Tuesday Night Radio: Reading is Guessing

21 Oct

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.


Posted by on October 21, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Definitions, Radio


Tags: , ,

8 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Reading is Guessing

  1. palani

    October 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    Judge: “Do you understand the charges?”
    Victim: “Gag me with a spoon yet I groc ye not.”

    • Toland

      October 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM

      Of all the mysteries of legalism discussed on this blog, this one seems the easiest to solve:

      Q: Do you understand the charges against you?

      A: I’d be glad to answer that question, judge, but first a bit of clarification is necessary. What do you mean by “understand”?

      Asking for a definition is totally legitimate under these conditions. Mostly likely, the judge will say “understand” means “to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend” or similar.

      Otherwise, if the definition ends up being something sinister or weird, or if the judge’s reply seems evasive, then you will have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

      • pop de adam

        October 25, 2014 at 1:39 AM

        Pink Floyd – Careful With That Axe Eugene

      • Henry

        October 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM


        Stop looking for solutions. Emphasize your victimhood.

        Consider all the reasons to fear and hate.

  2. palani

    October 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM

    The British understanding of motorcars is that the larger the engine is the faster they will go. An English friend visiting Florida one time with his Scottish wife got stopped for speeding and hauled into court. The previous case (a German tourist with no understanding of English) was just finishing with the judge letting the German off on the same charge because he couldn’t communicate with him. The way my friend tells it his Scottish wife got up and berated the judge suggesting that he was willing to punish them for speaking English while letting the non-English speaker pass. Case dismissed. [Few arguments hold water against a Scottish wife when money is involved]

  3. Anthony Clifton

    October 22, 2014 at 8:15 AM

    how do the American people define hypocrisy ?

  4. Anthony Clifton

    October 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM

  5. pop de adam

    October 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM

    Is there any difference from flouting a “law” and “treason”, the results might vary, but the sentiment remains. The “law” must be stoic, solid and unyielding. Every man must be lesser than this law, yet man made this law. We are told laws will not yield though every prosecution is evidence they do. We are constantly warned against taking matters into our own hands, as this would be unjust. Are we not doing this anyhow? A politician might sign any thing, I might sign any thing, who hurts longer for such an indiscretion?

    from Bastiats, The Law:

    As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s