Monday, August 19, 2024
DNC Night One
Jesse Wendel 8:18 PM |
Labels: 2024 Election, America, AOC, DNC Chicago, Future, Hope, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris
Monday, April 15, 2024
My Apologies
[edited to replace second with minute because I'm a moron]
GNB has been slow to load for years.
Literally.
At some point in the past someone told me "it's because we're not active so it's on a slow server" and I believed them.
This morning I got an email from Jesse Wendel (aka, the boss) asking if there was anything I could do about how slowly the We Fight On image loads.
I'm not really a web guy, but I did a quick search on how to time a website and it turns out the Safari Develop tab Web Inspector will tell you how long each thing on the page you're viewing took to load.
All I had to do was load the page (endure the 1+ minute load time) and open the inspector.
And it wasn't the We Fight On image and it wasn't the server.
It was a css file called 'ft.css' which was trying to be loaded from a specific IP address -- at which it was not, apparently. It caused an average delay in load of just over a minute (which doesn't sound like a long time, but it really is).
I found out how to see the source of the page in Blogger (it's in the themes section) and did a quick search for 'ft.css', commented out the line that was loading it, did the same for 'counter.js' for good measure (it wasn't nearly as long a delay but it wasn't loading, so why try?).
And the page is fast.
I'm sorry I didn't dig into this years ago and save anybody looking at the page a lot of time.
There's more...Evan Robinson 2:21 PM |
Labels: bugs, css, hosting, load speed, missing files
Saturday, April 13, 2024
Countdown to Trump Criminal Trial #1
Monday, April 15, 2024, in New York City, former President Donald Trump goes on trial.
The Hush Money Documents Fraud in order to interfere with the 2016 Election Interference case.
Or as the media would like to put it, the Porn Star & the President.
Mr. Trump is charged with FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of New York State Penal Law §175.10, for a total of thirty-four (34) Class E felony charges.
The indictment includes a Statement of Facts, the People’s story of Mr. Trump’s alleged crimes.
This is the first of at least four criminal trials of the former president. Combined these four cases currently include eighty-six (86) felony indictments.
And people are flipping out. Little bit.
As the trial begins, the first ever criminal trial of a former President of the United States, here is what I think is important to remember…
This is how it is supposed to work.
Forget all the media covering every breath, breathlessly.
The media want one thing: to freak you out. Why? Scared people tune in, and the media needs to keep you captivated. That is how they earn their living.
And also, forget all the politically biased people ranting either:
a) it is all a fraud and unjust and wrong, or
b) it should have happened years ago, but it doesn’t even matter because he’ll get away with, as he always does.
All these opinions are just more horseshit.
Focus instead on this, if you would…
This is how it is supposed to work.
The law, especially criminal law, is not a reality show. Many reality series not withstanding.
The law has rules. It has protections and safeguards. It has ethical constraints which are enforced. It has history, cases, libraries filled with books, and legal librarians. The law has procedures.
None of it happens to the relentless urgency or pace of modern media. The law takes the time that it takes. And it works the way that it does. Regardless of what others think.
Criminal law, criminal courts, and criminal trials, are all very much a thing unto themselves.
And again, this is how it is supposed to work.
Maybe the best basketball movie ever is “Hoosiers.”
Hoosiers is a tale of small town high school kids from a never even heard of it before rural town called Hickory, and their basketball coach whom the townspeople didn’t want, whom eventually (spoiler) go to the championship. The movie is damn near perfect.
When these rural kids from Hickory first walk into the arena where they will play the biggest game of their lives, with state and national press, and tens of thousands of screaming fans, they’re taken aback. Most of them have never been in an arena like this in their lives.
So Coach lets them have a moment. And then, this happens:
Coach Dale has a measuring tape.
Dale: “Buddy, hold this under the backboard. What is it?”
Buddy: “15 feet.”
Dale: “15 feet.”
(He walks under the rim)
Dale: “Strap, put Ollie on your shoulders. Measure this from the rim. Buddy? How far?”
Buddy: “Ten feet.”
Dale: “Ten feet. I think you’ll find it’s the exact same measurements as our gym back in Hickory. Let’s get dressed for practice.”
Here’s my point. Forget all the drama.
What is about to happen in a Manhattan courtroom starting Monday, April 15, 2024 — a criminal trial — is also happening in over a thousand criminal courtrooms across the United States that very same day.
Yes. We’ve never had a former President criminal indicted or tried before. That is an actual first. “thank u, next.”
A criminal trial in a city, state, or federal court, is the definition of routine.
There are tens of thousands of judges in our many towns, cities, counties, indigenous nations, fifty states, the District of Columbia, and our multiple territories, as well as the military courts, and the federal circuits.
Criminal trials have gone on in roughly the same way for the last 248 years since our nation was declared. Some changes here and there. Manhattan courts are different than New Orleans, which are different than Santa Fe. But not by much.
Criminal trials are a deeply practiced, well understood phenomenon. We’ve been doing them a long time. We know how to do them. We do them well. Are we perfect? No.
Especially in criminal cases, rich people, white people, straight men, and police, all typically get breaks everyone else does not. Like the American Dream, we can always get better, and over time we usually, eventually do.
But the waiting for this trial is done. This trial begins Monday, April 15. Period.
No matter your media or social media feeds, there is nothing here worth freaking out.
Trials have robust protections for everyone, from the accused, to the lawyers on both sides, to the judge and courtroom staff. Plus they have security. Oh my do they have security.
Like how awesome we are at delivery pizza — totally routine and deeply practiced — America knows how to put people on trial for their alleged crimes. We do it a lot.
At the end of a trial, there are three possible outcomes for each criminal charge: Guilty. Not guilty. Or unable to reach a verdict, what is called a ‘hung jury.’
A more senior court can interrupt a trial, however that is exceedingly rare.
The United States Supreme Court is not going to stop this trial. The New York State appellate courts are not going to stop this trial.
This trial is happening, and when it is done there will be verdicts, one for each of the 34 felony charges.
If (or as seems more likely, when) Mr. Trump is convicted, after time for probation reports and other absolutely normal and routine procedures, he will be sentenced. He could be fined. He could be sent to prison. Or both.
If Mr. Trump is convicted, after being sentenced, he will appeal. This too is normal. It does not mean he is getting away with anything.
This is how law works.
So…
On Monday, try to ignore the media clickbait — it is designed to scare or anger you.
Live your life. What happens will happen.
And if it all gets to you anyway, well then, just remember one thing…
This is how it is supposed to work.
Jesse Wendel 10:21 PM |
Labels: 2016 election, Crime, Election Interference, Karma, rule of law, trial, Trump
Saturday, March 2, 2024
Rule of Law vs. Anyone (including Trump)
1) Trump’s company was convicted in 2022 on 17 criminal charges including tax fraud. Their CFO also plead guilty to multiple felony counts, and spent time in prison.
2) A 2023 jury in New York City found that Trump defamed and sexually abused E Jean Carol. In two trials for damages, he was ordered to pay a total of $88.3 million dollars. He is currently appealing, although a bond has not yet been posted on $83.3 million dollars from the second trial.
3) A 2024 New York State Court found Trump liable for financial fraud. He was ordered to pay over $464 million dollars including pre & post judgement interest. He is currently appealing, although a bond has not yet been posted.
4) A consolidated case including multiple U.S. Congressman, and two U.S. Capitol police officers, suing for damages over the January 6th attempt to violently overthrow the 2020 presidential election. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals held Trump was not immune as he was acting in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate, not in his official capacity as president.
1) January 6th (Washington DC) on 4 felony counts for efforts, conspiracy, and obstruction in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election and stay in office after having lost. The case was scheduled for trial, but is currently resolving an immunity dispute.
In a dispute over immunity, both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals ruled that former presidents are liable for criminal acts committed while president, that to allow otherwise would put presidents beyond the law which is against the very nature of the United States and the Constitution. The immunity dispute is currently scheduled for argument April 22, 2024 in the Supreme Court.
2) National Security and Classified Documents (Florida) on 40 felony counts for intentionally keeping and concealing classified documents, including war plans, and nuclear weapons documents, and for obstructing justice. The case is currently in pre-trial motions.
3) RICO conspiracy case (Georgia) on 13 felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction, for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The case is currently in pre-trial motions.
4) Hush money & records fraud (New York City) on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to hide hush money paid to a porn star, all done in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election in New York and the nation. The case is scheduled for trial, March 25, 2024.
Jesse Wendel 12:36 PM |
Labels: Crime, Criminal Investigations, Election law, Former President, Mob, rule of law, Trump
Saturday, October 21, 2023
Taylor Swift: The ERAS TOUR Concert Film Review
“I dreamt of you all summer long." —"betty,” folklore
"And all at once, you are the one I have been waiting for." —"King of My Heart," Reputation
"NICE!" —"Bejeweled," Midnights
"Are you ready for it?" —"...Ready For It?," Reputation
Opening Weekend brought in almost $100 million in U.S. sales, the second best October opening for a film ever.
THE BEST CONCERT FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. PERIOD.
Unconditionally recommended, even if you're not a Taylor Swift fan.
In every century there is a concert they talk about decades later. For the 20th century, it was Woodstock. For the 21st century, it will be the Eras Tour.
The concert film puts you in the middle of a 72,000 person sold-out crowd, often just feet away from Taylor, her dancers, and her backing vocalists and band.
From the opening shots of the deliriously screaming crowd in LA’s SoFi stadium, to the gorgeous power strutting of Taylor and her backing dancers during “…Ready for It?,” through the final love fest of “Karma” at the concert’s end, this is Taylor Swift at her best ever. A show that blows out of the water every live concert I have ever seen.
While no doubt the film will come to streaming, catch it on the Big Screen the final three Thursday-Sundays, as it was made to be seen: all-encompassing audio that shakes the room yet is crystal clear, other people totally "wonderstruck" (some perhaps dancing off to the side in the aisles,) and a visual image so big it feels like you're up on stage with Taylor.
Not to be missed. Concert of the Century.
#TSErasTour
There's more...Jesse Wendel 1:21 PM |
Labels: Concerts, Eras Tour, Film, Taylor Swift, TSErasTour
Saturday, April 22, 2023
Stand Your Ground Laws
Cross posted from my personal blog: Mischievous Ramblings II
I am not a lawyer. I have attended many classes and read many sources on self-defense law with respect to both firearms and martial arts. This is a distillation of my acquired information and should not be considered legal advice but a basis for discussion. I welcome learning that I am incorrect in my understanding.
This article from The Hill summarizes many issues I have with the general coverage of “Stand Your Ground” laws, especially with the inaccurate terminology “Shoot First”.
That said, every SYG law is different and some are undoubtedly more poorly written than others. And there are unquestionably racist, homophobic, and misogynistic biases in the US justice systems, state and federal.
The essential feature of an SYG law is this:
1) in a public place that you are
2) legally allowed to be,
3) if you are innocent,
4) when presented with a threat of lethal force,
5) you have no duty to retreat before
6) using lethal force in defense of self or others.
People and coverage tend to gloss over everything except 6). The initial 5 elements are critical, as is an understanding of basic self-defense law. SYG laws do not modify the general rules of using force in defense of self or others, they modify _one specific aspect_, which is removing the "duty to retreat".
Point by point:
1) SYG does not generally apply if you are in your own home or domicile. This can include and RV, motel room, rented housing or owned housing depending upon local law and interpretation. The applicable concept in this case is “castle doctrine”, which is the common law idea that “a man’s home is his castle” and thus there is no duty to retreat.
Yes, it’s sexist, as for much of American history it was literally a "man’s" home.
But that means that SYG laws are about public spaces, not homes. Generally speaking, there is already no "duty to retreat" from your own home.
2) You can’t break into a generally public space and claim SYG as a defense. This is kind of part of 3) but it would also presumably apply to someone in violation of a curfew or illegal assembly order. You must be legally in the space you are in.
3) If someone is in the process of committing a crime, SYG does not apply to them. This means that, for example, a felon illegally in possession of a firearm has no SYG rights.
4) Self-defense law in the US (varies by state) does not generally allow the use of lethal force in defense of self or others unless/until lethal force has been threatened or deployed against you. This is called “proportionality of response”. A gun or knife or bludgeon is lethal force. In many places, legally, a toy gun or replica gun, certainly an unloaded gun, counts. A fake knife might well count. A large strong individual with only fists confronting a small weak or physically disabled individual might constitute lethal force under the doctrine of "disparity of force". A single individual threatening individual violence might not be lethal force but a group might be. This is all subsumed under the general idea of a “reasonable person” — if a "reasonable person" thinks they (or others) are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury, they are entitled to utilize lethal force in defense of self or others.
Most places explicitly disallow use of lethal force in defense of property. There is overlap here with castle doctrine when we are talking about home defense, but in most places you cannot shoot someone who is walking out of your house with a TV or expensive jewelry. Or stealing your car.
5) is the crux of SYG. Many interpret common law as presenting a “duty to retreat” before using force in defense of self or others. "Castle doctrine" is explicitly the idea that one has no duty to retreat out of one’s home (domicile) before using such force.
SYG explicitly removes this duty to retreat from public areas. As a concept (implementations may vary), this is _ALL_ SYG does.
Note that “duty to retreat” presumes a safe mechanism for retreat. If your only escape from someone threatening to bludgeon you to death with a baseball bat is to run across 12 lanes of freeway speed traffic at rush hour, you have no safe avenue of retreat and claiming SYG as a defense is unnecessary. Again, this predicated on what a "reasonable person" would believe in your circumstances.
Now I happen to think that avoiding a lethal force encounter by retreating is the best option both legally and morally.
6) Generally speaking, one is entitled to use "proportional" force in defense of self or others against unlawful imminent threat of or actual use of force. In the absence of SYG, a "duty to retreat" if possible safely can generally be assumed, but if safe retreat is not possible (for self or others) or under SYG, one cannot be required to retreat before using "proportional" force in defense of self or others.
Long, I know. But a careful examination of points 1-5 makes it clear that many if not most cases with SYG invoked in popular media and mythology are nothing of the kind.
* Asshole who shot the kid through his front door? Not SYG. Castle doctrine might be relevant but to me the ultimate question is: how is someone standing outside your door (or even opening your storm door to knock on your actual door, if that happened) a threat of force? Because it’s not.
* Shithead who fired on people who accidentally drove up his driveway and we’re leaving when he shot? Not SYG. No threat of force.
* Even Trayvon Martin's case didn't involve SYG. SYG was never invoked as a defense and evidence was presented at trial (the range and angle at which Martin was shot) which would have make SYG irrelevant. Much more relevant to the Martin case would have been questions of innocence and initiation of a force encounter (who threatened whom?).
And so on.
It's moving into a different post at this point, but I want to add some stuff:
If SYG laws aren't "Shoot First" laws, what, if any, is their negative effect upon homicides in the US?
First, I think there's good statistical evidence that SYG laws increase homicides.
Second, I think that SYG laws encourage stupid people to use force inappropriately and illegally. The percentage of gun owners who get formal training is small. As a dilettante who enjoys shooting pistols, there have been years in the last decade when I got more training on my own annually than many cops get -- including not just shooting training, but training in the legal use of force in self defense.
There is all kinds of misinformation in the online (and RL) gun culture about this, from the old “if you shoot someone who’s burglarizing your house and they fall down outside, drag them back inside” to “as long as you say you were in fear for your life it’s ok to shoot” and a million others.
Third, I think the twin cultures of fear and militarism/machismo in the gun community contribute largely. Fear and the idea that retreating makes a coward drive the adoption of SYG laws, as they are generally unnecessary in the greater scheme of self-defense law.
People like the shithead the asshole governor of TX wants to pardon for murdering a protester (who was _legally_ open carrying a gun -- itself a symptom of excess machismo in the gun culture) build up online personae based upon their willingness (and eagerness) to use lethal force against people they fear and hate.
I believe the term "assault rifle" inaccurately used in marketing to describe semi-automatic rifles was first used in an ad talking about "Your Man Card", as though owning one made you more masculine, more virile, and less resistible to attractive women (not unlike beer ads, actually).
I had an instructor tell me about his security: a four layer multiply backed up system of cameras, sensors, lights, and alarms, with loaded guns stashed (safely to prevent children's access, as he's a grandfather) in every room in the house. When I asked him what he was afraid of, he replied "I'm not afraid of anything".
Right.
Evan Robinson 1:18 PM |
Labels: Homicides, Media Coverage, Self-Defense Law, Stand Your Ground, Stand Your Ground Laws, SYG
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Can speech justify violence?
One often hears some variant of the phrase "speech never justifies violence".
Is that true?
Morally, for some people, perhaps. Legally, not at all.
Imagine the following circumstance:
A man carrying a baseball bat approaches you. When he is within a few feet of you, you draw a concealed firearm and shoot him dead.
Was your action legally justified? Unless the man exhibited behavior that demonstrated an imminent threat to use the bat against you, absolutely not.
Now this:
A man carrying a baseball bat approaches you. When he is twenty feet away, he says "I'm going to bash your brains out." When he is within a few feet of you, you draw a concealed firearm and shoot him dead.
Was your action legally justified? Damn right.
What's the difference? His speech.
The essential requirements to justify the use of force in defense of self or others are generally considered three:
- Ability: the physical ability to cause great bodily harm, permanent injury, or death. A gun, knife, or club certainly qualifies, as would significant disparity of force (the potential attacker being larger, younger, fitter, or a group of people).
- Opportunity: the opportunity to apply that ability. A person with a club or knife who is 100 yards away has ability, but not opportunity. Likewise if there were a 20' fence between the attacker and potential victim.
- Jeopardy: behavior which a reasonable person would find imminently threatening. Brandishing a bat (when not playing a game in which the bat is used) might qualify depending upon circumstances. Repeated stabbing motions with a knife upon approach might qualify. A verbal threat to use force against you definitely qualifies.
Evan Robinson 3:21 PM |
Labels: ability, Jeopardy, legal justification, opportunity, self-defense, use of force
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Documenting the Confederacy, Part 4: Documenting Secession: Florida
We, the people of the State of Florida in Convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish and declare: That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the Confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America, and from the existing Government of said States: and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be and the same is hereby totally annulled, and said union of States dissolved: and the State of Florida is hereby declared a Sovereign and Independent Nation: and that all ordinances heretofore adopted in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded: and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union be and they are hereby repealed.
…The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.…
…It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result [...to abolish slavery...] is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less.…
...Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.…
...we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children…
...It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government....
Evan Robinson 2:24 PM |
Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, economic opportunism, Florida, KKK, Racism, slavery, States' Rights, Treason, white supremacy
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Documenting the Confederacy, Part 3: Documenting Secession: Mississippi
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:
Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.
Sec. 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.
Sec. 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Sec. 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.
Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861.
Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 42.
She [Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.*"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union" begins:
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.and continues:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
...
... by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.Mississippi leads directly with "it's about slavery!" and follows up with "OMG! Equality for Negros!" and "It's going to cost of billions of dollars".
...
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. ...
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or
...
Again, Mississippi wanted to deny northern states the right to abolish slavery within their own territory. That's for anyone who thinks "States' Rights" had anything to do with secession.
Part 2: Documenting Secession: South Carolina
Part 4: Documenting Secession: Florida
Evan Robinson 1:32 PM |
Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, KKK, Mississippi, Racism, slavery, States' Rights, Treason, white supremacy
Documenting the Confederacy, Part 2: Documenting Secession: South Carolina
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.
According to Wikipedia, "An official secession convention met in South Carolina following the November 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln". The convention issued the above "ordinance of secession" on 20 December, 1860, and ordered seven members to draft a separate statement, which was adopted by the convention on Christmas Eve as "The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" (hereinafter "The Declaration").
...an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. ... The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; (emphasis mine)Regardless of questions of Constitutionality, South Carolina's Declaration makes it quite clear that slavery is the reason for their secession.
Part 1: The Confederate States of America and Treason
Part 3: Documenting Secession: Mississippi There's more...
Evan Robinson 1:32 PM |
Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, KKK, Racism, slavery, South Carolina, States' Rights, Treason, white supremacy
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Documenting the Confederacy, Part 1: The Confederate States of America and Treason
For those who haven't kept track, the eleven states of the CSA were: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. They formed a self-proclaimed nation in 1861 after the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln and fought the Union until 1865, when they were defeated. The last four states listed (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) did not declare their secession until after the attack of Fort Sumter by the other seven secessionist states.
No foreign government ever officially recognized the CSA as an independent country. According to US precedent (notably SCOTUS Texas v. White), unilateral secession is an impossibility because the Constitution creates an "indestructible" union: the Articles of Confederation call the Union "perpetual" and the US Constitution created a "more perfect union".
[Salmon P.] Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States. (Pavkovic & Radan, 2007, p 222)Precedent leaves open the possibility of successful rebellion (as the CSA did not achieve) or an Act of Congress permitting secession.
Legalistically speaking, so far as the United States and the rest of the world is concerned, the CSA never existed as an independent nation. Had they succeeded, they would have. Because the CSA never legally existed, the taking up of arms against the Union met the definition of treason in 18 US Code 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...During the war, President Lincoln had issued a number of pardons for treason and rebellion. President Johnson chose not to have wholesale trials of 3/4 million soldiers who served in the Confederate Army. Instead, he issued a series of general pardons, with a large number of exceptions. In a final act on Christmas Day, 1868, President Johnson declared:
unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ...Meaning that that vast bulk of Confederate participants in the Civil War were granted a pardon for Treason.
Why is that significant? One word: Burdick. OK, three words: Burdick v. US.
Burdick is a 1915 SCOTUS decision that clearly establishes an individual is allowed to reject a pardon. As a result, the state cannot compel testimony covered by the 5th Amendment by offering a pardon -- the defendant must accept the pardon. In accepting a pardon, however, one confesses guilt of the crime pardoned:
This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.Thus, any member of the Confederacy (in particular any member of the Confederate Army or Navy) who accepted their pardon and was not tried for treason confessed to the crime of treason against the Union.
One specific person of note, however, attempted to confess and was denied for 110 years, then accepted retroactively. General Robert E. Lee, specifically covered by exception to the general pardon because he resigned his commission in the US Army to serve in the Confederate Army, and because his rank was above that of Colonel in the Confederate Army, made application to President Johnson on 13 June 1865:
Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.Lee signed an Amnesty Oath on 2 October 1865, complying fully with Johnson's general pardon proclamation. But Lee was never pardoned while alive, and President Ford signed a joint congressional resolution making the pardon effective 13 June 1965.
And thus, 110 years after the end of the Civil War and 105 years after his death, General Robert E. Lee confessed to treason against the United States.
Part 0: Introduction
Part 2: Documenting Secession: South Carolina
(Edit 2017.08.16: removed double quotation marks; fixed white background; replaced "Articles" of Secession with "Ordinances" of Secession; added 's' to Article(s) of Confederation)
(Edit 2017.08.17: corrected 1968 to 1868 as year of Johnson's final pardon; corrected 'effecting' to 'effective') There's more...
Evan Robinson 8:06 PM |
Labels: Burdick v. US, Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, KKK, Racism, Robert E. Lee, Salmon Chase, slavery, States' Rights, Texas v. White, Treason, white supremacy
Documenting the Confederacy, Part 0: Introduction
I found a blog a while back that was systematically going through a collection of documents about the Confederacy and pulling out the proof that secession was about slavery. I've since lost that blog, can't find it, and think perhaps it has slipped down the memory hole.
So I'm going to start doing that. I'll be periodically posting a link to each of the traitor state's document describing their reasons for leaving the Union and selecting pull quotes that describe their reasons. By doing so, I will be documenting, in their own words, that slavery was a significant reason for secession. It will provide a library of responses to "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about ...".
There will be an opportunity to discuss the meaning of the Confederate flag, as well.
In the end, I hope to create, if not a definitive resource, a sufficient one.
Part 1: The Confederate States of America and Treason There's more...
Evan Robinson 7:06 PM |
Labels: Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, KKK, Racism, slavery, States' Rights, Treason, white supremacy
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Maintaining Sacred Space at Arlington
Watch a member of "The Old Guard" get a bayonet through his foot while changing the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns. Here's the story. There's a grimace, and there's blood showing on his boot. And that's it.
What discipline.
What dedication.
What an amazing thing that we, as Americans, receive such performance -- freely given! -- from a young man dedicated to our defense.
How disturbing that many of us don't deserve it -- and have no idea how to return even the most basic respect to troops like that.
Here's a comment I wrote last year on Facebook after a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. It was made on the Facebook announcement of this post about Colin Kaepernick on Stonekettle Station by Jim Wright:
I visited Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) recently. Within a few feet of entering the gate, I heard young men (high school students, I would guess) skirmishing and tussling behind me, and I asked them (rather sharply, I'm afraid) to settle down and quiet down and remember that this was a cemetery not a locker room, and that it was as close to hallowed ground as our system allowed us to create. They shut up, and one muttered an apology.I don't know what we need to do to make it clear to (especially young) Americans just how special a place Arlington National Cemetery is. But I think we need to figure that out. There's more...
Ten minutes later, leaving the Info Center, as Roosevelt Drive turned off and the road became Eisenhower Drive, I saw a cassion approaching, with full honor guard marching behind it. I got off the road, to the left of the sidewalk, and waited, attentive (not at attention -- I'm not a veteran, and I know the difference) and removed my hat as it approached. I got a nod from the NCOIC of the detail, which amazed me, until I turned to watch the cassion pass, and saw that there were a half dozen people IN THE ROAD with their cell phone cameras up, plus a couple of dozen more on the sidewalk and blocking Roosevelt going up the hill. Every last one had a cell phone up, most of them had hats on, and, as I said, a half dozen were standing in the road in front of the cassion. Before it had to stop, the docents got them out of the way and told the crowd that filming, especially from the road, was disrespectful (at least that's what I assume they said, because the phones came down) and reminded them to remove their hats.
I couldn't believe it. They had to almost physically remove one kid from the road. And they never did get his baseball cap off him.
At Arlington.
I agree with Jim (like that matters -- he's way more entitled to talk about this than I am) that we arent Romans, or Spartans, or even Watusi (thank you, Bill Murray), but these people buried here, they or their family went when we said "go", and they came back (if they came back) burdened with what we had them do in our names.
And we should damn well have the common decency to remove our hats, get the hell out of the way of their bodies, and have some goddamned RESPECT for them at their final resting place.
And since we're going to honor them, let's do so by remembering the ideals for which they fought, which include everyone's right to protest injustice.
Even NFL players.
Evan Robinson 6:39 PM |
Labels: Accident, Arlington, Dedication, Discipline, Respect, The Old Guard, Tomb of the Unknowns
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Comments
I have successfully regained comments on the individual post pages. As a result, I have also begun to examine the backlog of 8200+ comments from 2012 - 2014. So far I have found four real comments from the last few months and hundreds of spam comments from 2014 and before.
I will therefore be deleting ALL the marked spam comments from 2012-2014 without examining them carefully for any gems that might actually be in there.
If there are any actual comments, I apologize. But they'd be at least 2.5 years old anyway.
Evan Robinson 9:19 PM |
Labels: blog administration, Comments, Spam
Sunday, February 19, 2017
A Day That Should Live in Infamy

Photo by Evan Robinson.
Assembly centers were set up at convenient locations like racetracks (Santa Anita in Southern California, and Tanforan in the Bay Area) and soon housed thousands of internees. By October, ten "Relocation Centers" were set up outside the coastal exclusion zones: Manzanar and Tule Lake in California; Poston and Gila River in Arizona; Granada, Colorado; Heart Mountain, Wyoming; Minidoka, Idaho; Topaz, Utah; and Rohwer and Jerome in Arkansas. Manzanar was the first, opened in March 1942. Tule Lake was the largest, housing nearly 18,800 internees.
American citizens and legal residents had everything taken away but what they could carry, were stuffed into horse stalls and temporary housing, then moved hundreds or thousands of miles away and crammed into tar paper shacks behind barbed wire perimeters with machine gun towers.
In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu that the exclusion zones were constitutional, but sidestepped the question of incarceration. In 1983, Fred Korematsu's conviction was overturned because the US government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court (in other words, the government perjured itself) and that the information was material to the Court's decision. Other significant decisions upholding curfews for Americans of Japanese descent were Yasui and Hirabayashi. Both were overturned in the 1980s for the same reasons as Korematsu -- government perjury.
So far as I can tell, no Supreme Court ruling ever addressed whether or not the internment (the incarceration of tens of thousands of legal residents and citizens) was constitutional, despite the occasional news story to the contrary. Some such stories claim that Korematsu touched on the constitutionality of the internment, but the decision included the language:
"The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding."which clearly excludes the question of the constitutionality of the internment. Ex parte Endo further muddies the water by the ruling (on the same day as Korematsu) that there was "...no authority to subject citizens who are conceded loyal to its leave procedure." In other words, the government had no authority to detain citizens not proven disloyal. But they may imprison anyone for refusing to be illegally detained.
The Roosevelt administration lifted the internment orders immediately before the Korematsu and Endo rulings were announced. Public Proclamation No. 21, issued on 17 December 1944, rescinded the exclusion orders.
Legislation was signed in 1988 providing that the survivors of the internment were to be paid $20,000 in redress, and additional legislation appropriating additional funds was signed in 1992. The internees did not get their property or belongings back, and fortunes were made by complicit white Americans who bought real property for pennies on the dollar during 1942.
And if, by chance, you think we would never do this again, let me quote from Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, issued 25 January 2017:
Sec. 5. Detention Facilities. (a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico.Note that those to be detained are not "undocumented aliens" or "aliens illegally in the US", but any "aliens".
How many of you carry proof of citizenship with you at all times?
(Cross posted from Mischievous Ramblings II) There's more...
Evan Robinson 3:00 AM |
Labels: concentration camps, Endo, Executive Order 9066, Hirabayashi, Japanese Internment, Korematsu, Manzanar, Roosevelt, Trump, Yasui
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Simple Math on Canadians Coming to America for Health Care
It's a common refrain whenever the cheap, effective Canadian health care system is brought up: "what about all those Canadians who come to the US for health care?"
Here is the simple answer. All numbers are from 2014. Links go to the sources.
In 2014, according to the Fraser Institute, 52,513 Canadians got non-emergency health care in foreign countries. Since there were about 35.5 million Canadians in 2014, that's about 0.15%.
In 2014, the Census Bureau reported that a sharp drop in uninsured Americans (caused by the first year of implementation of ObamaCare) meant there were 33 million uninsured Americans. The Census Bureau also reports that the population of the US in 2014 was about 319 million, so the uninsured population was about 10%.
The Canadian health care system underserves about 1/7th of a percent. The American system underserves slightly over 10% -- after the first year of Obamacare. The number the year before would have been about 13%.
In a single number, the American health care system underserves 70 times as much of the population as the Canadian system.
This number is conservative, as it includes Canadians who get non-emergency health care in other countries because of convenience or scheduling, when they might have gotten it at home, and reserves American under service to those completely without insurance, not including anyone who can't afford a co-pay or deductible.
(Cross Posted from Mischievous Ramblings II)
Evan Robinson 9:59 AM |
Labels: ACA, Canada, Canadian Health Care, Cross Border Health care, health care, ObamaCare
Monday, January 30, 2017
Why didn't I do this sooner? Oh, yeah....
As a geek, I want access to medical technology that I have to use, and I want data on my usage (my pulmonologist says that I am his poster boy for compliance, and seeing the data is part of that for me). As a pilot, Sara requires data from the CPAP for her flight medical. Both of us want to be able to program the devices to change their pressure parameters as our needs change. To do this, you need special software, and in at least one case, a special piece of hardware and cable for the CPAP. We have all of that. We have everything we need to access data on and program each of the four machines (two types) that we use. I have visited multiple pulmonologists in the 15+ years I've used CPAP, and never has one been able to read data off my machine. But I can. :-)
You also need a Windows machine. The CPAP market is not so large that the manufacturers build great software, and they only build it for Windows. Some of them use outdated hardware specifications (like 9 pin serial ports and 8 pin DIN connectors). Many will write to one or another kind of SD card (some only to original SD, not SDHC, some to micro SD, etc.), but all of them I've encountered require Windows software to extract data and get reports.
Have I mentioned how much I hate Windows? I have an old media PC I bought from someone at Amazon that I run the software on. It's old and crappy and never connects to a network, and only comes out to run this software, but to do so, I have to keep a monitor around and move my keyboard and mouse while I set the machine up somewhere, and it's just a pain.
So I thought, I'll buy myself a cheap old Windows laptop, maybe even with a serial port, running Windows 7 or 8, and it'll be cheap and easy to move around and I can reclaim the cubic yard of office that the current device and monitor and keyboard and mouse occupies. And I did. I went to the local neighborhood computer repair place and bought a used ASUS laptop for $150, and it's just what I needed even if it doesn't have a serial port and runs Windows 10.
I need to install two applications on it. One for each brand of CPAP. And it takes hours. The first app is on CD, and it doesn't have a disk player, so I move one over from my Mac and it reads it but it won't install the software because the software uses a library that isn't included in Windows 10 and won't install off the CD in Windows 10 and I have to research it and find the newer 4.0 version that includes the older 3.5 and 2.0 versions and install it and see if the installer will recognize it and I try to install that software four times before it works. The second piece of software isn't nearly so bad so I only need to install it twice before it works. And then it takes 40 minutes for the Windows 10 system to recognize the USB to serial adapter and find a driver for it, and another 30 minutes to update the Windows 10 system files.
And finally it works. And I have a portable system that I can use to access my own medical data and program my own medical devices.
And this morning when I turn it on to suck data out of my CPAP, it takes 20 minutes to update Windows 10 again. Two days after I last updated it.
Now I remember why I didn't do this sooner...
Cross Posted from Mischievous Ramblings II There's more...







