Right to Privacy or Presumption of Innocence?

(Courtesy Google Images)

Edward Snowden has achieved international fame as the “whistle-blower” who exposed NSA spying on domestic telephone calls.  He claims that he was motivated to expose this problem in order to protect American’s “right to privacy”.

According to Wikipedia:

 

“The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.”

 

This Guy’s Singin’ My Song

E.W. Jackson is running for Lt. Governor of The Commonwealth of Virginia.   Here’s a speech he delivered on May 18th.  I hope the voters respond to his ideas.  That fact that he dares to present this message should send chills down the spines of most of the spineless, treasonous whores in the Cat House on the Potomac.  I think Mr. Jackson’s message is, unfortunately, a little premature–but not much.  What may not work this year, might work next.

video   00:07:49

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGD6O283ipo&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Defending Children

We provider better protection for politicians–POLITICIANS!!!–than we do for our own children.

 

Don’t Talk To Police

Hmm . . . that’s an interesting question. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s a video of some legal advice from an attorney who talks faster than I do.

Generally speaking, I’d say this attorney’s advice is solid.

But I have some doubts . . . or at least some questions. If you’ve read my hypothesis concerning Notice, then you know I that I believe the proper to response to any governmental Notice is not: 1) to make statements; or 2) to go silent–but instead, 3) to ask questions.

I’m therefore inclined to suspect that every interaction initiated by a police officer begins with some sort of “notice”. That notice may be the emergency lights on top of the cop car. It may be the officer’s uniform, or the fringed flag on his shoulder.  It might be a statement as simple as “I’d like to talk to you,” or “I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

I agree with the attorney in this video that you must not make statements to the police. However, without any supporting evidence, I still have some doubt whether your best choice is to go silent.

 

Just Following Orders . . . .

 

Background Checks for Politicians

Obama’s Unhappy Campers

Last April 17^th, after the Obama administration’s attempt to impose more background checks on those purchasing firearms was defeated, President Obama delivered a speech [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=mK-XF4oG4uE] outside of the White House.  President Obama opened his speech saying,

“A few months ago—in response to too many tragedies—including the shootings of a Congresswoman, Gabby Gifford, who’s here today, and the murder of twenty innocent school children and their teachers—this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence. Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their leaders, not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all of our children.  A few minutes ago, a minority in the US Senate decided it wasn’t worth it.  They blocked commonsense gun reforms . . . .”

It was an interesting speech.  Several of Obama’s aids were present and visibly depressed.  Vice President Biden was so distraught that he appeared to weep.  Even the normally ebullient Obama seemed fundamentally defeated and forlorn.

 

Evolution vs. Creationism–Comparing Consequences

“A Venerable Orang-outang”, a caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve recently made contact with several people with whom I went to high school. I haven’t seen or talked to any of them in most of 50 years. Hard to believe. 50 years?! How th’ hell did that happen?!

One of them (John S.) actually took the time to read a couple of my blog entries. I was delighted.

John then sent an email asking for my opinion on an article about a particular anthropologist. I started to read the article—and I’d like to have responded to the contents of that article—but I was quickly diverted by descriptions of the anthropologist’s dedication to Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

Well, I felt compelled to explain my notions on Evolution and Creationism to John. It wasn’t the subject matter he’d asked for, but he did ask for my opinion on “something”. In doing so, he provided me with a bit of a “soapbox”. For me, that’s an almost irresistible temptation. (In fact, when it comes to soapboxes, I’m kinda like Will Rogers. I never met a soapbox that I didn’t like. I have a little of Archimedes in me, too: “Give me a soapbox big enough and a place to stand, and I could move the world.)

In any case, once I got rolling, I wound up writing over 2,500 words on my notions concerning Evolution and Creationism. That’s too many words to present to just one man by email. Some of that text might be of interest or even insightful for some readers, so I’m reposting here:

 

This Guy’s a Real American Hero

Edward Snowden has admitted to being the source of a recent, massive leak of government secrets to the public.

I’m much surprised to hear him speak.  He’s not only brilliant–which, all by itself is very rare–he’s also an extraordinarily-gifted communicator. And most extraordinarily, he has a real sense of ethics and values for which he’s prepared to lay down his life. He has real integrity. Character.  He belongs in Congress or perhaps even the White House rather than in hiding in Hong Kong. He appears to be as fine a man as America has ever produced. And, of course–as such–he is a natural target for arrest, or worse, by government.

video   00:12:35

 

Fun With Words and Phrases

Questions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to an IRS website, there are a number of publications that include the term “Federal Income Tax” and/or “federal income tax”.

What does the phrase “Federal Income Tax” mean?  I expect that, if asked, most people would agree that the phrase refers to a “Tax” on all “Income” that’s enforced by the “Federal” (Government).

But is it possible that “Federal Income Tax” instead refers to a “Tax” that only applies to “Federal Income”?  If so, what is “Federal Income” and who receives it and is therefore subject to the “Tax”?

I’m not betting that any of this speculation is true, but if there were a “Tax” on “Federal Income,” might that “Tax” only apply to whatever “Income” is received as a Federal Employee?  If you weren’t a “federal employee,” could you be liable for a tax on “Federal Income”

Given just three words (“Federal Income Tax”) we can find at least three potential meanings.

 

Notes on Inter-Gender Communication

Men:  Stop trying to “fix it”.  Just listen, OK?

video   00:01:42