene wasn't practicing original scholarship, but attempted to combine different schools of strategic thought into one book (as suggested in the same Al Fin comment stream).
There are basically two formats to presenting strategy, the classical circular structure and the western tradition of linear thinking. Both have their advantages in detail, but the classical structure - while initially confusing to modern cause-and-effect thinking - offers the more coherent format over the broadest range of application of the fundamentals of the subject.
In the western tradition, strategy is commonly regarded as either a military or political function (and frequently some combination of those). Clausewitz wrote to a military audience about the force multiplying benefits of logistics as a separate military specialization, particularly as applied to field artillery in support of infantry in both fixed as well as mobile operations. Necessarily, this involved some examination of the requirements of obtaining political support of what a modern soldier would immediately recognize as a combined arms unit (then a rather novel concept). Military units are structured for top-down command and are plotted in a pyramidal format. Not coincidentally, strategies for using such forces are also laid out in the same limited context format. This may produce effective combat units, but it seriously warps the applicability of the underlying concepts in other applications.
Students of strategy are remiss if they ignore Clausewitz though, his study of strategic principles in a tightly focused application is still the seminal examination of how such processes improve even a highly structured environment, particularly during chaotic events.
In the more overtly political arena can be found that other primary source of western strategic thought, Niccolo Machiavelli. The Florentine's third book The Art Of War is more a philosophical study of the strategy of warfare than of actual strategy, its titular claim notwithstanding. Taken together, The Prince and The Discourses offer a much better study of the justifications behind many strategic principles, but even these don't spend nearly enough narrative on the structure and inter-related nature of the actual principles themselves.
So we come to Sun Tzu. Frankly, I find most translations of his The Art Of War to be nearly as inscrutable as the original text. As a result, I cannot recommend strongly enough the work of Gary Gagliardi (pronounced "gah-lar-dy"). The Amazon page dedicated to his work has a decent bio of his qualifications along with (big surprise) links to many of his books examining how classical strategy applies to achieving understanding and success in a variety of ordinary human activity. As a starting point, I recommend The Golden Key To Strategy or possibly The Bing-Fa, Martial Arts Strategy for those more inclined toward or experienced in martial arts either military or sport. Almost any of Gary's business-oriented books will take the reader through the identical principles in that setting, as will The Art Of War + The Art Of Love in a personal context.
As can be seen, my assertion that classical strategy applies to all aspects of human activity isn't quite as unlikely as might be supposed.
Anyone just beginning a study of classical strategy would benefit from Gary's website, but the basic insight that classical strategy is conceived and presented as a circular whole, that chapter 1 takes off from the principles described in chapter 13, will help a reader new to Sun Tzu experience at least somewhat less initial confusion. Classical strategy is - pardon the seeming hippietude - a holistic concept that requires recognition that every principle is moderated and empowered by the context within which every other principle is applied. It's not as confusing as all that might make it appear, but it can seem complex at first acquaintance.
My thanks to Al Fin for the inspiration to flail away on my favorite hobby horse; I call myself a student of strategy mostly because I long ago recognized I will never master the subject.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I suppose I should mention that I first started blogging at Gary's old strategy site (see here for an archival sample of my supposed insight :)), but I have no involvement with his current site or work nor do I receive compensation from any sales he may garner from my recommendations of his work, FTC disclaimer, yada yada, etc ...
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2012/06/48-laws-of-power-and-other-secret.html
You takes your blog fodder where you finds it I suppose.
For the purposes of this post, I stipulate that Mr. Greene wasn't practicing original scholarship, but attempted to combine different schools of strategic thought into one book (as suggested in the same Al Fin comment stream).
There are basically two formats to presenting strategy, the classical circular structure and the western tradition of linear thinking. Both have their advantages in detail, but the classical structure - while initially confusing to modern cause-and-effect thinking - offers the more coherent format over the broadest range of application of the fundamentals of the subject.
In the western tradition, strategy is commonly regarded as either a military or political function (and frequently some combination of those). Clausewitz wrote to a military audience about the force multiplying benefits of logistics as a separate military specialization, particularly as applied to field artillery in support of infantry in both fixed as well as mobile operations. Necessarily, this involved some examination of the requirements of obtaining political support of what a modern soldier would immediately recognize as a combined arms unit (then a rather novel concept). Military units are structured for top-down command and are plotted in a pyramidal format. Not coincidentally, strategies for using such forces are also laid out in the same limited context format. This may produce effective combat units, but it seriously warps the applicability of the underlying concepts in other applications.
Students of strategy are remiss if they ignore Clausewitz though, his study of strategic principles in a tightly focused application is still the seminal examination of how such processes improve even a highly structured environment, particularly during chaotic events.
In the more overtly political arena can be found that other primary source of western strategic thought, Niccolo Machiavelli. The Florentine's third book The Art Of War is more a philosophical study of the strategy of warfare than of actual strategy, its titular claim notwithstanding. Taken together, The Prince and The Discourses offer a much better study of the justifications behind many strategic principles, but even these don't spend nearly enough narrative on the structure and inter-related nature of the actual principles themselves.
So we come to Sun Tzu. Frankly, I find most translations of his The Art Of War to be nearly as inscrutable as the original text. As a result, I cannot recommend strongly enough the work of Gary Gagliardi (pronounced "gah-lar-dy"). The Amazon page dedicated to his work has a decent bio of his qualifications along with (big surprise) links to many of his books examining how classical strategy applies to achieving understanding and success in a variety of ordinary human activity. As a starting point, I recommend The Golden Key To Strategy or possibly The Bing-Fa, Martial Arts Strategy for those more inclined toward or experienced in martial arts either military or sport. Almost any of Gary's business-oriented books will take the reader through the identical principles in that setting, as will The Art Of War + The Art Of Love in a personal context.
As can be seen, my assertion that classical strategy applies to all aspects of human activity isn't quite as unlikely as might be supposed.
Anyone just beginning a study of classical strategy would benefit from Gary's website, but the basic insight that classical strategy is conceived and presented as a circular whole, that chapter 1 takes off from the principles described in chapter 13, will help a reader new to Sun Tzu experience at least somewhat less initial confusion. Classical strategy is - pardon the seeming hippietude - a holistic concept that requires recognition that every principle is moderated and empowered by the context within which every other principle is applied. It's not as confusing as all that might make it appear, but it can seem complex at first acquaintance.
My thanks to Al Fin for the inspiration to flail away on my favorite hobby horse; I call myself a student of strategy mostly because I long ago recognized I will never master the subject.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I suppose I should mention that I first started blogging at Gary's old strategy site (see here for an archival sample of my supposed insight :)), but I have no involvement with his current site or work nor do I receive compensation from any sales he may garner from my recommendations of his work, FTC disclaimer, yada yada, etc ...
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2012/06/48-laws-of-power-and-other-secret.html
Monday, June 25, 2012
Don't Let The Goldbugs Bite
So, Tam takes notice of a recent Captain Capitalism post that uses the seemingly immortal gold = money illusion as a metaphor to illustrate a tedious teaching challenge, not to mention a very debilitating belief. As is her want, she draws a sound conclusion, and this is a topic I have given some consideration heretofore.
Nice to see some of my earlier speculations given presumptively true status, however all unknowingly.
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2012/06/qotd-keeping-score-edition.html
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/06/were-taking-you-with-us.html
Nice to see some of my earlier speculations given presumptively true status, however all unknowingly.
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2012/06/qotd-keeping-score-edition.html
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/06/were-taking-you-with-us.html
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Less Crime = Lying Cops?
At his Bayou Renaissance Man blog, Peter writes:
This is more than a quibble over semantics. If the "... less crime" half of the argument isn't actually true (indeed, if the apparent crime reduction synonymous with the rise in gun ownership is actually false and no correlation exists), what evidence is there to disprove the notion that this official statistical fraud is instead hiding a rise in gun-involved crime?
Food for thought, indeed.
It is usually a better strategy to control the context of a dispute, to get ahead of your oppositions arguments as it were, so my initial thought is to make a point of the unreliable nature of the official statistical record and to dismiss efforts to debate any point that relies upon them. Stick to the historical record of political/constitutional arguments about US citizen gun ownership and concentrate on the positive individual growth and development achievable through responsible gun usage. Defensive gun usage shouldn't be minimized, but it might be more effective to relegate such arguments to a supportive role rather than boldly flaunt assertions that appear more than a little questionable at the moment.
The whole "tide of history" thing is still running strong; concentrating on legal gun ownership, while making the point often about how unreliable "official" records seemingly are, just makes better sense to me.
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/06/crime-statistics-less-than-trustworthy.html
There's a very interesting article over at PoliceOne discussing how, in many jurisdictions, crimes are under-reported, wrongly recorded, and generally 'fudged' for political reasons...
I highly recommend clicking over to PoliceOne and reading the entire report. It provides very important insight into a problem that directly and immediately affects your own security. If you don't know the true dimensions and nature of the crime problem in your area, how will you know whether or not to take additional precautions, or be prepared to deal with specific types of crime?As I said in his comments, one of the more seeming open-and-shut arguments advanced by many gun bloggers recently is the idea that "more guns = less crime". If the reporting from PoliceOne.com is as widespread as it appears, just how trustworthy are the statistics this line of reasoning relies on? Do the actual numbers really support the conclusion we gun owners think we're making?
This is more than a quibble over semantics. If the "... less crime" half of the argument isn't actually true (indeed, if the apparent crime reduction synonymous with the rise in gun ownership is actually false and no correlation exists), what evidence is there to disprove the notion that this official statistical fraud is instead hiding a rise in gun-involved crime?
Food for thought, indeed.
It is usually a better strategy to control the context of a dispute, to get ahead of your oppositions arguments as it were, so my initial thought is to make a point of the unreliable nature of the official statistical record and to dismiss efforts to debate any point that relies upon them. Stick to the historical record of political/constitutional arguments about US citizen gun ownership and concentrate on the positive individual growth and development achievable through responsible gun usage. Defensive gun usage shouldn't be minimized, but it might be more effective to relegate such arguments to a supportive role rather than boldly flaunt assertions that appear more than a little questionable at the moment.
The whole "tide of history" thing is still running strong; concentrating on legal gun ownership, while making the point often about how unreliable "official" records seemingly are, just makes better sense to me.
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2012/06/crime-statistics-less-than-trustworthy.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
