“As he was moving up my leg, he moved his hand aggressively up to my crotch and he hurt me,” Canseco said. “The natural reaction is when someone goes for your crotch and it hurts, you’re going to pull back — and my right arm came down and moved away his hand briskly.”
That’s when the agent stopped the whole process, Canseco said.
“As I moved his hand away, he claims, ‘I’ve been assaulted, I’ve been assaulted,’” he said.
The agent then called the police over and asked them to arrest the lawmaker.
“I told him, ‘Hey, I’m the guy who was assaulted,’” Canseco said.
as·sault [uh-sawlt] noun
1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
When an officer of the law cries assault, you’re in trouble physically and legally... unless you’re a high level bureaucrat. The actions leading up to such a claim suggest the slippery slope that is the legal definition of ‘assault’. Because of the ambiguity of the word ‘threatening’ an assault is now considered on a preemptive basis like many of our more recent government policies.
Since it was the republicans who gave us the TSA, it's kind of poetic that this should happen; not that I condone the TSA’s actions. Some may argue that travel is a privilege. It isn't. Travel is required to trade (and is a trade in and of itself) and trade is required to live. And life is, arguably, still a right in this country.
A while back I had the opportunity to visit The Cather Prairie, a restoration project just south of Red Cloud intended to re-create the prairie as it existed in Willa Cather’s time. It is impressive in physical scope (several hundred acres), as well as in the obvious depth of commitment of those involved in the effort. Even in the early spring, the rolling swards of grassland, the pastoral springs festooned with Cather's beloved cottonwoods and a jangly profusion of wildflowers offer balm to the most calloused soul. But even as I soaked up the prairie lusciousness on that breezy Saturday morn, questions, like the springs in the canyons, bubbled up in my mind. I am generally reluctant to allow my enjoyment of beauty, order and symmetry to be disturbed by ontological bickerings, but a certain lack of metaphysical clarity implicit in the situation pesters me.
By what spurious aesthetic do we value a "virgin" prairie, by which we mean one that existed in, say, 1875, over one which exists now - in 2012? What standard gives us license to consider a sweep of prairie grass, unsullied by tree, bush or plowshare to be more valued than some other green stretch, this one liberally punctuated with small red cedars, plum thickets and gawky goldenrod?
Is not the current state (or any state) of the land an equally authentic element of the Gaean creation story - our earth's story? Is bluestem more deserving of a place on the prairie than musk thistle? Does the cow deserve to drink at the spring, or must she walk half a mile to quench her thirst at a stock tank filled from an artificially drilled well - just to satisfy some arbitrarily defined sense of epochal legitimacy?
Biological evolution can best be understood when viewed as "analog" in nature, that is, as moving more or less smoothly from one state to the next, rather than as "digital" - jumping from one level of development to another, quantum-style. If this is so then it seems likely that all those intermediate states should be equally valued or justified. So, logically, it is difficult to see why certain of those states should be designated more desirable than others, based solely on the forms of flora and fauna currently extant upon them. Put another way, should we make judgments that only the ecosphere itself has the right to make? It makes decisions based on a couple of hundred million years’ worth of evolutionary experience - compared to our paltry one or two millennia.
I do not suggest that making sensible use of the resources provided to us by a loving Maker is not a good idea; indeed, efficient utilization of relatively scarce resources is not only a good geo-strategy, it is the only one I can think of that has demonstrable long term survival value. But I do submit that we must be careful about confusing stewardship with conservation, preservation or re-creation; to do otherwise is to find ourselves, to steal Buckley's marvelous phrase, "in diligent pursuit of the irrelevant."
So why do we do it? Why do we expend so much of our time and energies lusting after the existential architectures of yesterday? I wonder if there is another, more subtle dynamic at work here. Perhaps we seek the world of Cather (and others), search for the flowing source of her genius, not solely, or even primarily, in her written works, but by trying to physically re-create the world after those images she has left us through her words.
Extending the analysis further, isn't it possible that perhaps we are simply responding to some limbic desire to dwell, even temporarily, in a world that today exists only in dream and legend, yet has been so purely and powerfully evoked by Cather and others? Are we really just trying to build the "Good Old Days" into our own internal geographies? In our efforts, for example, to restore the "shaggy prairie" that she extolled, maybe all we're doing is hearkening to a primal need to seek the comforting swaddle of the known - the already experienced - or, to call it by its more familiar name, the past? Maybe conservancy, either actual or intellectual, is just another of our artful, and ultimately futile, attempts to go home again.
It seems that one of the beefs against Ron Paul supporters in the larger Republican Party—and to be fair, with many Paul supporters, it is a legitimate beef if you look at it from the perspective of the Party—is that if/when Ron Paul loses the race, those supporters will bolt for somewhere else (Gary Johnson), not vote at all, and will not even be helpful to other Republican candidates.
I get the concern of the Party regulars in that regard, and indeed, I’ve encouraged Paul supporters in Nebraska to find other candidates who they could support--locally or at the state level—and get involved. A willingness to get involved beyond the very visible Presidential race might give party regulars at least some pause in writing them off as one trick ponies.
I tell friends that it’s best to avoid the public “No one but Ron Paul” attitude. In our own minds, we may or may not take that position—but to publicly state it sends a very visible message to the larger GOP—people who many of us are still going to need to at least nominally win over if we want to move through the convention systems—it sends the message that we’re not a team player.
But when we’re asked whether we will support the ultimate nominee of the Party, perhaps we ought to turn that question around, and ask: Would YOU support Ron Paul if he’s the nominee of the Party? What result will we get from hard core Romney supporters (there’ve got to be a few of them around, right? )? I suspect that question will throw them back on their heels, and we’d get an answer like “I intend to support the nominee of the Party.”
In reality, many of those people would only nominally (if that) support Paul for President. They wouldn’t give to his campaign, and they wouldn’t actively work for him, but they also (probably) wouldn’t openly criticize him, and they’d probably leave the presidential box empty, or vote for him as the somewhat-lesser-than two evils.
The thing that distinguishes Ron Paul supporters from the supporters of every other Republican that’s been in the race (besides enthusiasm for their candidate) is the open willingness to say “Paul or no one”. One has to admire that level of commitment by supporters, but can still be critical of that somewhat petulant attitude.
We can argue about whether Ron Paul’s been “shut out” by media blackout (I would argue that compared to 2008, he’s been very visible); and we can fight over whether the Party has it “in” for him and his supporters (indeed, anecdotal evidence would suggest that much of Party establishment “does”). But, while many Republicans probably wouldn’t like a Ron Paul nomination, most of them probably wouldn’t be out there visibly fighting against him once he won—because ultimately, they like the Democrats even less than they like Paul.
I’m not suggesting that Paul supporters flock to Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination (which, at this moment, it looks like he will). What I am suggesting is a more measured approach. In terms of long-term influence in the Party, saying nothing might be more effective. And regardless of whose name you check off in the voting booth, loudly proclaiming an intention not to vote for the Republican nominee does little other than peg YOU as one that the Party regulars shouldn’t trust.
We have a *secret ballot*, after all. Vote for who you will. The Party folks—if there are significant votes for a third party, will figure it out—they’ll understand why their nominee didn’t do as well as he should have. But they won’t be able to pin a vote to any individual, and then you won’t have further damaged your own reputation in the Party.
Regardless of what happens this year, chances are, there will be other elections. In 2014, there will be local, state and federal elections. The whole political world is infinitely bigger than just Ron Paul, and we would be well served by remembering that. Change will not come solely from the top—it’ll come when we start electing (and holding accountable) state legislators, House members, Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and even lower position like City Council members.
So support our candidate enthusiastically, but don’t imply that you’re going to take your ball and leave if he doesn’t win; if you’re going to leave, just leave quietly. And then get to work for the future.
... the way in which human beings adapt to their environment is by having and satisfying desires/needs. The greater the variety, variability and degree of differentiation of a specie's ability to have and satisfy needs/desires, the greater its ability to fit successfully with the wider environment. So the ability to constantly renew, extend and grow this ability is key to survival and advancement.
Now, what is wealth? Wealth consist of things and practices that enable man to satisfy his desires/needs. Hence, if an open-ended development of desires is an anthropological sine qua nonand the key to continuous successful adaptation to a changing and changed environment, then incessantly growing wealth is just as important.
If man's ability to adapt to and advance in his environment is damaged and curtailed, he suffers impoverishment (relative to the unhampered presence of this ability), even to a degree that may well lead to stark poverty, misery, and death.
Truncating, inhibiting or fully precluding man's ability to develop and satisfy ever more desires/needs and hence to build up more and more wealth is quite simply inhumane. Not to mention that resource-intensive ambitions like comprehensive environmental protection cannot be achieved unless a high level of wealth is achieved and maintained.
These ideas in mind, I found the below both congenial and most instructive in its own right:
The idol of “renewable” energy is part of the broader idol of “sustainability.” Both of these are false idols that obscure the true beauty of capitalism, which is that in producing energy–and everything else–it is better than “sustainable”–it is progressive. “Renewable” or “sustainable” implies that the ideal life trajectory is one of repetition, using the same methods and materials over and over. But that is an ideal fit for an animal, not a human being. The human mode of existence is to always get better, always improve, always discover how to use new raw materials to create energy.
Unless this is the only site you read, you were probably inundated (and hopefully repulsed) yesterday with the news that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of legalizing necrophilia for up to six hours after the death of a wife.
Might as well bookmark this, because the Freepers et al have undoubtedly added this to their talking points, much like the "Afghanistan men marry toddlers!" meme that is every bit as alive and well as the belief that Iraq had WMDs.
Reuters journalist Christopher Holme wired back to London that it had been the most terrible air strike of all time. But German squadron leader Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen noted enthusiastically that Guernica "has been literally razed to the ground. Bomb craters can be seen in the streets. Simply wonderful!"
I had a great time in Gent, getting to know marvellous Professor Hülsmann and thoroughly enjoying his lectures. But I am under the weather with an obstinate cold and too exhausted to go into details of this most successful trip now.
…The move came after attendees irritated Sotelo by rejecting her choice to run the caucus - former King County Councilman David Irons. Instead, the group voted for Tamara Smilanich, a Paul supporter. That prompted Sotelo to declare the meeting was no longer a Republican Party event - but a Ron Paul campaign event.
Sotelo says she asked the group to continue its meeting outside because the King County Republican Party -- not the Paul campaign -- had paid for the facility and for the insurance. She added that Smilanich stopped her from addressing the group.
…One caucus attendee, Michael Brubaker, was so upset by Sotelo's actions he's suing her in small claims court. That's because each caucus-goer paid $10 to participate - money Sotelo said was to help pay for the party's expenses for using the school. But Sotelo refused to refund the money after the group was moved outside.
"She shouldn't have taken our money and kicked us out," Brubaker said.
No room in that “big tent” for liberty-minded folk, I guess. Makes one wonder what the GOP really stands for.