106 responses to “Ruminations – 21nov2011”

1. 

   George Rebane

   22 November 2011

   PaulE – I think you meant Tito’s death in 1980. By gaming the system, I really meant delaying an election’s outcome indefinitely or until some target date by which the existing order could accomplish the gamer’s objectives, say, legislative or regulatory.
   Sounds like a quorum to me 😉 BTW, there are many voting systems possible; ours is just one of them. To me an intriguing one is for the voter to allocate, say, 100 votes/points over a collection of candidates or alternative implementations of a law or …, including the infamous ‘Nun of the above’.
   http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/altvote.html

   LikeLike

2. 

   Greg Goodknight

   22 November 2011

   “We have the right under the Constitution to possess firearms to give us the firepower to revolt if we chose to do so. So then the Weather Underground was within their Constitutional Rights to use violence as a tactic to destabilize the government because it was their opinion that it was necessary to do so.”
   No, there is not a Right to rebel. If you don’t win, you lose. Big time.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
   You do have a right to self defense, and it’s amazing how well an armed populace manages to keep the folks in power from getting too confident… a well regulated militia really is necessary for the security of a free state.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Paul Emery

   22 November 2011

   My error
   “Shortly after the death of Tito”

   LikeLike

4. 

   Paul Emery

   22 November 2011

   Surely then Greg you must agree that the Black Panthers had the right to openly arm themselves for what they considered self defense.

   LikeLike

5. 

   George Rebane

   22 November 2011

   PaulE 943pm – not answering for GregG, but whenever you ask such question of someone who “has the right”, it seems that you’re implying that exercising such ‘rights’ should be sacrosanct and go unchallenged. I believe that I should have the right and the opportunity to appear in public armed and threatening, and consequently have the nearest cop or citizen with a concealed carry weapon also have the ‘right’ to blow my head off. In short, where are you going with the Black Panther question?

   LikeLike

6. 

   Scott Obermuller

   22 November 2011

   re Paul at 8:30 – ‘In our country we have Democrats and Republicans both controlled by the same special interests.’ That would be the voters, Paul. The 99% you love so much. We got the president everyone wanted. We knew he was crooked and we voted him in and now the 99% are upset because the crook from Chicago got into the White House and he’s still a crook. And all of the other crooked lying politicians that the 99% keep re-electing to power. The system works perfectly. It’s the 99% that are messed up. If you want better govt then start with better citizens. But we’re stuck with the illiterate bunch of cry babies that expect govt to do everything for them and they want some one else to pay for it. You can put any type of govt in place you want, but there’ll still be crooked govt rulers as long as the 99% haven’t got a clue, or are too lazy to obtain one. Obviously, it’s not that bad. But there is just too heavy a percentage of voters that are completely ignorant of what and who they are voting for. They were educated to be that way and they don’t want to expend the time and energy to change.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Paul Emery

   22 November 2011

   Testing what is meant by the “right of self defense” as offered by Greg G

   LikeLike

8. 

   Paul Emery

   22 November 2011

   Greg writes
   “a well regulated militia really is necessary for the security of a free state.”
   Does that mean an organized National Guard or does that include private militias and neighborhood protection militias even a minority of residents feel is necessary for self defense.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Greg Goodknight

   22 November 2011

   “Surely then Greg you must agree that the Black Panthers had the right to openly arm themselves for what they considered self defense.”
   Absolutely.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Greg Goodknight

    22 November 2011

    “Does that mean an organized National Guard or does that include private militias and neighborhood protection militias even a minority of residents feel is necessary for self defense.”
    The National Guard is just an arm of the Federal DoD, the standing army. An organized militia, like the US Army.
    But you should note, the 2nd amendment doesn’t cover the formation of militias, only that the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state’, and that is a direct translation of an elegant 18th century Constitutional grammar into 21st century conversational English. Personally, I can’t think of a better regulation of an Army in a Free State than to make sure the rabble can shoot back, and may well be a big reason why our Republic has lasted as long as it has.

    LikeLike

11. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Scott
    Let me ask you this about your indictment of the ignorant 99%. Does the manifestation of their ignorance include the current Republican majority in the House? Was Bush Jr also a product of their ignorance? Is their anybody in the current presidential horizon that to you represents an enlightened change?

    LikeLike

12. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    I don’t think many on our side of this accept the premise of a 99%.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2011

    GregG 1059pm – While a student and a strong proponent of the 2nd Amend, I have not seen that translation of such “an elegant 18th century Constitutional grammar” before. Can you please tell us more?
    PaulE 1011am – I was not able to find any reference to or attribution of “the ignorant 99%” by ScottO. (Administrivia – it sure would help the other readers follow your threads if you included the time stamp of the comment to which you are replying. Thanks.)

    LikeLike

14. 

    Greg Goodknight

    23 November 2011

    I guess Paul tired of his probing because he misunderstood both the Panthers being armed and the 2nd Amendment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black-Panther-Party-armed-guards-in-street-shotguns.jpg
    Under the law, as long as there is no demonstrable intent to initiate violence, I don’t see how that’s different than Wal-Mart having an armed rent-a-cop, or Condoleeza Rice’s father and friends arming themselves when some whites in their area were nightriding.
    Now, the Panthers did go beyond the rent-a-cop, ‘self defense of the law abiding and peaceful’ model and to the extend they did, J.Edgar was correct in targeting them.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Larry Wirth

    23 November 2011

    Interesting conversation. FTR, the term “dingbat” is an architectural term-of-art referring to two-story apartment buildings with deep overhangs front and back for tenant ground-level parking. These were first developed in the Los Angles area in the early ’50’s.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Greg Goodknight

    23 November 2011

    Here you go, George: “Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the Second Amendment “must be read as though the word “because’ was the opening word,”[4] as in “[because a] well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State … .”
    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm (one of many google hits, take your pick)
    In other words:
    A judicious seasoning, being necessary for a tasty turkey, a cook should take care in wielding the salt
    means
    A cook should take care in wielding the salt because a judicious seasoning is necessary for a tasty turkey.

    LikeLike

17. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2011

    Many thanks Professor Goodknight, we always learn something more from your contributions.
    And LarryW, your occasional discourses have become another source for depth and clarity on these pages. Thank you.
    BTW, our desperately middle-of-the-road friend, socio-pollitical cartoonist extraordinaire and Nevada County icon, RL ‘Bob’ Crabb will also weigh in with his essay on “rightwing dingbat” which was requested by multiple readers. Look for it tomorrow morning.

    LikeLike

18. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Here you go George
    Scott Obermuller | 22 November 2011 at 09:55 PM
    That would be the voters, Paul. The 99% you love so much. We got the president everyone wanted. We knew he was crooked and we voted him in and now the 99% are upset because the crook from Chicago got into the White House and he’s still a crook. And all of the other crooked lying politicians that the 99% keep re-electing to power. The system works perfectly. It’s the 99% that are messed up. If you want better govt then start with better citizens.

    LikeLike

19. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 November 2011

    Well, my goodness Paul. You do read my posts. Still ducking my questions, though.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Greg Goodknight

    23 November 2011

    “On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
    “Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
    “I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
    “So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
    “It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
    “You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
    “Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
    “But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
    “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
    from “So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish” by Douglas Adams

    LikeLike

21. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2011

    PaulE 120pm – is this one of those ‘I know that Scott really meant to call them “the ignorant 99%”‘?? It continues to amaze how you guys can all read our real thoughts no matter what we actually write or say.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Good one Greg
    Scott
    I’ve kinda lost track. Can you restate your questions and I’ll give it a go
    George
    Are you saying that Scott meant something else other than what he wrote? I’m confused. Please set me straight. Does 99% mean 99% or something else?

    LikeLike

23. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    Our country has universal suffrage. Women were finally given the vote way way back. So, every American is eligible to exercise his/her will in the political world and therefore have a government of the people. What is amazing to me is every two years we as a people could throw them out and put in some new ones. We don’t do that do we? To me it is the peoples responsibility, not some goofy thing like term limits or other ways to allow the people to dodge their responsibility. That is why I am not as vociferous about the people in elected positions since it appears they are what the small number of people who turn out seem to want to be in charge. Education and ethics need to be taught from seventh grade to twelfth grad, one quarter every school year. Along with how to count money back and balance a checkbook.

    LikeLike

24. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    One ore thing, could someone tell me if the 99% contain the 47% who pay no federal taxes? If so, what the heck could the beef be?

    LikeLike

25. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    I agree Todd. I don’t believe in term limits. The problem is that people vote according to what party they support (Republicrats) and the parties don’t ever offer an alternative once someone is in office. Look how long it took the Repubs to dump Dolittle. Yes I know he says he stepped down but everyone knows the truth that he was finally dumped by the party because he was unelectable.
    I Assume the 99% is 99%.

    LikeLike

26. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    So if a 99% er complains about no money and federal giveaways yet doesn’t pay anything into the system, are they still members of the 99%?

    LikeLike

27. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Last I heard.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

    LikeLike

29. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Scott was the one that started this. You might ask him what he meant.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    I am asking you.

    LikeLike

31. 

    Mario Guanero

    23 November 2011

    I don’t know about Paul E, but what strikes me as odd is why a guy who has shown absolutely no fiscal restraint in his own affairs, to the point of defaulting on obligations that have affected the public at large – on multiple occasions over the years (check the records – not just in this ‘recession’) – would continually act in such a pious manner.
    I know ‘paying’ into the system is something maybe you’re simple brain needs to quantify to only a tax schedule, but many of us are capable of looking beyond the IRS to value worth.
    Todd, you have traded on your minor contributions to public service for far too long; and some, such as I, would say that you were always more of a destructive force at that. From where I sit: You were never a ‘respected’ contractor. Subs despised you. Clients avoided you. Investors lost money with you. And generally, people just tolerate you because of your perceived ‘connections’, which are failed and fading. And now the truth has come to roost – you come off as bitter and jealous in every post – I would pity you if I did not despise your intent to do harm to my desired freedoms. You are a problem.

    LikeLike

32. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    I have no idea what he meant. I was just quoting him (Scott)
    This is getting a little silly

    LikeLike

33. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    Mario Guanero is not a real person but a moniker of a Steve. No response necessary.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2011

    George, Guanero means “guano” in spanish. We all know whay that is. Could you delete guano’s comment? Thanks.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    I agree. This is not in the spirit of conversation that we should be promoting. Pretty soon we’ll be subject to credit and background checks if we contribute to this blog.

    LikeLike

36. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 November 2011

    Well, I’ve been out burning brush and look how much fun we’re having. I said 99% not because I really think that is the exact percentage of non-aware voters, but I think there’s been a bit of talk in the news lately about the ‘99%’ that the left are convinced are the ‘real’ Americans. It’s called tongue planted firmly in cheek folks. The whole idea that there’s this real 99% that are being screwed by the system is laughable on it’s face. If there was a majority that size, they would just vote in the magic perfect bunch of saints that are out there somewhere and we’d all go to the sea shore. You can have any person you want in office as long as they fit the age and citizenship requirements. They don’t need any money to speak of, although it may take a few years of gaining support to have enough to file. If you get enough people to support you, one of the parties will want you. Or you can run as a independent. Or a write in. The problem is – your dream candidate may make me throw up. And off we go.
    The system is fine – it’s the fact that are a huge number of Americans that can tell you the name and stats of some 3rd string AAA ball player that can’t hit the side of a barn, but are they aware of what happened earlier today on the German govt’s bond sale? They can tell you the name of some washed up B actor’s 3rd wife’s dog, but they have no idea who represents them in congress or how they voted. That’s the problem. If the OWS folks want a good look at the person that is causing them the most problems, try a mirror.

    LikeLike

37. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2011

    PaulE – my only contention here is your seeming take that ScottO implied that the 99% were “ignorant”. I didn’t see where he did that.

    LikeLike

38. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    George
    This is what Scott wrote that inspired my response:
    “The system works perfectly. It’s the 99% that are messed up. If you want better govt then start with better citizens.”
    I guess “messed up” doesn’t mean ignorant. Scott has since explained his statement and I accept his clarification.
    Scott
    Did the prospects of Sarah Palin as Vice President trigger you to having a barflet (my word meaning not a full throw up but one you are able to contain).
    How did her selection reflect on the intelligence of the selection process and those that made that decision.
    “But there is just too heavy a percentage of voters that are completely ignorant of what and who they are voting for.”

    LikeLike

39. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 November 2011

    OK folks, the 99% was just a play on the lefts’ claim about how they are the 99%. Of course there is no 99% of anyone that is anything other than maybe feeling hungry or sleepy from time to time. It’s just that a handful of lefties starts trashing the place and having a temper tantrum and they get to claim they are the 99%. Based on what? They speak for themselves – no one else. They break the law, we call out the cops and smack skulls. They are costing those of us who produce, millions in tax dollars while they scream for more freebies.
    Paul you can scroll back up and see the questions – or you can continue to duck them.

    LikeLike

40. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Scott
    I’m not trying to duck questions I just can’t seem to find them. Can you give me the date and time and I’ll gladly give it a go..

    LikeLike

41. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    I’ve done the best I can to sort out your questions. I only found one specific one.
    “Are you still claiming that prohibiting camping in city parks causes income inequality? ”
    Of course not. I never claimed that. You were putting words in my mouth. Please show me where I said that.
    Civil disobedience does not necessarily target specific laws but many times just intends to break the law and create a persistence nuisance and with enough numbers on their side affect public opinion. If they break the law they are subject to arrest. The sitins protesting the Viet Nam War are classic examples. Do you have a right to break the law? No. Is it an effective action for change? You bet it is. Look at the process of Womans Suffrage and the civil disobedience that led to a Constitutional Amendment.
    “In 1916 and 1917 suffragists picketed the White House, with one silent picket leading to the arrest of 218 women from 26 states. The women were jailed and force-fed at the Occoquan workhouse, a prison in Virginia, and their mistreatment led to public outrage and helped with the campaign. The 19th amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote passed Congress in 1919 and was ratified in 1920.”
    http://www.now.org/history/protests.html
    They were arrested for illegal assembly not directly attempting to vote.
    Whether the OWS crowd gathers universal support is a question indeed. However the tactic of civil disobedience is well established as a tactic for change in our country.

    LikeLike

42. 

    Greg Goodknight

    23 November 2011

    “Whether the OWS crowd gathers universal support is a question indeed.”
    Not A Chance. It only seems a possibility to the solid left who have never accepted the revolution they want will never come. Strange but true, the rapes, the thefts, the defecating just ain’t middle America.
    ‘You’ve been around for 8 weeks and you already have a ghetto?’

    LikeLike

43. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2011

    Greg
    No but massive unemployment with no help in sight is (middle America). You have focused on the fringe trouble making crowd that is attracted to these kinds of events not the intent and tactics of the vast majority who participate. That’s a pretty flimsy way to disregard the depth of the movement and where it might lead.

    LikeLike

44. 

    Scott Obermuller

    23 November 2011

    Sigh – Paul, my post at 9:35 on 11/21 had a few.
    Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

    LikeLike

45. 

    Mario Guanero

    23 November 2011

    Seriously Todd? you’re requesting a deletion of an opinion hit job? I admit my post/response to you seems aggressive, but it took all of thirty seconds to scroll through tens, if not hundreds, of your personal attack posts. It seems nothing is off limits in your distorted little world; from dissection and suppositions regarding a person’s finances and lifestyle choices, to broad generalizations as to the character and values of those that deviate from your narrow definition of an ally (as in the ‘commie’ slams here in this thread). You are a hypocrite and wannabe bully.
    The bottom line is that I perceive you as incapable of sound reasoning, and that the fear of self discovery reflective of that impression drives you to lash out.
    I’ve posted my name and email both here and on Russ’ site; if your compadres choose to delete, ban or censor me, then so be it – but I want you to know, that you are neither wise nor just, and that your posts detract from the discourse (which speaks to one of GR’s Rumination points).

    LikeLike

46. 

    Todd Juvinall

    24 November 2011

    You are not a real person your name means guano in Spanish. Expose yourself to us all and stop being such a coward Mr. guano.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Todd Juvinall

    24 November 2011

    Happy Thanksgiving to all!

    LikeLike

48. 

    George Rebane

    24 November 2011

    Re Mr Guanero – I believe the name means a male harvester or dealer in fertilizer derived from seabirds. A Spanish speaker should weigh in on this.

    LikeLike

49. 

    Paul Emery

    24 November 2011

    Scott
    I wish to oblige you and answer your “questions” as best I find them
    “Paul, the sit ins and marches were all Constitutional. Whites could ‘sit in’ at the lunch counters and were allowed to march with permits that the blacks were denied. So the anti-segregationists were only doing what the society tolerated otherwise. The OWS mob are blocking traffic just for the effect of blocking traffic. No one is allowed to block traffic, regardless of their national origin. Again, if tents=free speech and gang rape doesn’t, you tell me the dividing line exactly and why.”
    Of course the isolated incidents of rape were not part of the organized protests. It makes your whole argument lame when you suggest that.
    “How about tents for months at your house? Filth and sewage on your yard for months? No? Oh, so you are against free speech!”
    Is that a question or a declaration? Questions end with a question mark. “Tents at your house ….? ” Please clarify what the question is.
    “In the case of the segregationists movement, the ends WERE the means. The means WERE the ends. Are you still claiming that prohibiting camping in city parks causes income inequality?”
    That’s simply not true. There were hundreds of acts of civil disobedience during th civil rights movement that had nothing to do with the goals of the protesters. You are making up history .
    I already answered that question anyway. See 23 November 2011 at 09:11 PM
    “Your insipid repetition of the civil rights movement shows a dodging of the issues raised here. Try to stay on the topic and answer my questions.”
    For my view on the tactic of civil disobedience again see 23 November 2011 at 09:11 PM
    So Scott, I am pleasantly surprised that you are a supporter of the Civil Rights Bill that was the end result of the protests. At least in this situation you favor the federal government over states rights.
    Now will you answer my question as to the intelligence level of those who chose Sarah Palin as a VP candidate.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Scott Obermuller

    24 November 2011

    Nope – you dodged the questions, Paul. Let’s look at the exact question: ‘Again, if tents=free speech and gang rape doesn’t, you tell me the dividing line exactly and why’.
    I SAID gang rape doesn’t. I wasn’t saying it was part of the plan, just going to an extreme to compare with what you do find acceptable. Since you think left wing folk can have the right to decide what laws to break with impunity, I want to know how far they can go and why. The question about your house was clear. The hypocrisy is clear. Paul thinks disruption and assault of others is okie-dokie, but don’t bother Paul at his house.
    Then you say I am a supporter of ‘the Civil Rights Bill’ – based on what? I am a supporter of civil rights, (all of them) but not of a bill that ended up denying folks their civil rights. As to the intelligence level of those who picked Sarah – the quick answer is: far above anyone who voted for President Zero.
    I have no idea who chose Sarah Palin as VP. I’m sure Sen McCain had a hand in it, but maybe you could let me know who the rest were and then I can answer your question.
    If you asked WHY she was picked, I can tell you it was because the base needed firing up and McCain sure wasn’t going to do that. Like her or not, she did fire up the conservative base of the Republican Party, so it was a good choice. The ticket was doomed anyway, due to the Rs squandering the opportunity they had to fix a lot of problems in the fed govt. Instead the RINOs took over and just floated along in Cleo’s barge on the Nile. I voted for Alan Keys. Don’t blame me.

    LikeLike