Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Federalist No. 1, part 2
This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. (Decent folks should be anxious about this not just for our national good, but also for the welfare of all mankind.) Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth. (It is in vain that we hope our evaluation of this constitution will be free from the taint of personal interest. In fact, petty local concerns and prejudices will raise many arguments against this constitution that have nothing to do with the merits of the plan.)
Breaking News
Andi's World: "Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion"
An excellent post at another blog I should link.
An excellent post at another blog I should link.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Federalist No. 1, part 1
THE FEDERALIST NO. 1 (Hamilton)
To the People of the State of New York: (Each of the Papers begins with this salutation)
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. (Things are so bad with our current system of government, you've got to consider something new.) The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. (Hamilton speaks of union, safety & welfare, and empire. The preservation of union of the 13 states is the obvious goal, for the common defense and economic prosperity is how I would interpret safety & welfare. Hamilton's use of the word empire is intriguing; could it be that he saw this new constitution not merely for strengthening the union of the existing 13 states, but also as a canvas with which to cover and claim the vast continent to the west and bind it to the original 13? Hamilton probably hoped for at least as much. Although, it is ironic that it was his opposite in many respects, Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded in laying claim to the largest portion of what became the United States as we know it.) It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important quesion, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. (Hamilton brings the issue right to the people and not to the states of the existing confederation.) If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. (I am reminded by this last sentence of Paine's words from The Crisis, "These are the times that try men's souls..." and Hamilton lays it on just as thick in warning against the "general misfortune of mankind" if the wrong election is made.)
To the People of the State of New York: (Each of the Papers begins with this salutation)
After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. (Things are so bad with our current system of government, you've got to consider something new.) The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. (Hamilton speaks of union, safety & welfare, and empire. The preservation of union of the 13 states is the obvious goal, for the common defense and economic prosperity is how I would interpret safety & welfare. Hamilton's use of the word empire is intriguing; could it be that he saw this new constitution not merely for strengthening the union of the existing 13 states, but also as a canvas with which to cover and claim the vast continent to the west and bind it to the original 13? Hamilton probably hoped for at least as much. Although, it is ironic that it was his opposite in many respects, Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded in laying claim to the largest portion of what became the United States as we know it.) It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important quesion, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. (Hamilton brings the issue right to the people and not to the states of the existing confederation.) If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. (I am reminded by this last sentence of Paine's words from The Crisis, "These are the times that try men's souls..." and Hamilton lays it on just as thick in warning against the "general misfortune of mankind" if the wrong election is made.)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Federalist - Introduction
While everyone else drones on about the Gitmo/Pol Pot/Stalin/Hitler equivalency, or such meaningful and deep topics as BlondeJustice's summary of Beauty and the Geek (actually I've never seen the show and don't intend to, but I enjoy her episode summaries), or WayofBass' tribute to Caitlin Clarke (who might be a dark beauty, but certainly not "hot" as described by that erstwhile D&D freak), and Lileks, I have no idea what he has today because for some reason it won't load properly (or I may just be too impatient), I thought that I would (if I can get anything else in here between all these parentheticals), look at the Federalist Papers. Here are some notes from the introduction written to the 1937 edition:
INTRODUCTION by Edward Mead Earle
"It is no less a cause for admiration that their instrument of government should have survived the trials and crises of a century that saw the wreck of more than a score of paper constitutions." (Charles A. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution (1912), pp 86-87).
The Convention, created solely for revising the Articles of Confederation framed a completely new charter of government. The Articles of Confederation made the confederation perpetual and any alteration had to be agreed upon by congress and confirmed by the legislatures of every state. The new Constitution would never have passed such a test. Therefore, it was determined that the Constitution be submitted to specially elected conventions to vote upon it and that it go into effect upon the ratification of 9, but be effective only upon those ratifying. Thus the Constitution was presented for popular endorsement and bitter controvery ensued. A minority of the convention itself refused to endorse the document. In the war of words and pamphlets that followed "Publius" stood forth as the champion of the new order in the State of New York where the issue was in doubt to the last.
Publius put forth 85 lengthy articles in defense of the new consitution. This work, known as The Federalist, was the joint effort of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. This work was "the first and continues to be the most important discussion of federal government, for which the Constitution of the United States set a significant precedent." It has been cited as a source of constitutional law by the Supreme Court of the United States and it is a history of political philosophy on the theory of representative government.
The Federalist remained largely faithful to the points of discussion outlined in its first number: the utility of the union to political prosperity; the insufficiency of the Confederation to preserve the Union; the necessity of an energetic government; the conformity of the Constitution with the principles of republican government; the conformity of the Constitution with the constitution of New York; and the security offered to liberty and property by the new government.
I don't think I'll offer any commentary on the introduction. I may have an inane presumptuous and vain thought or two to offer on the numbered pieces themselves should I get that far.
I'll be out the rest of the week.
INTRODUCTION by Edward Mead Earle
"It is no less a cause for admiration that their instrument of government should have survived the trials and crises of a century that saw the wreck of more than a score of paper constitutions." (Charles A. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution (1912), pp 86-87).
The Convention, created solely for revising the Articles of Confederation framed a completely new charter of government. The Articles of Confederation made the confederation perpetual and any alteration had to be agreed upon by congress and confirmed by the legislatures of every state. The new Constitution would never have passed such a test. Therefore, it was determined that the Constitution be submitted to specially elected conventions to vote upon it and that it go into effect upon the ratification of 9, but be effective only upon those ratifying. Thus the Constitution was presented for popular endorsement and bitter controvery ensued. A minority of the convention itself refused to endorse the document. In the war of words and pamphlets that followed "Publius" stood forth as the champion of the new order in the State of New York where the issue was in doubt to the last.
Publius put forth 85 lengthy articles in defense of the new consitution. This work, known as The Federalist, was the joint effort of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. This work was "the first and continues to be the most important discussion of federal government, for which the Constitution of the United States set a significant precedent." It has been cited as a source of constitutional law by the Supreme Court of the United States and it is a history of political philosophy on the theory of representative government.
The Federalist remained largely faithful to the points of discussion outlined in its first number: the utility of the union to political prosperity; the insufficiency of the Confederation to preserve the Union; the necessity of an energetic government; the conformity of the Constitution with the principles of republican government; the conformity of the Constitution with the constitution of New York; and the security offered to liberty and property by the new government.
I don't think I'll offer any commentary on the introduction. I may have an inane presumptuous and vain thought or two to offer on the numbered pieces themselves should I get that far.
I'll be out the rest of the week.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Navy Cross
This was forwarded to me by e-mail. I've read it before in other places. Anyone know anything more about it?
Meet Brian Chontosh.
Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant (now Captain) in the United States Marine Corps.
And a genuine hero.
The Secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.
At 29 Palms in California, Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.
That's a big deal.
But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.
Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the jerks who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.
We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.
But we don't hear about the heroes.
The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.
The ones we completely ignore.
Like Brian Chontosh.
It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.
When all hell broke loose.
Ambush city.
The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.
So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.
It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.
And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.
Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.
And he ran down the trench.
With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.
And he killed them all.
He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.
At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.
When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.
But that's probably not how he would tell it.
He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.
"By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."
That's what the citation says.
And that's what nobody will hear.
Meet Brian Chontosh.
Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant (now Captain) in the United States Marine Corps.
And a genuine hero.
The Secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.
At 29 Palms in California, Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.
That's a big deal.
But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.
Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the jerks who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.
We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.
But we don't hear about the heroes.
The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.
The ones we completely ignore.
Like Brian Chontosh.
It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.
When all hell broke loose.
Ambush city.
The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.
So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.
It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.
And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.
Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.
And he ran down the trench.
With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.
And he killed them all.
He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.
At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.
When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.
But that's probably not how he would tell it.
He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.
"By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service."
That's what the citation says.
And that's what nobody will hear.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Krispy Kreme's
kingcountyjournal.com - : "``They'll generally eat what's there,'' Christensen said."
I just surprised that they didn't catch any officers.
yeah, it's an old one, but it never gets old.
I just surprised that they didn't catch any officers.
yeah, it's an old one, but it never gets old.
On The Menu
The Discerning Texan: quotes from a National Review article "more time has passed since 9/11 than transpired between Pearl Harbor and the surrender of the Japanese empire, "
One of the 3 MSM news reports mentioned American casualties in Iraq today at 1,700. I would note that that number is less than the number killed in the 9/11 attack and fewer than those killed in the war in the Pacific. Iraq is not Vietnam, but neither is it WWII. But I digress.
The gist of the article quoted by the DiscTex is that not enough is being done with regard to Iran and Syria -- that the Bush administration is keeping the rhetoric and saber rattling muted on these two nations who support terrorism, harbor our enemies and suppress and torture those who speak out for liberty.
While the point has some validity, I have to argue that long term success in Iraq is more beneficial than immediate action against these other states. Iraq could prove to be the base from which freedom can spread in the middle east. If we can't do it in Iraq on a long term basis, what makes anyone think we can do it in the entire region on a short term basis. If the elephant goes down, it must be one bite at a time.
One of the 3 MSM news reports mentioned American casualties in Iraq today at 1,700. I would note that that number is less than the number killed in the 9/11 attack and fewer than those killed in the war in the Pacific. Iraq is not Vietnam, but neither is it WWII. But I digress.
The gist of the article quoted by the DiscTex is that not enough is being done with regard to Iran and Syria -- that the Bush administration is keeping the rhetoric and saber rattling muted on these two nations who support terrorism, harbor our enemies and suppress and torture those who speak out for liberty.
While the point has some validity, I have to argue that long term success in Iraq is more beneficial than immediate action against these other states. Iraq could prove to be the base from which freedom can spread in the middle east. If we can't do it in Iraq on a long term basis, what makes anyone think we can do it in the entire region on a short term basis. If the elephant goes down, it must be one bite at a time.
Friday, June 10, 2005
P.D.ing again
My associate, whom I think I shall refer to for no particular reason as Gandalf, is off on vacation and I got to handle his PD calender for a day last week and for today. Last week, one of the guys who came for a DUI sentencing, appeared drunk -- some paperwork wasn't in so the sentencing was continued. Another genius was in custody and was complaining to me about a case in another county where was supposed to have had a trial on the day before -- Gee, maybe he should talk to his PD in that county about it!!.
A good part of today's calendar was probation violations. On the last of these, when the judge asked how we would proceed, I said, as I had on all of the others, that the defendant would deny the allegations. The judge responded, "What a surprise." He is a jovial judge but it made me wonder if I was missing something in the procedure. I did speak with the judge afterward and he said he was just having fun, everyone denies the allegations at the PV arraignment.
I struck out on all three Motions for Bond reduction --at one point the judge said to the defendant, "Do I have stupid written on my forehead? This is third time you've been here for a probation violation and now you're charged with two new criminal offenses. No, I'm not going to lower the bond, it is reasonable as set, motion denied."
But I did dig out a couple that looked like sure jail and got probation or probation reinstated. The presentence investigations recommended jail time, of course the prosecutor recommended jail time, and the probation officer recommended jail time. No doubt the judge was swayed by my eloquent argument and ... I was going to paste in a sound file of my argument here (actually a clip of Elmer Fudd) but I can't seem to make it work. I'll try it another time.
A good part of today's calendar was probation violations. On the last of these, when the judge asked how we would proceed, I said, as I had on all of the others, that the defendant would deny the allegations. The judge responded, "What a surprise." He is a jovial judge but it made me wonder if I was missing something in the procedure. I did speak with the judge afterward and he said he was just having fun, everyone denies the allegations at the PV arraignment.
I struck out on all three Motions for Bond reduction --at one point the judge said to the defendant, "Do I have stupid written on my forehead? This is third time you've been here for a probation violation and now you're charged with two new criminal offenses. No, I'm not going to lower the bond, it is reasonable as set, motion denied."
But I did dig out a couple that looked like sure jail and got probation or probation reinstated. The presentence investigations recommended jail time, of course the prosecutor recommended jail time, and the probation officer recommended jail time. No doubt the judge was swayed by my eloquent argument and ... I was going to paste in a sound file of my argument here (actually a clip of Elmer Fudd) but I can't seem to make it work. I'll try it another time.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Journalism is Dead
The American Thinker:links a story about "crazy Katie Couric fawning before scandal-plagued Kofi Annanm and urging him to interfere in US politics. "
That reminded me this morning while flipping channels on the three networks -- not one of talking heads could conduct an actual interview. Every member of the morningshow gang that I saw did nothing but make statements and ask the subject to agree. I wanted to shout, "Objection, the idiot journalist imposter is leading the witness." I really see no point in having the subject appear for the charade of an interview when the complete story is told by the reporter and the subject is asked to do nothing but agree.
Is this method of questioning used to create the illusion that the reporters are omniscient and therefore to be believed in all things? Or is it simply a way to save time and keep the subjects from saying something that might be embarrassing or incriminating. These reports are mostly throw-away human interest stuff with plain folks as the subjects. I guess the talking heads can't take the chance that Billy Bob is going to say something like, "Yeah, I just come outside to see if them two kids across the river was fornicatin' again when that big ole bar come over the fence with a look on her face that was meaner than Hillary Clinton after one of Bill's midnight intern meetin's. She laid that claw across my backside and it hurt worse than when my wife found the still in the root cellar..."
The major networks, they decide. End of discussion.
That reminded me this morning while flipping channels on the three networks -- not one of talking heads could conduct an actual interview. Every member of the morningshow gang that I saw did nothing but make statements and ask the subject to agree. I wanted to shout, "Objection, the idiot journalist imposter is leading the witness." I really see no point in having the subject appear for the charade of an interview when the complete story is told by the reporter and the subject is asked to do nothing but agree.
Is this method of questioning used to create the illusion that the reporters are omniscient and therefore to be believed in all things? Or is it simply a way to save time and keep the subjects from saying something that might be embarrassing or incriminating. These reports are mostly throw-away human interest stuff with plain folks as the subjects. I guess the talking heads can't take the chance that Billy Bob is going to say something like, "Yeah, I just come outside to see if them two kids across the river was fornicatin' again when that big ole bar come over the fence with a look on her face that was meaner than Hillary Clinton after one of Bill's midnight intern meetin's. She laid that claw across my backside and it hurt worse than when my wife found the still in the root cellar..."
The major networks, they decide. End of discussion.
McCain's motto
Ann Coulter: addresses the Democrat fillibuster of Bolton following the deal by the despicable seven "If the 'maverick' Republicans had a slogan, it would be: 'Always surrender from a position of strength.' "
Maybe McCain's cheer is: "Undermine, undermine, until the party's mine."
Maybe McCain's cheer is: "Undermine, undermine, until the party's mine."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
D-Day
June 6, 1944: The Allied armies conduct the greatest amphibious invasion of all time by landing on the shores of Normandy in the face of strong resistance. Thousands of brave men bled and died on those rocky shores. One of those who served and bled was my father-in-law who served as a medic and landed at Omaha Beach where a german bullet tore up his knee. He returned to service and was wounded again. He returned home at the end of the war with two purple hearts, bronze star, good conduct medal, and another award or two that I can't remember. He seemed to be the most proud of the good conduct medal -- as for the others, he was just doing what he knew he had to do. In his later years, the knee wound caused him difficulty. He died a few years ago, but his sacrifice and valor, like that of his fellow soldiers, must never be forgotten.
I was disappointed that none of the major networks aired The Longest Day or even Saving Private Ryan. I did watch Saints and Soldiers and highly recommend it. My friend Mike left me some WWII and D-Day documentaries and I look forward to viewing them.
I was disappointed that none of the major networks aired The Longest Day or even Saving Private Ryan. I did watch Saints and Soldiers and highly recommend it. My friend Mike left me some WWII and D-Day documentaries and I look forward to viewing them.
Way Off Bass
Way Off Bass: Takes the best gems of a long article that exceeded my attention span, and makes his own observations that reminded me of a similar experience in law school: "That is, when I started here, the louder folks just assumed I was one of them, fully aware of the inherent evil and stupidity of all things Conservative, a hater of the Bush theocratic hegemony, etc, and so I heard lots and lots of anti-Bush remarks.
I tried to keep my opinions to myself, of course, in the interest of harmony (because I really am rather pacifistic, much preferring to get along than not), but it always happens that maybe I don't laugh at the right jokes and eventually folks figure out that I'm a damned conservative after all and suddenly - and with no small sense of both relief and even greater amusement on my part - not a single political word is every uttered directly towards me. (What would be the point, since I'm stupid enough to be conservative?)
I'm no longer one of them, you see. "
One classmate declared me to be "dangerous" when he found that I did not agree with the views that he and another friend had been bouncing across the table for weeks. It was okay when I was thought to part of the good-think crowd -- I became dangerous, as if I had morphed into Vader in that instant.
I tried to keep my opinions to myself, of course, in the interest of harmony (because I really am rather pacifistic, much preferring to get along than not), but it always happens that maybe I don't laugh at the right jokes and eventually folks figure out that I'm a damned conservative after all and suddenly - and with no small sense of both relief and even greater amusement on my part - not a single political word is every uttered directly towards me. (What would be the point, since I'm stupid enough to be conservative?)
I'm no longer one of them, you see. "
One classmate declared me to be "dangerous" when he found that I did not agree with the views that he and another friend had been bouncing across the table for weeks. It was okay when I was thought to part of the good-think crowd -- I became dangerous, as if I had morphed into Vader in that instant.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Canadian Justice
edmontonsun.com : "[He] moved off the body and our staff recognized that [he] had killed the person, and they took one shot and killed [him]"
The male had previously been escorted from the area, only to return and kill the woman who even attempted to climb a tree to escape.
This account of a male killing a female contrasts sharply with the account below of a female attacking a lewd male. In this case, they didn't even ask any questions, they just shot him.
The male had previously been escorted from the area, only to return and kill the woman who even attempted to climb a tree to escape.
This account of a male killing a female contrasts sharply with the account below of a female attacking a lewd male. In this case, they didn't even ask any questions, they just shot him.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Not even arrested
The Daily Inter Lake: "Caught with his pants down"
He admits that he was in the female's livingroom with his pants down in the presence of her children -- and she attacked him. He had two weapons but had dropped one and proved unable to draw the second. -- No charges filed.
He admits that he was in the female's livingroom with his pants down in the presence of her children -- and she attacked him. He had two weapons but had dropped one and proved unable to draw the second. -- No charges filed.
What they don't want to hear
FOXSports.com - USA- State governor upset : "'Governor, we're really very sorry. The British people don't want to hear it,' The Star-Ledger of Newark reported in Thursday's newspapers."
Guess Who
HughHewitt.com: "ended up making Nixon look like a model of candor by comparison"
See Hewitt to verify your guess.
See Hewitt to verify your guess.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Star Wars Real Politik
Three Knockdown Rule: A Warning To John McCain: "Long story short, just remember this. Take a side, commit to an ideology, or else you'll end up losing a hand right before George Bush or Harry Reid fries you with blue Sith lightning. "
Nod to millerstime for the link.
Nod to millerstime for the link.
