Maggie's Farm

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

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Saturday, February 20. 2016

Saturday morning links

Showdown over iPhone reignites the debate around privacy


Many Americans feel helpless in the face of government invasions into private life, all in the name of safety. We have police video cameras at every intersection. Cops are using fake cell towers to listen in on calls. They want to eliminate cash so private transactions can't be private. The EPA wants to police your land use. Etc, etc. Government agencies are militarizing. Why is all of this happening now? 


Why our minds can be led astray about the tastes of wines.


5 Ways To Build Pride When You’ve Lost Your Cashflow


Why Aren't We Discussing Fatherlessness?


Hearing the Lost Sounds of Antiquity


An Athenian for Our Time - Why we read Thucydides


Global Warming and the Irrelevance of Science


Congressman Warns Chinese Takeover Of Chicago Stock Exchange May Lead To Economic Warfare


FIRE’S 10 WORST UNIVERSITIES FOR FREE SPEECH


"Last night a disturbing racist post that was made to social media was brought to my attention."


Good grief. Those gals were getting a facial.


Some Thoughts On Justice Scalia


How Obama Denied Conservative Judges a Vote - Conservative nominees were blocked from 4 to 6 years


"The Unappeasable Left"


With the candidates flinging insults as Saturday’s South Carolina primary approaches, can anybody hope to win?


At Least 1,730 Clinton Emails Contain Classified Material In Latest State Department Friday Evening Email Dump…


J. Last: Why I turned against Trumpism


Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:00 | Comments (34) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack
Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 21, 09:56

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Why is all of this happening now?


Because no one stops them.
#1 fjord on 2016-02-20 07:09 (Reply)
Fjord is right. Our country is undergoing a totalitarian coup by the ruling elite-military-industrial-government complex. No one is stopping it. I am not sure the people can.
#2 Kathy on 2016-02-20 07:16 (Reply)
I believe you are mistaken on who is running the coup. Go back to August of 2014 when the NJ cop was filmed saying that if Obama doesn't have to follow the Constitution, neither does he and remember the flap over it. As I've posited before, the executive branch agencies are just taking their cues from the boss and Congress isn't stopping them. If Congress can ignore the will of the people and the President can ignore Congress, why wouldn't the EPA or the FBI or the DoL or the FDA ignore the President? Bureaucracies have one misssion - to grow and to metastasize, and that's what we're seeing when there's no longer an immune system to fight them. May be time to start amputating some limbs to save the body.
#2.1 Jerryskids on 2016-02-20 07:29 (Reply)
Bureaucracy IS the fourth branch of govt. Unelected, unnaccountable and unmovable and completely unConstitutional.


Police for the most part, are the Praetorian guard. Revenue agents. Rare instances of sheriffs that stand up to statists for the people.

Interesting how the statists throw their Praetorian guard under the bus when it suits them (Beyonce super bowl debacle) in order to ignite the revolution they want.
Because revolutions install a dictator, not remove one. See Orwell.
#2.1.1 fjord on 2016-02-20 09:12 (Reply)
the constitutionality of administrative rule making and administrative agencies has been challenged many, many, many times. sometimes they're constitutional, sometimes they're not.

there's no point in wishful thinking.
#2.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2016-02-20 21:44 (Reply)
Re Apple vs. FBI:

Apple is in the wrong here. This is a criminal case with lots of murdered people, not a privacy issue. The Fourth Amendment ot the Constitution addresses the issue. The FBI has a valid court order, and Apple must comply. Paterico explains the legal situation:

http://patterico.com/2016/02/19/the-apple-iphone-and-the-san-bernardino-shooters-its-not-what-youve-been-told/
#3 bob sykes on 2016-02-20 08:36 (Reply)
FBI went to the wrong place to get a phone cracked. If they had tried Bulgaria, Russia, Romania etc. the phone would have been cracked by now, for a nominal price, no questions asked.
#3.1 BillH on 2016-02-20 09:33 (Reply)
Latest report, while a little foggy, seems to indicate that after the gov't took possession of the phone, someone changed the password which cut off access to all the prior data on it, or in the cloud, or wherever Apple has iphones store data. Makes no sense. If they changed the user name (account) that might hide the old data, but not just the password. Sounds like the gov't might have buggered it up and now wants Apple to bail them out.
#3.1.1 BillhH on 2016-02-20 17:02 (Reply)
From my understanding, the DOJ would be compelling a company to create software that doesn't exist to do what they want. Since when can the government force a company to create a software product through the courts?

This is just wrong.
#3.2 MissT on 2016-02-20 15:23 (Reply)
So a full throated debate about today's issues is now a disaster? Aside from the juvenile name calling (liar)there are still some pretty interesting subjects being discussed.
On the opposite side we have two senior citizens that appear to be at an auction throwing out the items and sums they are willing to bid in an attempt to sway your vote.
The republicans are alive and arguing, not a bad thing in today's world.
#4 Judith on 2016-02-20 10:31 (Reply)
We, our courts, lawmakers and special interests, created fatherlessness. Like so much of the law around gender equality and family issues the special interests have prevailed. If you are married and decide to divorce the odds are that the mother will get the children and the father will get the bills. If you are single and have children in common the state will actively become the plaintiff in a legal battle to extract money from the father. At this point some will say; why not, shouldn't the father pay for his children. Absolutely! I believe that both the father and the mother have an absolute equal responsibility to pay for the support of the child. But it is very rare where the mother is pursued in court for child support and rarer still that the state welfare agency takes the mother to court for support. All of the weight of the law leans heavily on the father and all of the flow of money goes to the mother. Justice is not blind and it has it's thumbs on the scales.

But even if you agree with what I have said you might still ask why isn't the father more active in the child's life. I will give you a real life example: My brother in law had two children by his first wife and after his divorce his ex spent all her effort to cause him trouble. She would deny him visitation out of spite and there were even cases where her live-in boyfriend attempted to beat him up when he went to pick up his two boys for his visitation with them. She filed charges against him which resulted in his spending a day or two in jail on a few occasions and did everything she could to make his life miserable. This type of thing is not uncommon in a failed relationship but it was surprising to me how easily she was able to use a biased legal system to do her bidding.

Make the legal system colorblind and gender blind. Reject the efforts of special interests to carve out special treatment. Make the system fair and just and maybe it will correct a large part of this problem.
#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-02-20 10:36 (Reply)
QUOTE:
How Obama Denied Conservative Judges a Vote - Conservative nominees were blocked from 4 to 6 years

Objecting to specific nominations is not the same as the current situation wherein Republican leaders have indicated they won't consider any nomination whatsoever with regards to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
#6 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 11:07 (Reply)
No where have I heard that they will not consider any nomination. If Obama was to nominate a conservative judge, a constitutionalist judge, I am sure that nomine would sail through. However, that is not what he wants. He wants an activist judge. One that will change the living constitution into what liberal statist want. I am completely dumb founded on why so many people in this country are hell bent on enslaving themselves.
#6.1 B Hammer on 2016-02-20 12:10 (Reply)
B Hammer: No where have I heard that they will not consider any nomination.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader: The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

Many other prominent Republicans have taken the same tack.

B Hammer: If Obama was to nominate a conservative judge, a constitutionalist judge, I am sure that nomine would sail through. However, that is not what he wants. He wants an activist judge.

Which brings up the nature of compromise. The President will have to put forth a nominee that can get Senate support. However, it is the President who "shall nominate", so don't expect another Scalia.
#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 12:19 (Reply)
You have a point, Zach. The Republicans should do just what the Democrats did. Wait till Obummer nominates someone before delaying a vote for a year and then reject him.
#6.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-20 12:38 (Reply)
... or, the Repulican Senators could spew lies about Obama's nominee like the Democrats did to Bork (where Ted Kennedy initiated the verb "to Bork" which means to destroy one's character while smiling) and then vote against him. There are so many ways this can be done!
#6.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-20 20:36 (Reply)
mudbug: ... or, the Repulican Senators could spew lies about Obama's nominee like the Democrats did to Bork

Bork was given a hearing and a vote.
#6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-21 09:07 (Reply)
Yes he was. I offer this as a time honored Democratic tactic for getting rid of SCOTUS nominees.
#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-02-21 20:17 (Reply)
mudbug: or, the Repulican Senators could spew lies about Obama's nominee like the Democrats did to Bork

What lies were spewed about Bork?
#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-22 09:34 (Reply)
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

You might fairly claim that these were not so much lies as silly hyperbole.
#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2016-02-22 15:55 (Reply)
Bork thought the Civil Rights Acts were not only unconstitutional, but based on "a principle of unsurpassed ugliness"; the right to contraception, even for married couples, was "utterly specious"; and that there was no constitutional protection for non-political speech.

These are all valid issues of concern for someone nominated to the Supreme Court.
#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-22 17:44 (Reply)
And given the prior behavior of Democrats with Republican nominees, don't expect a confirmation hearing either. The Democrats invented this game, starting with Bork. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It is unlikely that anyone nominated by Obama is going to possess core American values.
#6.1.1.2 Jim on 2016-02-20 23:16 (Reply)
Jim: And given the prior behavior of Democrats with Republican nominees, don't expect a confirmation hearing either. The Democrats invented this game, starting with Bork.

Bork was given a hearing and a vote.
#6.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-21 09:09 (Reply)
No, you can make it look different and claim it's different and have plausible deniability, but in Obama's case, it's the same thing. There are people for whom it could be different. He isn't one of them. I'm not thinking of an elected Democrat who could give evidence of that level of even-handedness.
#6.2 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-02-20 19:38 (Reply)
Assistant Village Idiot: No, you can make it look different and claim it's different and have plausible deniability, but in Obama's case, it's the same thing.

This isn't clear. It's the Senate, not the President, that advises and consents. Nor is the Senate a monolith. Once a nomination is put forth, political currents will have a strong effect on the outcome, though deference to the President's choice is traditional.
#6.2.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-21 09:04 (Reply)
Obama is swimming against the tide.

He is unlikely to select anyone so obviously qualified as to convince the requred number of Republicans (14) to force a vote. Even easily confirmed appellate judges face more scruitiny at the SC level. McConnell was just reelected and, really, will he be more hated by Democrats in six years if he stymies a vote? (while building some bridges back to the Trump/ Tea Party wing) There are only four GOP Senators from purple/blue states up for election. They could all go on record as supporting confirmation to McConnell's obstructionist routine with no effect on the outcome.
#6.2.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-02-21 13:07 (Reply)
Fatherlessness. This illustrates fatherlessness. Go to your local YMCA or community center or school and watch the elementary school kids playing baseball. The boys who have no father or male adult around do not know how to throw a ball--no one to teach them. If they are not there to teach them how to throw a ball they are not there for the other things either--a downhill slide. And Fathers, teach you daughters how to throw a ball...that's important too.
#7 rocdoctom on 2016-02-20 11:09 (Reply)
QUOTE:
An Athenian for Our Time - Why we read Thucydides

Thucydides doesn't cover the entire Peloponnesian War. Xenophone's Hellenica completes the history of the war, and its consequences.
#8 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 11:35 (Reply)
??? Who says it does? The work is entitled (in translation, to be sure) "History of The Peloponnesian War", and the linked article uses the term "unfinished"...
#8.1 Jess1 on 2016-02-20 12:07 (Reply)
You seem upset. We were merely recommending a companion piece to go with Thucydides' account.
#8.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 12:10 (Reply)
I had the same thought as Jane1, before seeing your name.

I guess it couldn't possibly be your tone-deafness.
#8.1.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-02-20 19:42 (Reply)
Xenophon's Hellenica
#8.1.2 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 12:12 (Reply)
QUOTE:
The Unappeasable Left: At some point the unappeasable left is going to find that when you refuse to negotiate and when you refuse to compromise, you will be subjected to the rule of force.

That's funny, coming as it does in the immediate aftermath of conservative Senate leaders saying they won't even consider a Supreme Court nomination from the President.
#9 Zachriel on 2016-02-20 11:43 (Reply)
No fear Zach. My thinking is the Senate talk is just bluster. For the last several years they have talked tough but they have always collapsed like an umbrella in a hurricane and given 0bama everything he wanted.

Based on their past performance, they will ultimately approve whomever the 0 nominates, particularly if he nominates a black woman such as Lynch. Republicans pee their pants at the thought that the dems might brand them women hating, KKK card carrying, ginger lynching raaacists.

The GOP is the party of we caaaan't oppose 0bama. Conjure up an image of SNL's John Whiner and you will have them pegged exactly.
#9.1 feeblemind on 2016-02-20 13:07 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your 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.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.