We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, December 27. 2014
Good photos in National Geographic
Antique American recipes, restored
John Cleese: 'I'll never grow up' - The Fawlty Towers actor on grasping ex-wives, self-centered mothers and
Lobsters thrive on lobster bait
“Scrooge Was A Liberal, Studies Show”
Once Upon A Time, Free Speech And Association Were Sacred To Liberals
Do Diversity Initiatives Indirectly Discriminate Against Asian Americans?
The Big Lie of the Anti-Cop Left Turns Lethal - The real story behind the murder of two NYPD officers:
Cuba Derangement Syndrome strikes again
The World Is Not Falling Apart - Never mind the headlines. We’ve never lived in such peaceful times.
Image below via Sultan's Every Christmas Now Comes With Muslim Terrorism
Tracked: Dec 28, 09:34
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I suspect many Progressives are glad to see Santa captured. He'll be charged with delivering a whole lot of lumps of coal to so many people this year.
Scrooge also hated Christmas to the point of wanting to see those that love it boiled and staked. Sounds like some posts from progressives floating around recently.
Blacks commit an amount of crime way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. It's no wonder they have lots of contact with the police. Blacks are about 13% of the population but commit about 50% of the murders.
Andrew Lee Scott was not black when he was murdered in his own home at 1:30 in the morning by Lake County Deputy Richard Sylvester. Jose Gurena was not black when he was murdered in his own home by the Pima County SWAT team. KellyThomas was not black when he was beaten to death by Fullerton Officer Manny Ramos while five other Fullterton "Law Enforcement" officers looked on. Erik Scott was not black when he was murdered in cold blood by three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers. David Mack was indeed black when he was saved by Officer Cariol Horne, who stopped Buffalo Officer Gregory Kwiatowski from murdering him:
And of course, "Bou Bou" was not black when the Habersham pigs attacked him in his crib.
Damn your filthy maggot pigs straight to hell with their bitch whore swill.
Your comment was starting to make a good point when it went off the rails. Of course, it's interesting that the examples you cite are not the ones people are rioting over, or pundits are obsessing over. The riots and obsession are over black men who were killed in the commission of crimes. Instead of choosing examples where police went out of bounds, these protesters are seizing on any case in which a black man runs afoul of police, no matter how justified the police reaction may have been. For reasons I'll never understand, there is little or no attention paid to cases in which a black man is killed while apparently breaking no law and posing no genuine threat.
Then we see appalling attempts to draw moral equivalencies. On the one hand we have men who died because a policeman was forced to make a split-second decision to defend his life, as in the Michael Brown case, or because more or less ordinary arrest techniques can, in exceptional circumstances, cause unintended injury or death, as in the Eric Garner case. On the other hand we have a man who deliberately targeted a symbolic enemy and shoot him in the head in an act of protest over grievances against completely different men--or punks who burned down their own neighbors' businesses out of spite. If those two kinds of acts are really equivalent, get ready for moral chaos on the streets.
I'll be anxiously awaiting a retraction of all the snide Christmas=Saturnalia comments:
Lobsters eat bait and boogie. Need cameras and improved traps to nail those wily ones, and wipe them out. No, that'd do in the lobstermen. What to do, what to do?
Once Upon A Time, Free Speech: Gone, since (or before) the Prop. 8 supporters were outed.
Nation of Wussies: Well, lots of LOUD and Obnoxious Wussies, but not all of us. Those who tell them to put on their big-boy pants or big-girl panties aren't wussies.
Diversity Initiatives: Of Course they discriminate against Asian Americans, and anyone who studies hard and works hard to improve himself/herself (itself be on its own).
George Leef: Once Upon A Time, Free Speech And Association Were Sacred To Liberals: California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris is demanding that AFP disclose the names, addresses, and contribution levels of its supporters within the state... Nothing in California law allows the attorney general to make that demand.
The problem with polemics is that they don't provide both sides of the story, and often misrepresent the side they do provide. California law requires charities provide a list of donors, including the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The SCOTUS held in NAACP v Alabama:
2. Petitioner [NAACP] has a right to assert on behalf of its members a claim that they are entitled under the Federal Constitution to be protected from being compelled by the State to disclose their affiliation with the Association.
On what legal standing can California legally demand what was denied to Alabama by the SCOTUS?
I am opposed to tax exempt organizations. I believe that any group wanting to "do good" can do good just as easily without being exempted from the law of the land us mere mortals are required to obey. But as long as we allow these semi-public organizations I think that as a requirement for their tax exempt status their books and actions should be 100% open. The citizens who suport them by paying the higher taxes these organizations force on us should know where every peny they get goes and who gives it. I would be totally in favor of secrecy if it went hand in hand with no tax exempt donations and no tax exempt special treatment for the organizations.
I think you make some good points, Gone, to which I'm somewhat sympathetic, though I'm not sure I agree 100%. I'd have to think about it more. I will say that the more I think about special tax treatments, the more intrigued I am with the idea of eliminating all of them.
That being said, the issue of a state government (or any government) requiring membership rolls of organizations was decided against that (and thus all) state governments. California does not get to legally troll membership rolls for any purpose it chooses.
Does it make sense, though, that an organization that collections donations should have to treat the donations as taxable income? Why should the government get a big chunk of the donations, just because the donations are aggregated through a charitable organization?
Another approach to solve the problem would be to get rid of all corporate taxation. I think we should be taxing only at the individual level.
The tax advantage goes primarily to the donor and not the tax exempt organization. What this means to me and every tax payng citizen is that every dollar they give $.40-$.50 cents of it is payed by you and I. We don't get to choose the charity or the benefit of the glory of being the big donr but we pay a big part of the bill. Let these charitable people be good citizens first and pay their taxes then give their own money to charity. Most charities that dispersed their money as they claim to will owe no tax on it. They would only owe tax on a "profit". Now, sadly, many tax exempts do in fact "profit" and are not particularly charitable in their actions. They are merely contrived "businesses" using government regulations to avoid taxes and regulations the rest of us must obey. Let's level the playing field and require that every person must obey every law (even congress and their staff). If the law is too onerous then let's repeal it because it would surely be too onerous for all citizens as well. Everyone and every organization should be subject to the same laws and have to put some skin in the game. If in the process we discover that federal, state and local tax laws are too heavy handed or unfair and we need to fix them that would be good for everyone.
mudbug: On what legal standing can California legally demand what was denied to Alabama by the SCOTUS?
The claim was that there was nothing in California law, which was false. NAACP v. Alabama concerned membership lists, not disclosures of large cash donations. The equivalence of large cash donations with free speech is rejected by some, but not all liberals. Ascribing the effort to all liberals is an overgeneralization.
Sorry, I don't see the function difference between donors and members with regards to free association.
As for 'liberals', I think Leef was incorrect. In the first place, there are very few liberals any more. He should have said 'leftists'. There are lots of them and they are the ones who do not like free speech.
House of Eratosthenes (quoting John Merline): "Scrooge Was A Liberal, Studies Show"
Um, no. Dickens was satirizing Scrooge's social and political conservatism, while advocating for progressive reform with regards to the poor.
Re: The Industry of Lies
My mother told me when I was young that Israel is the canary in the world's coalmine. Truer words were never spoken.
Left with only a few million and millions of fans willing to pay him to talk… sigh. Cleese had the money to be foolish, was, and paid for it--to excess.
To your good health, John Cleese.