Monday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, March 18. 2013

Above, oldest bed still in daily use in the UK (h/t NYM). I wonder how many people have been conceived in that bed, and how many have died in it. Many, probably both.

Sipp comments:

Man, that article is interesting. Look at the room that thing's in. Linenfold wainscot. Looks like oak. You might already know this, but wainscot means the side of a wagon -- a wain. Pitsawn lumber was hard to come by, so joiners would split green oak to make lumber for everything. Eventually the split wagon sides started getting nailed on the lower half of the walls indoors. They'd carve the panels inside the frames to look like an open book, or a piece of linen, folded up. It was considered barbarous after a while, (gothic) so only the oldest houses in England had it, until it was revived three hundred years later or so. Neato.

New York City's Soda Ban Is Dead

A special message for Michael Bloomberg

Haha

The Power of Negative Thinking: An Unconventional Approach
to Achieving Positive Results

101 Reasons to Have Sex: The College Edition

Amazon's best sellers in Ladylike dresses (h/t Insty)

Womens' CLOTHES: A MANIFESTO

The Plan to Bring the Iconic Passenger Pigeon Back From Extinction (h/t Am Digest)

Rubio at CPAC: Nevermind College, We Need Plumbers

Crazy in Venezuela

Detroit Dems Enrich Wall Street As City Goes Bust

Blame the bank you borrowed from. That makes sense

Ben Carson: Defunding Obamacare: ‘Fine’

Feinstein's Defense of Her 'Assault Weapon' Ban: I Feel, Therefore I Legislate

As Ethanol Stumbles, the NYT Mourns the Dream

Ben Carson at CPAC

The sugar industry: Incredible Level of Cronyism

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:00 | Comments (31) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: faustasblog.com
Tracked: Mar 18, 10:14

PingBack

Weblog: www.dailypundit.com
Tracked: Mar 18, 20:30

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Amazon's best sellers in Ladylike dresses

And there it is - Maggie's Farm has officially jumped the shark by becoming fashionistas. How far the mighty have fallen. :>)

Ben Carson at CPAC

I'm wondering if this guy is the GOP's Barack Obama. He seems much too good to be true.

Nevermind College, We Need Plumbers

Damn straight - and carpenters, cabinet makers, welders, machinists, electricians etc., etc., etc.

The Power of Negative Thinking

Just another way of giving "What have you done for me lately" some credence as a tool in the search for success.

A special message for Michael Bloomberg

Remember 1971? The final year of the Vietnam War. Hippies everywhere. Janis Joplin was still alive. Jim Morrison was still alive. Bobby Goldsboro had the most sickeningly sappy song EVEAH with "Watching Scotty Grow". Issac Hayes wrote and produced the theme for "Shaft". Quincy Jones produced "Smackwater Jack" creating four #1 hits, one movie theme and the highly under appreciated "Guitar Blues Odyssey - From Roots to Fruits".

The good old days. :>)

#1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-18 06:26 (Reply)

Nopers on Janis Joplin, she died in 1970, sadly

#1.1 Ed on 2013-03-18 12:11 (Reply)

Yep - you're right. I was going by the release of "Me and Bobby Magee". My bad.

However, this leads me to an interesting factoid. The only other posthumous #1 song was "Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay" by Otis Redding.

Another related factoid - "Me and Bobby Magee" was Joplin's only #1 hit.

#1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-18 12:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Jacob Sullum: Feinstein's Defense of Her 'Assault Weapon' Ban: I Feel, Therefore I Legislate ... Given that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, just as the First Amendment protects an individual right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, isn't telling people they may not possess certain guns analogous to telling them they may not possess certain books? In both cases, people retain most of the right guaranteed by the Constitution, but in the First Amendment context that has never been deemed enough for a restriction to pass muster.

When you start with a false premise, your conclusion will lack foundation. Speech can be restricted; such as obscenity; shouting fire in a crowded theater; time, place, and manner; incitement to violence; clear and present danger; fighting words; to keep secrets for national security; court order; etc. There's all sort of restrictions to the First Amendment.

As for guns, there is obviously some line to be drawn—somewhere between nuclear missiles and peashooters.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 09:31 (Reply)

"You will have to pry my nuke out of my cold dead hands."

Kim Jong Un.

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2013-03-18 09:44 (Reply)

Heh. That's a good point. Nations have the right to self-defence. Do you have a rule that would apply to restricting that right or is it might makes right?

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 10:13 (Reply)

Funny how, if I said "Americans have the right to self-defense", you're right there with dozens of exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. Yet you then make the blanket statement "Nations have the right to self-defence [sic]" with no qualifying remarks at all.

In our case, at least we have a piece of paper that says we have the right to arm ourselves. Do you see any piece of paper running around out there that says that nations do, as you claim?

In searching for these apparently-overlooked qualifications, we might start with the "self-defence [sic]" part of your statement. Against whom? In North Korea's case, would that be defense against your neighbor to the south who has a comparatively small army and has never threatened you militarily? How about the colossus to the north that could squish you like a bug? Why is Iran seeking nuclear self-defense when none of its neighbors are so armed?

Israel possesses nukes, but although none of its neighboring enemies do, when you're surrounded by two dozen nations that would like to see your country wiped from the face of the earth, that provides some justification. It's a justification that neither Iran or North Korea can claim.

Sometimes, as in this case, I have the feeling that you're just making it up as you go along.

And by the way, thanks for providing the inspiration for my article on Google the other day.

Damned decent of you.

#2.1.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-18 11:25 (Reply)

Dr. Mercury: Funny how, if I said "Americans have the right to self-defense", you're right there with dozens of exceptions to the 2nd Amendment.

People do have a right to self-defence, but like all rights, it is not unqualified.

Dr. Mercury: Funny how, if I said "Americans have the Yet you then make the blanket statement "Nations have the right to self-defence [sic]" with no qualifying remarks at all.

Actually, we asked for those qualifying limitations.

Dr. Mercury: In our case, at least we have a piece of paper that says we have the right to arm ourselves. Do you see any piece of paper running around out there that says that nations do, as you claim?

Yes, it's the Charter of the United Nations, Article 51, to which the U.S. is a signatory, its Senate having ratified the treaty in 1945.

Dr. Mercury: In North Korea's case, would that be defense against your neighbor to the south who has a comparatively small army and has never threatened you militarily? How about the colossus to the north that could squish you like a bug?

From North Korea's view, sure. We're not justifying that point of view, just noting it.

Dr. Mercury: Why is Iran seeking nuclear self-defense when none of its neighbors are so armed?

The U.S. has repeatedly threatened Iran, including a plan under the Bush Administration to use nuclear weapons.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 12:13 (Reply)

We have those types of limitations up on firearms. You can yell fire all you want in your home but cannot in public. You display and handle your firearm all you want at home but cannot in public. In fact, in many places you cannot even carry your firearm into public without government permit.

You may not brandish your firearm which may incite others to violence or be a clear and present danger. Such behavior can be considered "fighting words" and provoke a defensive response from others or the police. Personal firearms are restricted in national security areas even as those areas are designated for the use of deadly force. Courts may order the surrender of firearms or someone to avoid being around them through proper due process.

Your attempt at contrast is a failure. Perhaps the banning of certain firearms is similar to obscenity laws that seek to ban certain words, phrases, writings, images, etc. But those obscenity laws do not stand up to constitutional challenges as one person's obscenity is another's art. And as firearms have objective value for their purpose, i.e., self defense, they do not fall under the oft cited "prurient interest" used by some to try to avoid the first amendment.

#2.2 JKB on 2013-03-18 10:07 (Reply)

JKB: your attempt at contrast is a failure.

Huh? We responded to the specific point raised by Jacob Sullum, the claim that there are no restrictions on the First Amendment. That is false.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 10:11 (Reply)

Just to clarify, we're not saying the restrictions are analogous or parallel, just that there are restrictions, usually based on the homo rationalis, or reasonable person, rule.

#2.2.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 10:21 (Reply)

Restrictions??? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Yes restrictions that do not contradict or negate the 2nd amendment. Let me list those restrictions that are constitutional:

1.

#2.2.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-18 11:16 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Restrictions??? "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Does that include nuclear arms?

#2.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-18 12:14 (Reply)

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”

I believe the original intent of the constitution and in particular the 2nd amendment was in fact that citizens could carry any weapon of defense and offense cancealed or openly. But nukes were unknow to them and I don't believe their intent was that citizens had the right to carry nukes. However it is pretty clear at the minimum what "arms" meant and the phrase "shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory as well. So if you or anyone else want to make it illegal for private citizens to keep and bear nukes I will support you in that effort. But otherwise I think the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment is clear and that indeed we do have the right to own and carry any arm as defined by the dictionary and Black's Law and the meaning of arms in the 1776-1787.

#2.2.2.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-18 22:23 (Reply)

So anything that can be carried, hence machine guns and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles are okay, but cannons are not.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-19 07:55 (Reply)

Machine guns and cannons can already be owned privately. It is the illegal use that is and should be the interest of the state. I have three vehicles each capable of killing people but there is not a restriction on my ownership of the vehicles only restrictions on illegal or careless use of them. My motorhome holds 55 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline is incredibly dangerous and explosive but I can buy it anywhere in America. What is restricted is the unlawful USE of gasoline. That is the mistake the anti-constitution folks are making. You cannot constitutionally "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms the "control" is controlling the unlawful use of arms.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-19 10:37 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Machine guns and cannons can already be owned privately.

So you're okay with licensing, then.

GoneWithTheWind: I have three vehicles each capable of killing people but there is not a restriction on my ownership of the vehicles only restrictions on illegal or careless use of them.

So you're okay with requiring insurance, then.

GoneWithTheWind: You cannot constitutionally "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms the "control" is controlling the unlawful use of arms.

So you have no problem with someone possessing shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, then.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-19 11:06 (Reply)

I have a problem that some people are born good looking, some are born rich and I got neither. But I wouldn't restrict it just because I have a problem with it.

The constitution protects my rights and restricts or infringes the government not the other way around. It would be constitutional for the federal, state and local governments to make some action I might take with a gun illegal such as threatening people or robbing banks. But it is not constitutional to make a law infringing my right to own, keep and bear arms. Just as the law can punish me for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater but does not prevent me from carrying around the word "fire" in my vocabulary.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-19 22:39 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: The constitution protects my rights and restricts or infringes the government not the other way around. It would be constitutional for the federal, state and local governments to make some action I might take with a gun illegal such as threatening people or robbing banks.

Okay, so just to clarify, you're okay with the private possession of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, bazookas, etc? What about the question of licensing?

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-20 08:03 (Reply)

Licensing is questionable and your defense of it highlights the problem. it is used to infringe and worse it is used to create lists for future confiscation. Something as innocuous as licensing can solve a problem simply and allow order out of chaos. We license each and every car and publicly display that license on the car itself. But what if the process of getting that license was onerous and biased such that no one of color could license a car and no women and no jews or catholics but only the choosen could license a car. What if licensing was used to control the population and to aid and enable dictatorship. You laugh! It could never happen you say. Of course not how could licensing a car aid a dictatorship? But the history of guns is totally different. Without exception in history licensing or registering arms has lead to confiscation and without exception in history every dictatorship has required confiscation of weapons. In my belief there is only one possible reason for registering weapons in this country and that is to enable confiscation and a takeover of our government. Every other arguement falls short of common sense and those making the arguements have to lie and differ and obfiscate exactly as you have done.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-20 11:15 (Reply)

Okay, so just to clarify, you're okay with the private possession of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, bazookas, etc?

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-20 12:10 (Reply)

Excuse me but I think your straw man is showing...

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-20 18:14 (Reply)

No. We're trying to understand where you draw the line.

#2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-20 20:11 (Reply)

Wait, why can't you have college and be a plumber? The dichotomy is false. While plumbing does not require a college degree, it is not true that it precludes a college degree. In fact, if you wish to go to college to become "educated" as is often cited for the liberal arts degree, then you would do well to also obtain a trade should your "education" prove not to provide you with value to exchange with employers for wages.

Think of it this way. College graduates these days are like aspiring actors. Some will get their big break, others will benefit from inside connections, some may not really have the talent, but all could benefit from having a trade either to provide a living waiting for their big break or to fall back on if the college thing doesn't work out. Either way, they can still do the "educated" thing as a hobby and it supposedly will enhance their life in whatever field they might enter.

#3 JKB on 2013-03-18 10:22 (Reply)

One of the best engineers I ever worked with never graduated from grade school. All self taught. Which I think it the point of your comment.

Neither precludes the other it's just that one has to come first and the other second. I'm proud to say that all my four kids apprenticed with a tradesman during two of their summer vacations - electricians, carpenters and plumbers. And they loved it, learned a lot and earned the occasional extra buck or two in college by fixing this and that for people.

So for my money, trade comes first.

#3.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-18 12:15 (Reply)

The politicians in Detroit didn't just "fail". what they have done is looted the treasury and destroyed the city for personal gain. The city has been governed by the black Mafia for decades and it is now in it's final days. Chicago is run by the black Mafia as well but it has more resources and will take a little longer to completely loot and destroy. New Orleans was on that track but Katrina exposed the corruption and may have "temporarily) stopped/slowed it. Atlanta, Kansas City, Baltimore and others are on the same track. The success and the brazenness of the black Mafia varies from city to city. This is all bad news for people who live there but thanks to Obama the black Mafia has gone federal. Holder was successful in bringing the black Mafia to the ballot box last November. They expanded the criminal fraud in the Pigford scam. Our Marxist/socialist president may well be the new face of the black Mafia with Holder his 2nd in command.

#4 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-18 11:32 (Reply)

Black Mafia, Italian Mafia, Irish Mafia. All the same plunderers.

#4.1 Bird Dog on 2013-03-18 12:25 (Reply)

You forgot the Masonic Mafia, Black Friars, Knights Templar and so on. :>)

#4.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-18 12:27 (Reply)

"New York City's Soda Ban Is Dead"

For now, as it was deemed to be unequally 9health department coverage only) applied. Hopefully, it will not be disinterred as a City law/statute.

#5 John A on 2013-03-18 13:37 (Reply)

40 responses on women's clothing: Get me a statistician, STAT! He or she will call it Bogus. Still, interesting. To a point. About the 3rd para, for me.

DiFi: I FEEL, therefore it is so.

Sugar: Sweetening the pockets of producers.

#4.1.1.--And the Tri-Lateral Commission, and worst of all, The Rosicrucians!

Nukes--I've had them under my control, some real close, and a bunch more not close. Never shot one. Have a bunch of pistols, and used to carry one on the job: never shot anybody.

#6 Sam L. on 2013-03-18 14:29 (Reply)

Here is a link for you:

Obama and the Chicago Mob connection:

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/the-chicago-mob-connection/

#7 M. Simon (Link) on 2013-03-19 10:18 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, March 18. 2013

Monday morning links