RANT: Why are there “two party consent” laws anyway?

Saturday, August 1, 2015

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150801/us–abortion_providers-videos-bd47d058d1.html

Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group
Jul 31, 8:37 PM (ET)
By SUDHIN THANAWALA

*** begin quote ***

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the release of any recordings made at meetings of an abortion providers’ association by an anti-abortion group that previously revealed secretly recorded videos of a Planned Parenthood leader.

Judge William Orrick in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

*** end quote ***

Sorry, it sounds like “prior restraint”.

And, why is a federal judge enforcing a California “privacy” law?

Argh, and why are there “two party consent” laws anyway?

To coverup criminal conduct!

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Video record all suspect interrogations

Thursday, July 23, 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/17/judge-kozinski-on-reforms-that-can-help-prevent-prosecutorial-misconduct/

The Volokh Conspiracy
Judge Kozinski on reforms that can help prevent prosecutorial misconduct
By Eugene Volokh July 17

*** begin quote ***

4. Video record all suspect interrogations. The surprising frequency of false confessions should make us deeply skeptical of any interrogation we cannot view from beginning to end. Suspects are frequently isolated and pressured in obvious and subtle ways, and when the process ends we often have very different accounts of what happened inside the interrogation room. In those circumstances, whom are we to believe? Most of the time, the judge and juries believe the police.

There may have been a time when we had to rely on such second-hand reports, but technology has now made this unnecessary: Video recording equipment is dirt cheap, and storage space for the resulting files is endless. No court should ever admit a confession unless the prosecution presents a video of the entire interrogation process from beginning to end. [Footnote: This practice has been adopted in England, Ireland and Australia, where the general rule is that all interrogations — and not just confessions — must be recorded on audio or video. However, Australia is the only country that explicitly provides that the consequence for failing to record is inadmissibility of the contents of the interrogation. In addition, a number of states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Montana and New Jersey, require all interrogations to be recorded and consider compliance with that requirement a factor in determining whether a statement made in an interrogation is admissible.]

It appears that change is underway. Just last year, the Justice Department reversed its century-old prohibition against recording interrogations and adopted a policy “establish[ing] a presumption that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will electronically record statements made by individuals in their custody.”

[Footnote moved: In fact, why don’t police officers wear body cameras at all times? It would protect the suspect and the police officer. See Steve Tuttle, Cambridge University Study Shows On-Officer Video Reduces Use-of-Force Incidents by 59 percent, TASER Int’l (Apr. 8, 2013) (the use of “officer worn cameras reduced the rate of use-of-force incidents by 59 percent” and “utilization of cameras led to an 87.5 percent reduction in complaints” by citizens against police officers); see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned (2014).]

*** end quote ***

If I ever get on a jury — which is so very unlikely when they ask you what bumper stickers you have on your car —then I would n’t believe anything a Gooferment employee says. 

Show me the victim and the video tape, then I’ll convict.

Otherwise, you have an uphill trek to convince me.

Whatever happened to the ethos that better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man got to jail?

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #  


RANT: Linking artificial sweeteners to bad results

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/no_author/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you/

Is Drinking Diet Soda Really Bad for Your Health?
The answer may surprise you
By Barbara Minton
Natural Society
July 18, 2015

*** begin quote ***

So why does this happen? To put it simply: artificial sweeteners. Zero-calorie sweeteners make drinks up to 600 times more sweet than regular sugar, setting the bar for satiation at a much higher level. Another consideration is that fake sugars can change the friendly bacteria living in the gut in ways that would increase susceptibility to the insulin resistance and glucose intolerance that precedes a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes.

Women drinking two or more diet sodas a day experienced a 30% decline in their kidney function over the course of only a decade, says another study. Those researchers found that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose were to blame for the rapid degeneration of kidney filtration rates.

*** and ***

Renown Dr. Morando Soffritti recently confirmed what other scientists had observed as much as 30 years ago, documenting that consuming aspartame leads to a host of illness and disease that includes malignant tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, and premature death.

*** end quote ***

If I’d know this 30 years ago when it was a proven risk, then maybe I could have gotten my wife to stop drinking it.

Leukemia, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other side effects!

Someone should be hung.

Anyone care to tell me that the FDA is there to protect us?

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Today I saw up close and personal the results of America’s “drug policy”

Sunday, July 19, 2015

2015-Jul-19

Today, a Mom, could have been any troubled young person’s Mom, unplug her child from life support.

The result of a drug overdose.

It wasn’t the first time, or the first warning signal, or the only time, but this was the last time.

When will “We, The Sheeple” wise up?

Just like during (alcohol) “Prohibition”, people were blinded, sickened, and killed by “moonshine”.

Making a prohibited substance “legal” MEANS clean known quantity of drugs.

It ALSO makes them so “less cool”.

Portugal demonstrates the way from criminalizing a basic human failing and turning it into a “medical” issue.

Unfortunately, the Drug Dealers, the “police”, and the politicians are all incentivized to keep the “(pseudo) War on (some) Drugs” going regardless of the collateral damage — killing the youth, maiming those that survive, and scaring some with criminal records that they can never “outgrow” — allowing a flourishing “drug culture”, made “kool” by music, celebrities, and pop culture — and destroying our civil liberties in the process.

Now that I have time on my hands, I will never accept Drug Prohibition as a rational policy.

I hope that anyone who reads this NEVER votes for any politician who doesn’t promise on Day One of his term to eliminate the “(pseudo) War on (some) Drugs”! Maybe one politician can’t do it, but they could have the courage of Doctor Ron Paul, aka Doctor No, who never voted other than his conscience.

And, I mean this at every level of the Gooferment. I don’t care if you’re running for dog catcher; you have to tell me how you are going to end this national / global insanity.

I’ve always felt this way since the 60’s, but now in my old age, I see its futility and stupidity.

Requiescat In Pacem, young Anthony. 

And I hope your Mom finds peace.

Dona Nobis Pacem

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Lauren Hill snubbed

Sunday, July 19, 2015

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/07/16/outrage-over-espn-giving-bruce-jenner-courage-award-over-lauren-hill/

OUTRAGE OVER ESPN GIVING BRUCE JENNER ‘COURAGE’ AWARD OVER LAUREN HILL
by WILLIAM BIGELOW
16 Jul 2015 

*** begin quote ***

The Internet sears with outrage over ESPN’s bestowal of the Arthur Ashe Courage Award on the Athlete Formerly Known as Bruce Jenner rather than giving it to Lauren Hill, the utterly courageous 19-year-old woman who battled inoperable brain cancer while playing basketball for Mount St. Joseph’s.

Before she died in April, Hill had achieved a dream of her own, scoring the first and last basket when Mount St. Joseph’s defeated Hiram College 66-55 on November 2014. The courageous young woman, knowing she wouldn’t survive, decided to use her notoriety to raise money for cancer research; by last November, she had raised $1 million for DIPC Cancer Research.

*** and ***

The Los Angeles Times reported that a possible reason for the honoring of Jenner derived from a deal between ABC and Jenner. ABC televised the ESPYs and Jenner had granted an exclusive interview to ABC’s Diane Sawyer in April regarding the gender transition Jenner was undergoing. The interview grabbed huge ratings.

*** end quote ***

This is a disgrace, and why TV is dying.

I mean no ill will to anyone.

“Bruce” Jenner is working through his issues. And, I really feel sorry for his troubles.

That being said, ESPN / ABC / DISNEY has disgraced themselves. I used to think a lot of Disney and ESPN. ABC not at all. 

This demonstrates that this entity is all about “political correctness” and money.

So, I’ve put ESPN on my personal “ESAD” (“eat <synonym for excrement> and die”) list.

True; they probably won’t notice, but I will. 

I used to like to watch “sports” and PTI was particularly “fun”. Not any more.

Maybe if everyone turns the ESPN / ABC / DISNEY products off, then they will get the message.

Argh!

(I used to like the view before Rosie became the wicked witch of the west. And there was some balance on the politics. Just how out of touch it’s become is evidence by Whoopie being taken to the management woodshed to stop defending Cosby. It’s all about PC and $.)

Sadly, I’ve realize that it IS the “vast wasteland”.

# – # – # – # – # 

 

OUTRAGE OVER ESPN GIVING BRUCE JENNER ‘COURAGE’ AWARD OVER LAUREN HILL


RANT: Attkisson on her FOIA on an epidemic

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

https://sharylattkisson.com/u-s-govt-routinely-breaks-freedom-of-info-laws/

U.S. Govt. “Routinely Breaks Freedom of Info. Laws”
by sattkisson on July 3, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Federal bureaucrats paid tax dollars to act on our behalf routinely break the law with impunity, treating public material as if it’s confidential, secret information to be controlled by a chosen few. They withhold it from us, its rightful owners, while sharing it with select partners such as corporations or other so-called “stakeholders.”

In October, I filed a FOIA request when the CDC was not forthcoming about the epidemic of Enterovirus EV-D68 possibly linked to the deaths of 14 children and 115 paralyzed children.

In December, long past the supposed 20-day response time, I asked about the status. CDC answered incredibly that officials were just too busy with the Ebola crisis to fulfill my FOIA on EV-D68. Even now with the excuse of the Ebola crisis over, I still haven’t been given any EV-D68 information eight months after I asked.

*** end quote ***

The Gooferment is immoral, ineffective, and inefficient!

And, sometimes downright dangerous.

Why should the CDC be any different?

Anyone who expects the Gooferment to protect you will be sadly mistaken. 

How do we get it back?

Secession. Self-reliance. Supportive communities of interest.

Support only private for profit “small” business.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Some things are “different” depending upon your bias

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

http://cafehayek.com/2015/06/sauce-for-the-progressive-goose-is-sauce-for-the-free-market-gander.html

Sauce for the Progressive Goose Is Sauce for the Free-Market Gander
by DON BOUDREAUX on JUNE 28, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Here’s a letter to a gracious, learned, and smart long-time correspondent whose view of the world differs greatly from my view of it:

Mr. Claude Knowlton, Esq.

Dear Mr. Knowlton:

Thanks for your e-mail.

You think me “wooden” and “unrealistic” for criticizing the majority opinion inKing v. Burwell.  Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

You are, of course, correct to note that the meanings of words and phrases are often ambiguous and, thus, require interpretation.  And reasonable people can and do frequently disagree about the best interpretations of ambiguous words or phrases in their specific contexts.  Recognition of this reality, however, is no license for a court to give to words and phrases meanings that those words and phrases plainly do not have.

*** and ***

This controversial interpretation of the statute is then challenged in court.  If Chief Justice Richard Epstein accepts – as he surely would – the administration’s claim that a minimum hourly wage of $7.25 harms many of the workers who Congress insists it meant to help, why should he and other like-minded members of the SCOTUS not use the logic of King v. Burwell to uphold the Paul administration’s reasonable argument that, to make the Fair Labor Standards Act work as Congress intended, “$7.25” must be read as meaning “$0.01”?  I certainly now can see no good reason for any such “wooden” and “unrealistic” restraint on the part of the Court.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics

*** end quote ***

Of course, “liberals” (aka socialist Big Gooferment types), would insist that laws they favor mean what they say; not what a “classical liberal” (i.e., little L libertarian like the Dead Old White Guys) would want them to mean!

Argh.

–30–


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,568 other followers

%d bloggers like this: