Being an adult consists of picking up everyone else's messes. Whether it's your child's, you spouse's or your neighbor's.

And if you think picking up trash off the lawn is unpleasant, wait until you find yourself having to clean up the intimate messes of an chronically ailing spouse or an elderly, incontinent relative. Particularly one of your parents.

Grown-ups just suck it up and do this stuff. To expect the government to take the responsibility is to invite them to take over your life in any number of other ways, often unforseeable and almost always undesirable.

If you were my neighbor and didn't want this responsibility, I would happily clean up the stuff thrown on your front lawn, rather than empower the county government to pass another law.

This is a temper tantrum worthy of any two-year-old, and I would imagine that the woman's family must be embarrassed to find it posted on the Web, accompanied by more than a thousand comments, most of which are snotty and sarcastic.

But I think there's an important point to be observed here: If this had occurred at a US or Canadian airport, the woman would most likely be dead by now. A flock of "security" people would have descended on her, she'd probably have been restrained and/or tasered, and would have ended up dead from that mysterious ailment called "excited delirium." Now, if you've checked the DSM-IV, you won't find a condition called "excited delirium." The psychiatric trade, in its rush to find more billable illnesses, has recognized nearly every behavioral quirk imaginable. For all we know, they have a diagnostic/billing code for someone who picks his nose and eats the boogers. But excited delirium is a fatal condition that has been recorded only after the victim has had some physical encounter with, um, law-enforcement officers. Like the Polish fellow who died in the Vancouver airport. Damn if the video of that event didn't look like he was repeatedly tasered, and killed by positional asphyxia. (Not to mention that no attempt was made to revive him.) But no, the police investigation found excited delirium, just as they ruled that as the cause of death of a woman at another airport who was handcuffed and left alone in a room after becoming agitated.

Back to the Hong Kong incident: think about what did not happen here, at least not in the nearly four minutes of this video. The airport people in this clip had the good judgment to let her rant without over-reacting to it, even though at the beginning of the clip, she can be seen shoving a couple of uniformed people. They barely attempted to engage her. This is always the best policy with irrationally angry people, who will soon enough exhaust themselves. All that was necessary was to prevent her hurting someone else.

We will probably never learn the aftermath of this incident, because it won't be sufficiently interesting or lurid to be posted. My guess is that, at worst, the woman was eventually arrested and perhaps will be held accountable for battery on the uniformed folks, or any damage she did to equipment. (Post script: a wire service article said that she caught a later flight that same day.)

Police in the USA need to realize that sometimes it's best to walk away; that they need not always "win," and that not achieving total control is not a sign of weakness.

In a piece entitled "It'll Never Happen Here,"  Ferris observes thus:

...the NRA long ago retreated into a reactive stance when it actually had the power to utterly defeat prior legislation, our so-called gun rights advocates will once again fall prey to typical “dialectic” maneuverings by the victim disarmament crowd. An insane bill is presented (thesis), reaching far beyond what our opponents actually want (at the moment), the NRA screams and takes a flaccid stand (antithesis) … and then compromises, and we get saddled with another sellout of our rights (synthesis).

What can be done? Petition the politicians who already ignore you? Petition the NRA Board of Directors, when it is blatantly obvious that the NRA was infiltrated by Bill of Rights saboteurs decades ago? No, all your letters and faxes and emails and phone calls won’t work with the two- faced connivers who are running things, both in D.C. and deep within the NRA. Forget the traitors and their dupes. Don’t waste your breath.

Outrageous as it sounds, this observation is difficult to refute. To give a few examples of egregious government over-reaching that has been ignored by NRA:

• BATFE harrassment of Red's Trading Post, Idaho's oldest gun shop.
• Maryland state police harrassment of Don Curtis, a law-abiding gun owner and collector.
• Baltimore City's arrest of Lovell A. Wheeler, who was imprisoned without bail for several months, over misdemeanor charges. Wheeler happens to be a White Supremacist, and many believe his arrest and incarceration had more to do with his political beliefs than any of his actions.
• The un-horsing of Sanford Abrams, a long-time gun dealer, NRA Board member, and president of the Maryland Firearms Dealers Association. Abrams lost his Federal Firearms License over allegations of hundreds of violations, many extremely technical and arcane. Rather than coming to his defense, the NRA board dropped him like a hot rock, and has written not a word about him.

While taking credit for gaining criminal judgments against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, over the illegal seizure of firearms after Hurricane Katrina, NRA has declined to hold responsible the individual police and National Guard personnel who carried out Nagin's illegal order. One plausible explanation is that NRA depends heavily on police-folk among its membership and is unwilling to do anything that might potentially alienate those dues-payers, even to the extent of refusing to comment on bad police work.

This is not the main thrust of Ferris' article, which is well worth reading for the way in which the writer describes the "perfect storm" that appears to be leading towards the registration and eventual confiscation of all guns in civilian hands.

Today, I noticed another event that happened only yesterday, and was altogether ignored by the media here in Maryland, although other places across the country where it took place got coverage. I suppose this is to be expected, given one daily newspaper that is in its death throes, another that was all but stillborn, and a broacast news establishment that is prejudiced against reporting anything of substance, especially if it is of a positive or uplifting nature.

In the last day or two you may have received a e-mail from a friend containing James Varhegyi's photograph of Arlington National Cemetery in the snow, with a decorated Christmas wreath laid on each gravestone.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Seven years ago last September, the USA was attacked on its own mainland soil; hit at both the seat of government and the seat of commerce and entertainment. Thousands died, few of whom had volunteered to assume any extraordinary risk. Dead quiet enveloped us for a few days as virtually all aircraft quit flying. Within a week, flags started popping up everywhere, along with the slogan "United We Stand."

As things unfolded, we remained united for all of three or four months. Seven years hence, Americans are shooting each other over the last video game on the shelf, and waiting for the latest government give-away.

If the veterans of World War 2 had envisioned the future as the world of today, I wonder whether would have been so willing to make the sacrifice to save us.

It is unlikely I will be fit to post a comment immediately following the election without restorting to this advance method. Tomorrow my day begins at 0600 ("sparrowfart," as the Aussies call it) and ends God-knows-when. I will be working as an election judge in the polling place where I usually vote. Our day will end when everyone has voted and the equipment is shut down and secured.

From this vantage point, I fear violence, either on election day or in the days following it. Emotions on both the side of Senator Obama and that of Senator McCain are running dangerously high, if you judge by what is to be seen on television and the Web. Here on my own street, it's impossible to measure things; for the two blocks this street runs, there is not a single yard sign in support of any candidate. This is unusual in the 35+ years we've lived here, and my wife suggests that people are actually afraid of retribution if they express support for one Presidential candidate or another.

Certainly the anger has been brewing for a while. Back in the spring, I found myself caught up in an argument between an irate customer and a clerk in a store where I was next to be waited on. I spoke up, not only because the clerk was powerless to solve the issue and was being unfairly abused, but because I needed to transact my business and get on with the day's work. The customer, a middle-aged black woman, shouted "Jena Six!" at me as she burst out the door. This shibboleth had nothing whatever to do with the matter at hand, and was a distinct display of hatred for whites by this person.

I have witnessed equally irrational and goofy stuff coming out the mouths of white people towards blacks, and I can't shake the feeling that we may have rolled back the clock to 1968. Interestingly, those of us who were adults in that tumultuous year--black or white--seem to harbor little anger about it. I have spent time all over the deep south in the past few years, and even in the cities where the violence had been the worst you will see middle-aged people of all ethnicities palling around together. The racial anger occurs among people who were yet to be born at that time; who have never been denied service anywhere; who never had to carefully plan ahead a get-together with friends of another race, lest some outsider start a fight; have never heard the word "miscegnation." As my friend and contemporary Brenda puts it, "They have no right to the anger they express."

So I find myself once again hoping for the best while preparing for the worst.

As for the two leading Presidential candidates, I have no use for either of the bastards.

If McCain is defeated tomorrow, we will be blessed by not having to hear the word "maverick" every goddamned ten minutes. Senator McCain may consider this a positive attribute, but in my opinion it means he is unpredictable and unreliable.  He has not been called to account for his role in the Keating Five debacle of several decades ago, nor his inexplicable co-sponsorship of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, easily the worst assault on freedom-of-speech ever to have been codified in the USA.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, may well find himself in the position of not knowing what to do, once elected. A powerful speaker, he has swayed many people by oratory alone, but sooner or later he will be called to account for all the conflicting (not to mention impossible and unconstitutional) promises he has made along the way. The presence of innumerable skeletons in his personal and political closets just about guarantees that he will be about as effective a President as James Earl Carter or Gerald Ford. In the long run, this will be a good thing, if it results in a reduction of government power.

The real danger, in the medium term, is that of having one political power in control of two of the three branches of government. Unlike many, I am not worried about SCOTUS appointments; recent cases have demonstrated that those SOBs who are sitting there now are no prize, and no friends of freedom. I'm more concerned about the slow grinding away of the American spirit between the mill wheels of a Democrat president and a Democrat congress. Why Ms. Pelosi expects her party to dominate the legislative branch, given their microscopic approval rating, God only knows. But Americans are not known for using good sense at the polls, so anything could happen.

But I believe this form of government that was started here in the 18th century was meant to be noisy and argumentive; that "unity" (as both major parties express it) is a code-word for domination; and that the mission of the parties has shifted from finding common ground to one of destroying the opposing party altogether. This, I believe, can only lead to tragedy.

I am left thinking that the Britons are right when they observe that Guy Fawkes was "the only man to ever enter parliament with honest intentions."

Perhaps this election will take the USA so far down the slippery slope away from freedom that people will wake up and demand--if not forcibly create--the "change" that Obama and McCain claim to espouse. Or perhaps we will continue on the current path, described so well by C. S. Lewis: The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

One day at a time, I suppose...

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Towson, Md. (August 14, 2008) - Baltimore County's Department of Public Works is alerting homeowners to an illegal and unnecessary house number painting service which is being advertised door-to-door through official-looking green notices. 

For a fee of $20 Community Curb Painters (a company of no known address and reachable only through a toll-free, leave-a-message-after-the-beep number) promises to paint a resident's address on the fronting curb - ostensibly to help police and fire personnel locate the property if summoned in an emergency. The advertising implies that Community Curb Painters is working in cooperation with local police and fire departments. It is not.

Such curb painting is illegal. Curbs are public property, in the public right-of-way, and unauthorized painting is prohibited under the County code.(1) Moreover, this house number "service" does not satisfy the code requirement for posting addresses required for police and fire protection in Baltimore County. On logical grounds alone, note officials, the painting makes little sense since parked cars frequently block the view of curbs. (2)

Notes: (1) If something is "public property," it belongs to everyone/no-one, and thus a member of the public ought to be able to do what he damned well pleases. To say that painting "public property" is illegal is to imply that everything not specifically permitted by law is an illegal act. While that is rapidly becoming the case in Baltimore County, we have yet to see a Charter amendment that makes it so. The more rational explanation is that curbs are county property (as are road signs), and that there is a specific law that prohibits defacing county property. This law, for example, would prohibit me from spray-painting "Jim Smith is a jackass" on the wall of the county office building.

(2) If we are attempting to argue logically that curb numbers are useless because the view of them is frequently blocked, it makes sense to ask whether having them ought to be an illegal act. If I've painted something on my curb and no one can see it, what earthly difference does it make to Towson?

This little veiled threat from the county also neglects to take into account that in many HOA-governed subdivisions, and nearly all condominiums, the sidewalks, curbs, gutters and streets are owned by the homeowners' association, not the county. In which case, a resident is not answerable to the county, but to the local arbiters of good taste.

I can't help wondering whether this curb-painting deal became an issue only because the outfit doing it has not paid the requisite licensing and registration fees to the county, and is presumably not coughing up county, state and federal taxes on its income.

Since there are existing curb numbers all over the county, and since Mr. Smith and his cronies have declared them "illegal" (without citing chapter and verse of the law), some other entrepreneur needs to pop up and offer to bring residents into full compliance with the law by sandblasting away the illicit curb numbers. As long as they pay the mandatory tributes to the government, they should be OK.

*Smith's surgery occurred more than a month ago, and he is yet unable to get fully back to his job, which seems to be making grip-and-grin appearances while fobbing off bad-news announcements to his henchman Don Mohler. Yet I know of people engaged in hard physical labor who have gone back to work the week following bypass surgery. Draw your own conclusions.

If nothing else, it's comforting to share complaints with others, and occasionally something useful and actionable is learned about a particular caller. For example, one thread on this site revealed that it is possible to "spoof" a caller-ID system into reporting a number other than the one from which the call originates; that equipment to perform this task is commercially and readily available; and that no law or FCC regulation forbids this particular form of fraud, i.e. sending false data over a telephone system. Perhaps the rules will catch up with the technology, and this is one area where yet another government regulation might actually be useful, as there is no legitimate purpose for sending fake phone number data. You can block all unidentified, blocked or unidentifiable incoming calls; you can block calls from specific phone numbers; but you as a consumer have no way to defend against this practice.

Recently Julia Forte, the proprietor of 800Notes reported thus:

27 Jun 2008

Last week we received a letter from Thomas Georgianna, mynutritionstore's lawyer, in which he demanded the removal of unfavorable postings to avoid a costly lawsuit against 800Notes.com.

Apparently, our user received a call from the company and reported a bad experience. A few more consumers expressed their dissatisfaction. Although, the positive comments in the thread outnumber the negative ones, we have discovered that many of the “positive” responses appear to be posted by mynutritionstore itself.

When we replied that 800Notes.com cannot be held legally responsible for the posted material (such protection is provided by the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), Thomas Georgianna responded that in this case if we don't remove the postings they will sue the owners of 800Notes. He apparently hoped that the threat of expenses involved would drive us to comply with his demands.

In response to the threat Paul Alan Levy, a Public Citizen attorney, sent an open letter to Thomas Georgianna where he outlined the many reasons why this theory of forcing the website to shut down by increasing its legal expenses will not work.

This particular flavor of extortion is known as a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Heretofore, this practice has largely been confined to real estate developers attempting to shove through unwanted projects, by making it impossibly expensive for community associations to complain. Wikipedia defines the SLAPP thus:

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic.

The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. The term was originally defined as "a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance." It has since been defined more broadly to include suits about speech on any public issue.
 

It's a damned shabby process, and in all but a tiny number of instances, unwarranted. (I would not object to a SLAPP being filed against a jump-up "community association" opposing something on disingenuous grounds, as has occurred in the case of a Muslim school proposed for a location about two blocks from my home. I have been following this matter for nine months. The community objections, specious and unrelated to the proposed school's operation, were dismissed by the zoning board. Unfortunately, the decision has been appealed to the next higher administrative authority, even though no new facts have been revealed since the hearing, and the community is not alleging any mistake or procedural fault on the part of the zoning commission. They are simply running up the costs for the property owners, who have already invested more than a million dollars in this neighborhood of modestly priced houses.)

It's worth your while to follow the two links in Julia Forte's dispatch. The first link is to the original thread that prompted the SLAPP threat. Scanning the messages, you will find a number of them appearing to defend the company in question. They are easy to find, as they are written in all-caps, a breach of internet etiquette. Forte did IP address traces on these messages, and learned that they all came from the company being complained about. The second link takes you to a letter in response to the threat, written on behalf of Forte and 800Notes.com.

I think this form of threat is of genuine concern to anyone who uses the 800Notes site--or to anyone who contributes reviews to sites such as ePinions and Amazon, blogs, or moderates a political listmail group. Hell, sooner or later you might find yourself SLAPPed for giving someone bad feedback on eBay!

I do all these things; have done so for at least three years. Of the nearly 1,000 blog entries I have published, only one has resulted in even a veiled threat. Reconsidering how I wrote that thread, I pulled it until I can re-write it in a way that does not specifically identify the parties involved, parents of a young murder victim in Baltimore whom I criticized for not having done a good job of protecting their teenage child.

As the fighter pilots remind each other, "watch your six."

In an ideal world, we would go back to the beginning of the primary campaign and start all over, with an entirely news set of candidates. Now that we are approaching what appears to be Hobson's Choice, I had to answer Sherry in these words:

Cute aside: In one neighborhood where I had a small business, there was a neighborhood business association. The president was a man we will call "Freddie," and his wife/business partner a woman named "Marcy." Without fail, at every meeting Freddie would make an impassioned (and occasionally sensible) statement about some problem or another in the neighborhood. This would be followed, almost as if by parliamentary procedure, by Marcy seeking the floor and starting her own speech with the words, "Freddie didn't exactly say what he meant. What Freddie meant to say was..." (at which point she would thoroughly discredit every word of his little speech. Now, at the neighborhood level, it's funny--in a kind of cruel way--to watch a man being regularly emasculated by his wife in public. God knows, the two of them deserved each other, being a couple of pretentious jerks. But in national and international politics, we cannot afford this sort of entertainment.

That sucking sound you've been hearing all week is what's left of your privacy and freedom, circling the drain.

Monday the postman brought a "privacy policy" notice from Verizon, our internet service provider, that reveals this company has granted itself the permission to monitor everything that passes from my computers through their servers, on the suspicion I might be a terrorist or child pornography collector.

Tuesday the postman brought another such notice, from a company with which I have a few dollars invested. This notice revealed that if the company asks a consumer-reporting agency for information about me, that agency "may keep it and share it with others who use their services," with no limitation upon who these others might be. More tellingly, it revealed the presence of something called the Medical Information Bureau. This outfit, which usually goes by the more innocuous monniker MIB Group, Inc., justifies its existence thus:

"...persons whose health problems or hazardous avocations pose greater insurability risks should pay more than those who present a lower risk. (emphasis added)

Persons who unknowingly, or in some cases knowingly, withhold or give incomplete or erroneous information on insurance applications, cost the insurance-buying public billions. MIB serves in the role of an "advocate" for those persons who fairly and accurately report their information with the insurance companies and who are being penalized by, and are indirectly subsidizing, those who would intentionally or unintentionally defraud the system."

The existence of this shadowy group explains (although without adequate justification) why when I go to Walgreen's to buy prescription medicine, the pharmacy tech can pull up a list of every other medication that has been prescribed to me over the last five to seven years. Oddly enough, another federal regulation called HIPAA required my family doctor to get my written permission to have his office staff leave a message on my answering machine merely confirming an appointment, and to have the office nurse take my temperature and blood pressure behind closed doors (instead of in an anteroom to the reception area), on the off chance she might inadvertantly utter my vital signs as she's writing them down, and that someone with malicious intent might be lurking around the corner to write them down and use them against me. (By reporting them to the Medical Information Bureau, for example.)

Wednesday's mail brought another notice, this one from MetLife, which issues my paltry pension check. This notice, among other things, said that "We may also need...information about finances, employment hobbies (emphasis added) or business conducted with us...or with other companies." This little bomb was followed by a statement that MetLife reserves the right to get information form "other sources," including "adult relatives."  That opens the door to a world of mischief from estranged spouses and participants in other forms of family feuds (none of which, blessedly, exist in my own family.) MetLife also mentions, in passing, that "Other reasons we may disclose what we know about you include...Doing what a court or government agency requires us to do; for example, complying with a search warrant or subpoena."  Nowhere in the reassuring document does the company promise that it will inform me that a Government Agency has inquired about me.

Finally, an email received Thursday pointed me to an article in PC World revealing that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has asserted that it can search laptops and other electronic devices owned by U.S. citizens returning to the country without the need for reasonable suspicion of a crime or probable cause. (emphasis added, but read that again!) This news article has drawn some comments, among which appear to indicate that people have missed something important:

• The laptop search will become pointless. Anything illegal that can be put on a laptop can also be emailed across the border.
• Do you have any idea how many laws are on the books that aren't enforced simply because they're pointless? What difference does it make whether or not they're allowed to do something if it's a waste of time to actually DO it? Before long they'll realize they don't have the manpower to waste time doing the ineffective. Tell that to those TSA screeners at the airport.
• It is a great tool to aid the officers who are fighting to keep this country safe. You might not like it but there are some bad people out there. From child rapists, molesters, spies and yes terrorists trying to smuggle in all sorts of illegal digital work or images. Men who go on sex tours have come back with child porn on there digital devices. Think of it as a way of keeping the honest man honest when he travels abroad. I am sure you would agree that every effort should be expended to protect our children from these predators?
• Customs officers searching your laptop is no different than Customs officers searching your bags, books, or paper records. So much for that antiquated notion that "The People...shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" unless someone in the executive branch (law enforcement) can demonstrate to someone in the judiciary branch (a judge) a damn good reason for snooping, and what exactly they are hoping to find.

 In short, the readers of PC World seem more concerned about being inconvenienced than about being violated.

Now if you will excuse me, someone is banging heavily on my front door...

The June 2008 issue of America's First Freedom carries an interview of McCain conducted by Chris Cox (Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) and the redoubtable Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice-President of NRA). If you are unfamiliar with this pair, they are the two most highly paid officials of the NRA who are not elected by the membership, and presumably cannot be fired.

I skimmed the article until I found a reference to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more familiarly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Yes, that McCain. Here's their question and the Senator's feckless answer, as published:

Senator, you were the chief sponsor of “campaign finance reform” legislation—legislation that, when passed, included a provision that restricts the NRA’s ability to run broadcast ads lobbying on legislative issues in the 60 days before a federal election. Many gun owners believe that this provision severely restricts their ability to participate in the legislative process, and in fact, many believe it to be unconstitutional. Would you explain your motivation behind campaign finance reform, and why the broadcast restriction was included in the final bill?
 
   I fought for campaign finance reform because I strongly believed that prior to the enactment of this legislation, our system of financing campaigns was seriously broken and in need of repair. I genuinely worried that legislative provisions were being passed or defeated based on the size of “soft money “ contributions made by affected interests. I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of “soft money” that seeped into federal campaigns—not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process. I am fully committed to defending the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. 
 

Interestingly, the cutline under the photo heading this article claims that Cox and LaPierre asked McCain some "direct questions," while the table of contents even says they are "tough questions." Damn shame they did not bother with a follow-up.

Compare this against NRA's strong statements over the last few years:

NRA FAX Alert March 22, 2002

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate joined the House in assaulting free speech when it passed H.R. 2356—the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance "Reform" bill—on a vote of 60-40. Congressional opponents to this attack on the First Amendment have vowed to challenge it in the courts, and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of this bill, has already assembled a team of attorneys, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, to mount a legal challenge. NRA also remains committed to protecting its ability to exercise free speech and ensuring the privacy of its members, and your Association will fight this assault on the First Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary. (emphasis added)

 NRA First to File Constitutional Challenge (Press release Dated March 27, 2002)

JOINT STATEMENT BY WAYNE LAPIERRE , EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and JAMES JAY BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NRA`S INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

(Washington, D.C.) --"Early this morning, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there – we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide.

We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand – not even for a moment.

Sen. Paul Wellstone said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard.

NRA has been mentioned by name – but the authors of this law have delivered a clear and straightforward message not only to NRA but to all American citizens. That message is this: ‘Keep your mouths shut.` ‘Stay out of our political debates.` ‘Be quiet.`

Our response is this: the First Amendment protects us from such directives from the government. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws which deny us the right to speak out on issues, the right of our members to associate together on public policy issues and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. That is what this lawsuit is about.

Through this law Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA.

Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress—why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate – when a non-profit citizens organization such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?

The law imposes severe civil and criminal penalties on citizens who have the audacity to speak out on issues of concern – and we do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Supreme Court can possibly allow such a result."

The above, reprinted in part in "Grassroots Alert" volume 9, number 13, March 29, 2002

...under the headline "NRA Files Suit Against Sham Campaign Finance 'Reform' "

Quiet Time Campaign Muzzle (April 1, 2002)

"John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment." 

Soft Money, Hard Feelings (May 16, 2002)

Links to a George Will column, quoting it thus:

"The document`s title is bland: 'Reply of Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Martin Meehan, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator James Jeffords in support of their motion to intervene as defendants supporting the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.' But the document`s message is fascinating. "File the document under: 'Give them enough rope,' "

Foreign to the First Amendment (July 2, 2002)

Later this year the Supreme Court will be asked to consider the most recent attack on editorial issue advertisements that deal with the conduct of elected officials. The proponents of this new assault are elected officials--namely, Congress. The issue advertising ban in question is contained in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--frequently referred to as McCain-Feingold, for its legislative sponsors in the Senate. Because this newly minted restriction is inconsistent with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and a free press, the court should reject it.

Free Speech in the Twilight Zone ( November 2, 2002)

A few excerpts:

Americans are facing an Orwellian nightmare--a bottomless pit of regulation and rules, all designed to cut off collective free speech....

This is a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and has nothing to do with purely political activity. It has nothing to do with directly exhorting the public to vote for or against a candidate....

there is a major exception to the contributor disclosure, granted under two FEC Advisory Opinions in 1996 that "allowed the Socialist Workers Party to withhold the identities of its contributors and persons to whom it had disbursed funds because of a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of the party`s contributors` names would subject them to threats, harassment or reprisals from either government officials or private parties."

So the NRA-PVF has to cough up the names and addresses of contributors who give it more than $200, while the Socialist Workers Party`s funding sources are sealed.

Additionally, the commission boldly took powers never even intended by Congress--powers to regulate what state and local candidates are permitted to say in their paid political advertising....

In his "declaration" filed with the court, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made the case succinctly.

"The Second Amendment and the NRA are at the center of a culture war LaPierre said. "The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act effectively cedes the entire battlefield in this cultural war to the broadcast media corporations and politicians. It allows federal candidates and the big media conglomerates to say whatever they want about the NRA in the months before an election and shields them from any effective response by prohibiting the NRA from tittering the name of its attackers . . ."

The First Amendment on Trial (December 2, 2002)

...At issue is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, alias McCain-Feingold), by which the just-adjourned 107th Congress followed in the footsteps of the 5th Congress, which enacted the Sedition Act of 1798.

An Appearance of Corruption (5/23/2003)

The Weekly Standard`s David Tell closely examines "the bogus research" undergirding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Sad Day for the Constitution (December 12, 2003)

...So noted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre when, on December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act...

Wayne LaPierre said, "You`re going to have to put an asterisk by the First Amendment, and a footnote, because for many months of the year it`s no longer in effect."  Wayne went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that NRA still has many ways to make its position known in federal elections.  "They didn`t say we couldn`t mention the U.S. Congress, or the Senate. And we will run advertising directing the American public to information sources as to where they can find the truth, and the facts, and who`s for them and who`s against them.  This is a sad day for the Constitution, but the 4 million members of the NRA will continue to be heard.  That I can promise."

In addition to expanding NRA-PVF`s fundraising activities, this, no doubt, will also mean an even greater reliance on the grassroots efforts of our nation`s 65 million gun owners who have answered the call time and again.  One clear advantage NRA has over virtually every other group in America is a large, passionate, and active base of grassroots support that is willing to not only vote on Election Day, but actively work on the campaigns of pro-freedom candidates.  The engine that drives the NRA machine is our grassroots, and you can rest assured in the months ahead, we will refine, improve, and expand our grassroots operations to meet the challenges that now lay before us.  Please keep an eye out on future Grassroots Alerts to find out how you can take on an even more active role in our grassroots activities in this new day and age of campaign restrictions.

Summed up in five words: "Wayne says, 'send more money.' "

Amending an Amendment (Dec. 22, 2003)

Introducing a Rich Tucker commentary at TownHall.com:

...political parties hardly matter anymore, because of another provision of McCain-Feingold. The law also bars them, and unions, interest groups and corporations from running TV ads that mention a specific candidate in the 60 days before a federal election. But if they’re not allowed to engage in politics during the two months before election day (when people might actually be paying attention), why should any of these groups bother engaging in politics at all? Or, maybe, that’s what the incumbent politicians want.

Democrats' Magic Number: 527 (March 10, 2004)

Introducing a MSNBC story:

With the unlimited “soft money” contributions to national political parties ostensibly banned by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), Democrats are counting on their 527 groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and bankrolled by billionaire currency speculator George Soros, Real Networks CEO Robert Glaser, labor unions, and others.

Standing Guard: A Win for free speech (September 7, 2007)

When Congress enacted this oppressive law, the National Rifle Association, as a grassroots corporation, was singled out for censorship. Our highly acclaimed infomercials were labeled "sham ads" and were targeted for broadcast speech bans.

Without this new ruling, NRA's running an educational broadcast alluding to any candidate for federal office anywhere in the nation during the pre-election blackouts could amount to a federal crime. A broadcast expressing NRA's staunch opposition to a gun ban could be seen by FEC enforcers as indirectly urging Americans to vote against a candidate favoring a firearm ban--say, Hillary Clinton.

So, Wayne & Chris, if I might be so familiar--and as a Life Member of NRA I think it's my right--what's the source of this sudden failure of courage on your part?  If I recall correctly, right after the BCRA was signed into law--and before NRANews.com was created, in the hope it would be considered a legitimate media outlet and therefore unaffected by BCRA--Wayne LaPierre wrote an impassioned letter published in all the NRA monthlies, saying that by God, he'd anchor a ship with a TV transmitter in international waters and broadcast the Truth, if that's what it took.

So why all the kowtowing to McCain in this interview? Unless there is some secret deal being cut, McCain has more to lose by being criticized by NRA than NRA has to lose by not endorsing McCain, or any Presidential candidate in November.

I have been saying for the last month or two, the "Stimulus Check"  would have been spent on more ammo. If asked by media or in a survey, that would be my answer.

Think of "Buy Back" in reverse. Think of the positive press it could make. Think of how folks can pull together on this one.

1) Publicize the "Stimulus for Freedom" with an Anti-Buyback.

2) Encourage Ammo and Firearm dealers to offer their own additional "Stimulus", such as a discount for anyone presenting the check in payment (or if by e-mail credit card order if invoking "Stimulus Day" event).

How might you use your returned hard-earned cash?

• Sign up for a shooting instruction course.
• Sign up for Women On Target or Refuse to Be A Victim
• Join the local gun club and get a membership for a friend.
• Join or contribut to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, VCDL, MSI, or Second Amendment Sisters.
• Sign up for a firearms instructor or range safety officer course.
• Buy AMMO and then take friends shooting, especially if you can invite an an anti-gun friend for a positive first-experience on a firing range.
• Volunteer at the Camp Perry matches, and use the money to pay your transportation.
• Contribute to the election or re-election campaign of a gun-friendly legislator
  

Do you have additional ideas along these lines? Please comment.

Dear Ms. Dorsey:

I am in receipt of your postcard that says there are some communications from Johns Hopkins that I am not receiving.

I have had several discussions with representatives of the Office of Annual Giving, which heretofore have been of the most amiable nature. Please consider this my final, and non-negotiable answer to that postcard. There are but two chances of my giving money to JHU: (1.) Slim  (2.) None The institution collects upwards of 3/4 billion per year in Federal tax money.  I consider my involuntary contribution, as gobbled into the gaping maw of the IRS and excreted through the cloaca of Congress to be more than sufficient. Moreover, JHU openly and willingly accepts hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from the Soros clan, and Michael Bloomberg, among the wealthiest of the USA's ultra-wealthy parlor socialists, and enemies of Consitutional freedom.  I will not voluntarily have my hard-earned dollars commingled with those of such execrable people. Out of concern for your student volunteers, I suggest that you be certain any and all of them refrain from telephoning me, now or in the foreseeable future. I assure you that any such telephone calls will be met with the most vile insults I am capable of dredging up, and we wouldn't want to hurt the little darlings'  feelings, now would we? Wishing you absolutely everything you deserve, I remain,  

 

Stan M------- 

In 2002, near the end of his five years as president of the NRA, Heston disclosed he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease.

The disclosure was soon followed by an unflattering appearance in Moore's 2003 best documentary winner "Bowling for Columbine," which took America to task for its gun laws.

Moore used a clip of Heston holding aloft a rifle at an NRA rally and proclaiming "from my cold, dead hands." The director flustered the actor in an interview later in the film by pressing him on his gun-control stance. Heston eventually walked out on Moore.

Moore's Web site, http://www.michaelmoore.com, on Sunday featured a photo of Heston, the date of his birth and death and a note from the actor's family requesting that donations be made to the Motion Picture and Television Fund in lieu of flowers.

There was no other reaction on the site from Moore about Heston's death.

Saturday's news of Heston's death was accompanied by some footage of an interview he gave--I forget to whom--in which he was asked whether he had any fear over the Alzheimer's diagnosis. The gist of his reaction was no, it's just another part of this big adventure called life.

It struck me as I watched that bit of footage, with the actor in his late seventies, that if ever there were an actor suited to portray Ronald Reagan during his Presidential years, it would have been Chuck Heston.

Among this morning's email was a transcript of a speech that Heston gave at Harvard Law School a few years ago, before his illness. The speech contained a few bon mots that bear repeating here:

I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. ...

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue.

No, it's much, much bigger than that.

I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.

But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that? You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the country, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it." ...

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist.

If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.

If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.

If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along.

I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey.

Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. ...

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.

You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.

You must be willing to experience discomfort. ...

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

Powerful words. Words that I suspect will be omitted from the eulogizing that all the neocons will indulge themselves in, thinking they know something of this man.

As reported in the Washington Post, [comments added]

...the Safe Homes Initiative, [is] aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence* and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

*i.e., low-income black and Latino neighborhoods --ed.

Of course, the police chief says it will be a no-fault/no-foul operation, aimed at "getting guns and drugs off the streets."

 "If we come across illegal contraband*, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

*Anyone with the slightest clue what might constitute legal contraband is urged to send me the details, a.s.a.p.

Fenty (D) and Lanier announced the plan as part of a new strategy to deal with the prevalence of firearms in a city that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation*. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

*Eureka! Might this be a clue that those strict gun control laws are not enforceable and do not work?

Counting on the reader's being so brain-dead as to have forgotten what was written a mere two paragraphs earlier, Post reporter Allison Klein adds,

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

So, according to Lanier, "amnesty means amnesty," except when it doesn't. Apparently the Post has conditioned its reporters not to ask embarrassing follow-up questions.

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Times (you know: that mouthpiece of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy) reporter David Lipscomb attended the same press conference, and came away with a slightly different version of the story. As Lipscomb reports it, the police department spokesperson appears not to have been Chief Lanier, but "police spokeswoman Traci Hughes."  Hughes, not Lanier, is quoted directly in the Times piece. You don't suppose the police department held two parallel press conferences, or sent out two different sets of press releases, do you? Me either.

Lipscomb adds a fact omitted in the Post story, which is that the program will begin March 24 to coincide with D.C. Public Schools' spring break and will run indefinitely...

If Lanier really meant "amnesty means amnesty," why wait until children--who are apparently the prime targets here--are home from school, especially if the program is meant to help parents/guardians who are actually afraid of the children in their homes (as the police spokesperson has asserted)?

I have not found any hard data, but a quick check on the web suggests that NATIONALLY around 14 percent of the children between the ages of 5 and 12 are so-called "latchkey kids,"  home alone after school. Nothing I could easily find estimates the percentage of children under 18 who are at home alone after school, and presumbly will also be home alone during spring break.

Presumably, a person under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent to a search, and the potential pandemonium caused by police officers stomping into houses where no adults are home should not be underestimated.

Under the best of circumstances--that the door is answered by a person over the age of majority--what's likely to be the police response if the request to search the place is denied, especially if the refusal is delivered with hostility and profanity? Can we expect that the police will simply apologize for the intrusion and go on to the next house? Or will this be considered a motivation to seek a formal (i.e., legal) search warrant? Or, will the cop on the doorstep simply take two steps back and unholster his Taser, figuring that a convienient cover-your-ass lie can be dreamed up later?

Apparently the only person not 100 per cent on board with this program is the head of the police union, as Lipscomb reports:

Officer Kristopher Baumann, head of the union that represents the city's police, said the group "supports any well thought out plan to reduce violence*."

However, he hopes the department has considered potential problems with advertising amnesty while checking for guns connection to crimes.

*But evidently with no regard to whether or not such a plan is Constitutional. Just as a little refresher, that dusty, outmoded old document (or "living" document, depending which flavor of liberalism you espouse) says the following:

ARTICLE IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmations, and particularly describing the place to be searched, andd the persons or things to be seized.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation quickly responded to Fenty's announcement thus:

Calling this project the ‘Safe Homes Initiative’ is an insult to our intelligence... If District residents allow this to happen, no home will be safe from warrantless fishing expeditions by police, because that’s exactly what this thinly-disguised program is really all about. We think Congress should step in immediately and stop this from happening.

The entire Gottlieb commentary comprises only a few paragraphs, and is well worth reading. Find it here.

(03-07) 04:00 PST LOS ANGELES --

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.

The homeschooling movement never saw the case coming.

"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."

The ruling arose from a child welfare dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and Philip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have been homeschooling their eight children. Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credential.

The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.

Some homeschoolers are affiliated with private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under the radar completely. Many homeschooling families avoid truancy laws by registering with the state as a private school and then enroll only their own children.

Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California's compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child's grade level.

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Union pleased with ruling

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

A spokesman for the state Department of Education said the agency is reviewing the decision to determine its impact on current policies and procedures. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell issued a statement saying he supports "parental choice when it comes to homeschooling."

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which agreed earlier this week to represent Sunland Christian School and legally advise the Long family on a likely appeal to the state Supreme Court, said the appellate court ruling has set a precedent that can now be used to go after homeschoolers. "With this case law, anyone in California who is homeschooling without a teaching credential is subject to prosecution for truancy violation, which could require community service, heavy fines and possibly removal of their children under allegations of educational neglect," Dacus said.

Parents say they choose homeschooling for a variety of reasons, from religious beliefs to disillusionment with the local public schools.

Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she's ready for a fight.

Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree.

"I'm kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep," she said. "I'm ready. I have damn good arguments."

She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs.

The ruling, Schwarzer said, "stinks."

Began as child welfare case

The Long family legal battle didn't start out as a test case on the validity of homeschooling. It was a child welfare case.

A juvenile court judge looking into one child's complaint of mistreatment by Philip Long found that the children were being poorly educated but refused to order two of the children, ages 7 and 9, to be enrolled in a full-time school. He said parents in California have a right to educate their children at home. [Yet no one is held personally accountable when a child is "being poorly educated" in a public school. Examples abound.]

The appeals court told the juvenile court judge to require the parents to comply with the law by enrolling their children in a school, but excluded the Sunland Christian School from enrolling the children because that institution "was willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

The decision could also affect other kinds of homeschooled children, including those enrolled in independent study or distance learning through public charter schools - a setup similar to the one the Longs have, Dacus said.

Charter school advocates disagreed, saying Thursday that charter schools are public and are required to employ only credentialed teachers to supervise students - whether in class or through independent study.

Ruling will apply statewide

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the ruling would effectively ban homeschooling in the state.

"California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home," he said in a statement.

But Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, which represented the Longs' two children in the case, said the ruling did not change the law.

"They just affirmed that the current California law, which has been unchanged since the last time it was ruled on in the 1950s, is that children have to be educated in a public school, an accredited private school, or with an accredited tutor," she said. "If they want to send them to a private Christian school, they can, but they have to actually go to the school and be taught by teachers."

Heimov said her organization's chief concern was not the quality of the children's education, but their "being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety." [In short, the we are expected to believe that duty of the government of California towards children trumps that of their biological parents and/or legal guardians.]

 

Thus, it is hardly surprising to learn, from WTVQ, Lexington, KY that a state legislator wants to make anonymous posting online illegal (in the words of reporter Kellie Wilson). Wilson continues,

"The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

"Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

"If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that."

The first problem with this proposal is its naïve oversimplification. "The Worldwide Web" (remember, that's what those letters "WWW" mean?) is not the entire Internet. E-mail is an almost entirely separate operation, and there remain other, less well-known portions of the 'net such as Usenet, Telnet, and all manner of private servers. So this bill, if indeed reporter Wilson has recounted it accurately, would be the equivalent of making it illegal to swear while you are in a Starbucks shop, but leaving matters entirely unregulated in all other coffee shops and convenience stores.

"Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

"Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

"Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

"[And even the lawmaker who introduced it] says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge."

Then, of course, there are the tiny matters of jurisdiction, legal conflict, and unintended consequences.

My wife operates her computer in a basement office, two floors downstairs from where I sit as I write this. But if I send her an email--even though we share an account with the same ISP--it's not the same as shouting down the stairwell to her. Emails sent between us are routed through a server in Columbia, MD, more than 20 miles away. If I get a message from my next-door neighbor Robbie, who could shout fifty feet across the side yard, her message arrives here via Sunnyvale, California! This is generally true of all "internet" communications, as well as most telephone communication. If Robbie phones me via landline, it's possible--although not a dead certainty--that the message traveled from her house, a half-mile down the road to the nearest AT&T switch and directly back. But if one or the other of us uses a cell phone, the call could end up bounced off several orbiting satellites before arriving here. Of course, none of the Deep Thinkers at the TV station thought to ask Couch how he would deal with this perennial problem with online communication--if a legal offense takes place, WHERE has it happened?

Then too, the content of the message might matter. Let's say I am looking at a web site that's a support group for some medical condition. For the sake of argument, let's not think sexually-transmitted diseases; assume I am seeking information about emphysema, or sleep apnea. Nowadays we occupy a world in which a federal law called HIPAA dictates who knows what about someone's medical condition. For example, we've had to sign waivers with our family physician, expressly permitting his receptionist to leave a message on our answering machine to verify an appointment. When the nurse takes your vital signs, she no longer does it in her anteroom, but has to do it in the privacy of an exam room, behind a closed door, lest some snoop learn that my blood pressure was 115/70 on that particular occasion. If HIPAA is to be taken that seriously, anyone who had to disclose his identity to ask a medical question, or participate in an online support group, might be violating the federal law.

Last but not least, there is the potential for squelching discussions--perhaps nothing more sinister than inquiring about a want-ad--due to the necessity of immediately identifying oneself.

Regarding "online harrassment," I gather that this is a problem existing mainly with children below the age of 18. The resolution would seem simple enough. If my child were being harrassed via web sites, text messages, emails, the technological appliance enabling the harrassment would simply go into the nearest dumpster. In any event, people would do well to teach their children to be a bit less emotionally fragile. Life only gets more angry and difficult with adulthood.

Arguably the Super Bowl story might be the most popular piece in the latest edition, but the most interesting one is Alan's observation that the mainstream media failed entirely to cover the annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade) show in Las Vegas. Apparently the rationale is that to say anything about the show would reveal the paucity of all their stereotypes about the firearms industry, gun dealers and gun owners. Alan writes thus (emphasis added):

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Seven hundred thousand square feet of space, tens of thousands of attendees from all over the world, nearly two thousand exhibitors in five halls so big you can't see one end from the other, indoor exhibits built two stories high, mountains of weapons and arsenals of every description -- high powered, rapid fire, extended capacity -- assembled once again at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, and no controversy of any kind was evident.

No lamestream media was evident either, though trade press was abundant. Lamestream media could not cover the event, because it would show the shooting, hunting and outdoor trade (SHOT) industry as a regular business just like any other, which would violate news-media policy.

It's a little smaller than the Consumer Electronics Show, and few items are as big ticket as the Barrett Jackson car auction, but it's a multibillion dollar business with multimillion dollar deals on the floor, and no news coverage, unlike other big-time annual shows.

The most expensive item seen, aside from armored vehicles, helicopters, 18-wheeler self-contained ranges and stores, military miniguns and some of the women, were a set of four matched Perrazi shotguns for $440,000. The Uninvited Ombudsman actually held one in his hands. Carefully. Very carefully. Hey, it's just a shotgun, I'd rather buy a house with that kind of money.

The most unusual exhibit was samples from a find in a Nepal arsenal, remnants of the British East India Trading Company, with 55,000 firearms. They're now all in the U.S. after several years of effort, including piles of original U.S. colonial-era Brown Bess muskets, all available for sale.
http://www.ima-usa.com

Among the most clever new products was Shock Knife, a combat-training tool shaped like a knife with a zapper for an edge. Blackwater Int'l., reviled in the "news" media but saving lives in Iraq and around the world, had a huge booth and recruitment videos on big screens, which switched over to the big game just in time when the beer kegs arrived. Artist Wayne McLoughlin offered to paint your name onto a poster for "America's Cheapest Ammunition -- It Usually Works." In the background, a bear is chewing on the remnants of a hunter's clothes.

Here was American enterprise at its finest, new products of incredibly clever design and advancement, entrepreneurship in unbridled fine array, the buzz and hustle of free markets unlike anywhere else on Earth, and no news media.

All these guns and there's no crime, no death, no controversy. It's just good healthy business, and after incessant media pounding, that was just plain weird.

The picture painted by the media is so perverse, so negative, so deadly and crime ridden, that to see this show with so many fine upstanding people, from business suits to gilley suits, casual dress to corporate uniforms, babes bursting from show costumes to your basic bubbas shopping for their businesses, the disjoint between the publicly promoted image of guns and the reality was hard to reconcile. The bias and distortion of the media shined from a brightly lit pedestal.

The show themes are familiar and pervasive -- law enforcement, personal safety, hunting for food, military protection, convenience in the outdoors, high performance for competitors, gear for everyone, every manufacturer's entire handgun and long gun line out in the open for touchy feely examination, and no media.

That's probably a good thing. Because knowing their sorry ways, they would use this show as a way to make everything look bad. Despite the obvious reality to the contrary, they would immorally make us seem evil instead of righteous, ignoring the fact that guns are why America is still free.
http://www.shotshow.com

Korwin's dispatch neglected to mention that 58,769 people attended this year's show, which is open to the trade (manufacturers, wholesalers, firearms dealers, journalists) only. 

I highly recommend Alan's blog, which is available as a RSS feed: http://www.pagenine.org

You will find several interesting articles about the Super Bowl, if that's what floats your boat, and a recent piece in which Korwin coins the word "muzzling" to describe the nasty retaliations against some of us who refuse to limit ourselves to the politically-correct lexicon.

-30-