Black was a good writer but an asshole, like, an asshole in a way that even his fans had to cede "Jesus this asshole is an asshole." He used to write letters to me in the 1990s; I never replied. My asshole quotient always overflows - I never need more.
"White man's ghost dance" is the perfect metaphor though; Auron Macentyre uses it and I don't think he knew Black did it first. Any time I see MAGA types going on about muh Constitution, I envision a bunch of fat pasty white guys doing a rain dance.
Dave, Barrett's a Catholic. Catholics argue as part of our religious training. When I was in 7th grade they had us debating Just War Theory in religious ed. If there was a controversial issue, they'd just split the class down the middle and assign you a position (pro-choice was so unpopular at my junior high they did this). You had to come up with three supporting arguments for the viewpoint and if they weren't good or were too similar, you'd get called out for it.
That's why you see so many Catholics on the Supreme Court. If I'm not mistaken Gorsuch was raised Catholic but converted out. They do make us learn how to argue.
Jackson, I dunno. I'm still lukewarm on her because she claimed she doesn't know how to define "woman" but like you said, she has the survival instincts of a Ratibor type.
It depends on what kind of Catholic! If they had Jesuit training- yes- debate-- and think! There are other "tribes" that were just all "touchy-feely" (no-I'm not talking about the priests and altar boys!!) but very the "Kumbaya"/ "there is no wrong answer" types!!
I went to 80s New Orleans Catholic school like Barrett; the influence of "liberation theology" was pretty strong where I went (we had a nun who had "The Hundredth Monkey" as a textbook); Barrett went to Sacred Heart, which was a lot more academically rigorous than the burnout chumbucket I was in, but I suspect her ruling on immigration may have been a residual effect of the lib. theology and post-Vatican II Kumbaya in the air at the time.
Exactly! that Vatican II wrought a sea-change! I think even some of the old school nuns and bros. had to revamp their teaching in order to follow the directives from (somewhat) above!
The old nun who ran the cafeteria at my school still refused to serve meat on Friday. My grandmother still wouldn't eat meat on Friday either after Vatican II. These days they'd be on an FBI watch list.
The schools I went to were both run by orders of nuns, not Jesuits. One was Passionist, the other I forget. The second school ran out of nuns - 2 died, 1 reached mandatory retirement age - and they brought in Christian Brothers from a nearby reform school, which was a real choice. Good teachers, just difficult guys and used to dealing with a tougher crowd.
Jesuit education is always talked up a lot, but they're not the only ones who know how to teach. Jesuits are also often more interested in comparative religions (don't get them started on Krishna) than in Catholicism. It's always weird talking to them because they often don't seem like they're very into Christianity.
I think, on the whole, the Church structure does make kids argue. I had to do parish confirmation classes myself as a teen (even though I was at Catholic school and getting religious Ed there). Even the parish had visiting teachers from retreat centers etc coming in and making us argue with each other before we could get confirmed. We also had to do a walk-a-thon for some reason. All my Protestant friends joked about the "calisthenics" at Catholic Mass (stand-sit-kneel-process) and I wonder if they know we had to do walk-a-thons, too. That was such an odd, rigorous way to grow up that I almost can't believe it really happened.
I'm not entirely sure how those CCD and pre-sacrament classes are run these days but I can't imagine it being much different. If anything it's probably worse due to the prevailing culture being more polarized. The last time I went to Mass was 5-6 years ago in Cali. The priest kept talking about the need for more conservative judges, it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I don't necessarily want overt political speeches from a pulpit.
I think the real threat to a solid, traditional Catholic education honestly comes from the homeschooling movement. One of my cousins homeschooled her kids using Catholic materials, but in her Xmas newsletters and emails everything was misspelled. She probably shouldn't be teaching anything, when you get down to it. There's a whole cohort of Catholics who are churning out poorly educated, Duggar-like children out of a fear of the real world/any outside teachers and I don't think that benefits anyone.
Ah, I never attributed my argumentativeness to be raised Catholic. i just thought it was a New York thing! I was just a wise-ass- whether in Catholic school (briefly) or the standard public institution. Things def. were much more rigorous back in the day- at whatever kind of school kids were sent to. Plenty of public school educated kids who can't spell too!! BTW-- my grandmother used to send money to the Passionist nuns (in Kentucky?) and I would always fein being shocked "Grandma, nuns shouldn't be passionate!! Don't encourage them!!"
Another fine example of your ability to come at a story from an angle nobody on either side has. The right is just as capable of ignoring second order consequences as the left.
Thank you, Mike! I always try to earn my keep, so my thing is, as long as they're payin' me to write, I should give them something unique and not a retread of what every mouthbreathing talking head right and left is spewing.
I didn't even hear about this SCOTUS decision, the one I saw in the news was the one that supposedly said whatever Trump did in an official capacity isn't illegal.
It seems like the establishment is getting ready to give a free pass to ANTIFA, BLM etc… to bring back the days of 2020. In the event Trump wins the election
The Gingrich-Soros connection was interesting. It's important that California politics was not always in thrall to Soros. I read a Sacramento Bee article from around the time of the Proposition on legalizing recreational weed. It was very critical of the Open Society foundation for sneakily funding the drive for weed legalization. Entirely too much content here Dave. "This is an OUTRAGE! UNTHUBTHCRIBE!” 😂
ROKE according to my own dictionary means Rightist + Woke
Once you STIR the SHIT long enough, the FOG eats your brain (ask the Brits! they lost three-fourths of habitable land) or ask us across the pond -- the stalwart conservative justices scored one for Daquan. And Jackson proved street smarts - sometimes - beats Academia. Go girl!
Yes, Steve's become troubled by the matters I've been troubled about for years. For me, because of my long association with the fringe, I got troubled about this shit years ago. But for Steve, it took his current book tour to really lay bare how bad the problem's become.
A Sailer book tour Q&A:
"Mr. Sailer, WHY does your book ignore the WOODEN DOORS and the TALMUD? And the dreaded WOODEN TALMUD that Heinrich van Rotterdooem wrote about in 1975 before the Mossad killed him with direct-energy chelation rays? Why are you covering up these crimes, Mr. Sailer? How much do the Elders of Zion PAY you, Mr. Sailer? How much adrenochrome do you drink?"
Steve: "Hmmmm....I think Cole might be onto something about the right's mental health decline."
I actually knew Jim Hogshire pretty well at the time he had his run-in with Bob Black. I even wound up with a bunch of the legal documents connected with the case, including transcripts his lawyer's deposition of one of the arresting officers.
I talked on the phone with Parfrey about Hogshire once. They seemed to have a strained relationship. Hogshire really went downhill after the Black episode. We also discussed the possibility of his moving in with weirdo artist Charles Krafft during one of Hogshire's residence crises but concluded it probably wouldnt be a pleasant experience for either of them. Nice guy but his addictions tanked his journalistic career.
I also recall some legal turmoil involving Hogshire, Mike Hoy / Loompanics and royalties from Bob Odenkirk's movie based on JH's book "You Are Going To Prison".
Wow-- Hogshire's work sounds very interesting! From Wikipedia:
In 1993, one of Hogshire's infamous prank calls, "Bacon and Eggs", was made into a short film starring Linda Blair and Bill Pullman.
In 2006, a movie adaptation of his non-fiction guide You Are Going to Prison was released by Universal Studios as Let's Go to Prison. The movie stars Dax Shepard and was directed by Bob Odenkirk.
In 2009 Feral House released an updated version of Hoghire's book Opium for the Masses.
One of Hogshire's better known short stories "The Electric Cough-Syrup Acid Test" was excerpted by Harper's and has also appeared in the book White Rabbit, and a book about zines. The story first appeared in Hogshire's zine, Pills-a-Go-Go.
A cover article by Jim Hogshire titled "Animals and Islam" appears in The Animals Agenda, October 1991.
I totally thought of gerbils when I read the name of that impious sybarite Richard Gere. In fact I imagined a gerbil prison breakout of Gere's ass. The ghosts of thousands of imprisoned gerbils breaking free of the wicked Mr. Gere as if they were the ghosts of murdered children breaking free of Freddy Kruger at the end of part IV. "My children, Nooooo!!!" cried Mr. Gere as the gerbils freed themselves from their corporeal prison, but it was to no avail. No Sir, the gerbils were free. Now what about Rod Stewart? Was it a Great Dane or a horse? I've got money on Scooby.
Wired to Kill is one of my next movies to watch, I am a massive fan of crappy movies & the story behind it is even better which adds to it all. My husband isn't enthused & he has you to blame.
It is so bad, I just watched it most of the last part of it was just people constantly screaming, but he did throw in the obligatory crosses & nice granny who prayed but got maced in the head, so he figured that was religious enough, those investors got ripped off but in the comments on the youtube channel someone was also directed there by Dave & they couldn't get back to where they came from.
Dave, I could be wrong . . . But, isn't the particular federal statue implicated in the instant case the Sarbanes Oxley Act? I again, may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that said act was intended to punish folks who shredded or otherwise impaired the availability of documentary evidence, like the accounting firm for Enron did.
I would add this, the DOJ investigated U. S. Capitol Police Lt. Byrd for violating the civil rights of Ashley Babbitt, when obviously the investigation was of an apparent homicide. See 18 U.S.C. Ch. 51 §§1111-1114 BTW, note the penalties in each cited section.
Another thought provoking piece Dave. Thank you. I want to hate you for all the shit you give conservatives, but I can’t, because your either right or a really good bullshitter. (Or both)
Don’t you have to prove intent on the obstruction charge though? Sure, the a-hole who beat up a cop and said he was “there to hang a bunch of senators and obstruct an official proceeding” yea that guy can rot for 20 years. But what about the dolts who were taking pictures like they were on a historical tour? They’ve been in jail for 4 years? Charged with the felonious obstruction?
So I get we are handing them a knife to stick in our backs but if we don’t they just shoot us in the face.
I appreciate the comment, Clifford. Next week's piece is the piece I wrote in April that would've run yesterday had I not found so much fault with the decision. And it directly addresses your point about the people on J6 who were just "there for the ride." A week from now, let me know what you think!
Dave I read the entire entire thing. My take is that the Court has to deal with a lot of bad law. Congress enacts poorly drafted statutes, and the Justices try to untangle the mess. If the Fed's would stick to their proper role everything would be better. Now I need a drink!!! Thankfully I don't have to milk the mares Scythian style to obtain my alcohol.
Yes, and White was "outvoted" when he dissented in Roe and said the matter should be up to the states. 50 years later his dissent became the majority. "Outvoted" doesn't matter. Sometimes a dissent becomes the consensus over time.
Indeed, White was right, the majority stretched the constitution all out of shape . . . emanations and penumbras. Similarly, DC prosecutors charged the J6 tards under the incorrect statute, they stretched the application of Sarbanes- Oxley beyond its intended function.
"Or otherwise obstructs" is no different from "shall not be infringed." You can read it tight or loose. It's a choice. Well-regulated militia only? Or Neckbeard McGillicuddy with his collection of two hundred ARs. The court routinely decides whether to be tight or loose in interpretations. In Fischer, they decided to be SUPER tight. Barrett was only giving them the loose interpretation they'd have embraced had this been a gun rights case.
That's what happens when humans make complex legal decisions, instead of say, a TTL logic circuit, such as an OR gate !!! I wonder if Scalia would have overruled Chevron, if he had the opportunity to do so?
I understand where you are coming from on this one, and being honest, your concerns are probably somewhat valid. Reading their decision (is rough, geez man, it's like scripted torture) I can see their logic, and it's pretty sound; Droll but sound.
I know you read it, so I'm not going to waste anyone's time by parsing out the relevant text, and trying to sound scholarly about it.
But between what you said, and what they said, basically all of your concerns are addressed by other laws, statutes, etc.
Otherwise, like they said, if "they" wanted to, they could send virtually every Congressional protestor to prison for 20 years, if so charged, for countless protests during proceedings.
However, Dave, because I like you, I'll just end with this famous Nietzsche quote-
"I listened for the echo, and I heard only praise"
As an aside, I think we are seeing more and more indications that some of our newer justices, are kinda dumb, like low IQ dumb.
As I point out in the piece, all J6ers can certainly still be charged for trespass and assault. As I ALSO point out in the piece, those are the kinds of charges that can be knocked down to misdemeanors, whereas the federal obstruction charge can't. Yet that's no longer a concern for anyone why physically intimidates elected officials, thanks to this ruling. It's a soft-on-crime ruling, dude. There's no way to put perfume on that turd.
Yeah, but they spell it out pretty clearly. This law wasn't written for this "crime", doesn't apply to this "crime", and shouldn't be used for this "crime". Like I told Dave, it's may not be a perfect interpretation, but when you read their ruling, it's legally sound.
All they are really saying is that these guys shouldn't have been charged under this law, because their actions don't fit the intent of this law.
There's all kinds of other laws, just not this one.
Barrett's dissent makes a better case. I'm assuming you don't think the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to private citizens.
The way I interpret the 2nd amendment is, since a "well regulated Militia" (i.e., armed forces, police, IRS agents et al.) is a necessary evil, the people can keep and bear arms so that the gummint's "Militia" can be fended off if it's deployed unjustly.....
While she makes a solid rhetorical argument, in that sense, it's a not a sound legal argument. broadly interpreting laws, based on dictionary definitions can be a dicey enterprise. In this case "or otherwise" parsed from a law with a very specific intent- document destruction, which is what 80% of the law is about.
The question becomes, how broadly would you like to interpret "otherwise"? Because following her thinking to it's logical conclusion, this one law about document destruction could be broadened by legal precedent, to include EVERY "otherwise".
That, my friend, could include an endless wealth of "otherwises", and I think that is what the majority was trying to prevent.
But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer, nor a Supreme Court justice, but that's how I read it. Perhaps laws shouldn't include phrases like "otherwise" to be interpreted thinly or broadly?
Conflating the Second Amendment? That's a bizarre stretch, for her, and for you. We are talking about the Enron Law, scripted with a specific purpose, not an article of the Bill of Rights, written over 200 years ago.
Otherwise, and I know you know this, "arms" could include ICBM's and nukes; To maintain military parity with the Government (I'm know you've seen this argument).
Overall, this a decision that I can live with, and I don't think it's implications are as rash as you do.
Besides, selective prosecution is why antifa and BLM don't get busted for doing the same shit, not this interpretation of "otherwise" in this one law.
Now, if antifa and BLM started shredding documents to halt a proceeding, they'd be in some real trouble!
Some astute legal analysis - who needs Turley or Dershowitz when we have the Talmudic talents of ol’ Dave. Certainly worth a beer (or two).
And you made my day, good friend!
Well, the "Jumanji" moniker was funny.
I can't "unhear" it! It's a mind worm!! Now I'll never remember her real name!!
I might re-read Annie Jacobsen's terrifying "Nuclear War" just for the part where D.C. gets wiped out entirely.
Thanks for mentioning "Dreamboat" Annie's book!
Big fan, big.
I never knew that Bob Black story. Reading this back in the 90s disabused me of any hope muh Bill of Rights was going to save us: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-constitutionalism-the-white-man-s-ghost-dance
Black was a good writer but an asshole, like, an asshole in a way that even his fans had to cede "Jesus this asshole is an asshole." He used to write letters to me in the 1990s; I never replied. My asshole quotient always overflows - I never need more.
Friend of mine was in that Feral House book RANTS, and I found Black's intro rather snotty.
"White man's ghost dance" is the perfect metaphor though; Auron Macentyre uses it and I don't think he knew Black did it first. Any time I see MAGA types going on about muh Constitution, I envision a bunch of fat pasty white guys doing a rain dance.
Dave, Barrett's a Catholic. Catholics argue as part of our religious training. When I was in 7th grade they had us debating Just War Theory in religious ed. If there was a controversial issue, they'd just split the class down the middle and assign you a position (pro-choice was so unpopular at my junior high they did this). You had to come up with three supporting arguments for the viewpoint and if they weren't good or were too similar, you'd get called out for it.
That's why you see so many Catholics on the Supreme Court. If I'm not mistaken Gorsuch was raised Catholic but converted out. They do make us learn how to argue.
Jackson, I dunno. I'm still lukewarm on her because she claimed she doesn't know how to define "woman" but like you said, she has the survival instincts of a Ratibor type.
I've had several fine Catholic girlfriends in my life. Maybe it's that shared love of debate!
It depends on what kind of Catholic! If they had Jesuit training- yes- debate-- and think! There are other "tribes" that were just all "touchy-feely" (no-I'm not talking about the priests and altar boys!!) but very the "Kumbaya"/ "there is no wrong answer" types!!
I went to 80s New Orleans Catholic school like Barrett; the influence of "liberation theology" was pretty strong where I went (we had a nun who had "The Hundredth Monkey" as a textbook); Barrett went to Sacred Heart, which was a lot more academically rigorous than the burnout chumbucket I was in, but I suspect her ruling on immigration may have been a residual effect of the lib. theology and post-Vatican II Kumbaya in the air at the time.
Exactly! that Vatican II wrought a sea-change! I think even some of the old school nuns and bros. had to revamp their teaching in order to follow the directives from (somewhat) above!
The old nun who ran the cafeteria at my school still refused to serve meat on Friday. My grandmother still wouldn't eat meat on Friday either after Vatican II. These days they'd be on an FBI watch list.
My MOTHER wouldn't eat (or serve) meat on Friday- until we all moved out of the house- and then she did whatever she felt like!
The schools I went to were both run by orders of nuns, not Jesuits. One was Passionist, the other I forget. The second school ran out of nuns - 2 died, 1 reached mandatory retirement age - and they brought in Christian Brothers from a nearby reform school, which was a real choice. Good teachers, just difficult guys and used to dealing with a tougher crowd.
Jesuit education is always talked up a lot, but they're not the only ones who know how to teach. Jesuits are also often more interested in comparative religions (don't get them started on Krishna) than in Catholicism. It's always weird talking to them because they often don't seem like they're very into Christianity.
I think, on the whole, the Church structure does make kids argue. I had to do parish confirmation classes myself as a teen (even though I was at Catholic school and getting religious Ed there). Even the parish had visiting teachers from retreat centers etc coming in and making us argue with each other before we could get confirmed. We also had to do a walk-a-thon for some reason. All my Protestant friends joked about the "calisthenics" at Catholic Mass (stand-sit-kneel-process) and I wonder if they know we had to do walk-a-thons, too. That was such an odd, rigorous way to grow up that I almost can't believe it really happened.
I'm not entirely sure how those CCD and pre-sacrament classes are run these days but I can't imagine it being much different. If anything it's probably worse due to the prevailing culture being more polarized. The last time I went to Mass was 5-6 years ago in Cali. The priest kept talking about the need for more conservative judges, it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I don't necessarily want overt political speeches from a pulpit.
I think the real threat to a solid, traditional Catholic education honestly comes from the homeschooling movement. One of my cousins homeschooled her kids using Catholic materials, but in her Xmas newsletters and emails everything was misspelled. She probably shouldn't be teaching anything, when you get down to it. There's a whole cohort of Catholics who are churning out poorly educated, Duggar-like children out of a fear of the real world/any outside teachers and I don't think that benefits anyone.
Ah, I never attributed my argumentativeness to be raised Catholic. i just thought it was a New York thing! I was just a wise-ass- whether in Catholic school (briefly) or the standard public institution. Things def. were much more rigorous back in the day- at whatever kind of school kids were sent to. Plenty of public school educated kids who can't spell too!! BTW-- my grandmother used to send money to the Passionist nuns (in Kentucky?) and I would always fein being shocked "Grandma, nuns shouldn't be passionate!! Don't encourage them!!"
LOL!!!!
I couldn't help myself! If there was a joke to be made-I had to go there!
Another fine example of your ability to come at a story from an angle nobody on either side has. The right is just as capable of ignoring second order consequences as the left.
Thank you, Mike! I always try to earn my keep, so my thing is, as long as they're payin' me to write, I should give them something unique and not a retread of what every mouthbreathing talking head right and left is spewing.
I didn't even hear about this SCOTUS decision, the one I saw in the news was the one that supposedly said whatever Trump did in an official capacity isn't illegal.
The J6 one came a day before that one.
Then the J6 got Anzioed? as in Anzio landings in WW2 which happened 2 days before the big landings in France and was quickly forgotten by the press.
It seems like the establishment is getting ready to give a free pass to ANTIFA, BLM etc… to bring back the days of 2020. In the event Trump wins the election
The Gingrich-Soros connection was interesting. It's important that California politics was not always in thrall to Soros. I read a Sacramento Bee article from around the time of the Proposition on legalizing recreational weed. It was very critical of the Open Society foundation for sneakily funding the drive for weed legalization. Entirely too much content here Dave. "This is an OUTRAGE! UNTHUBTHCRIBE!” 😂
ROKE according to Merriam-Webster
roke 1 of 2 noun
ˈrōk
plural-s
1 - dialectal, chiefly British : VAPOR: such as
a: FOG, MIST
b: STEAM
2 - dialectal, chiefly British : SMOKE, REEK
roke
2 of 2 transitive verb
"
dialectal, England
: to poke around: STIR
ROKE according to my own dictionary means Rightist + Woke
Once you STIR the SHIT long enough, the FOG eats your brain (ask the Brits! they lost three-fourths of habitable land) or ask us across the pond -- the stalwart conservative justices scored one for Daquan. And Jackson proved street smarts - sometimes - beats Academia. Go girl!
Easy to say after reading your masterpiece :)
Thanks, Dave.
Sailer today takes a page from Dave, opining that "an increasing number of people on the right are making... flying leaps into the lunatic fringe":
https://www.takimag.com/article/trust-but-verify/
Yes, Steve's become troubled by the matters I've been troubled about for years. For me, because of my long association with the fringe, I got troubled about this shit years ago. But for Steve, it took his current book tour to really lay bare how bad the problem's become.
A Sailer book tour Q&A:
"Mr. Sailer, WHY does your book ignore the WOODEN DOORS and the TALMUD? And the dreaded WOODEN TALMUD that Heinrich van Rotterdooem wrote about in 1975 before the Mossad killed him with direct-energy chelation rays? Why are you covering up these crimes, Mr. Sailer? How much do the Elders of Zion PAY you, Mr. Sailer? How much adrenochrome do you drink?"
Steve: "Hmmmm....I think Cole might be onto something about the right's mental health decline."
"Mr Sailer, is your roof blue "? "If not you are vulnerable to the DEW!!!"
I actually knew Jim Hogshire pretty well at the time he had his run-in with Bob Black. I even wound up with a bunch of the legal documents connected with the case, including transcripts his lawyer's deposition of one of the arresting officers.
You and I probably know a lot of the same people. Adam Parfrey was a close friend, and he told me about the "incident" before it hit the presses.
I talked on the phone with Parfrey about Hogshire once. They seemed to have a strained relationship. Hogshire really went downhill after the Black episode. We also discussed the possibility of his moving in with weirdo artist Charles Krafft during one of Hogshire's residence crises but concluded it probably wouldnt be a pleasant experience for either of them. Nice guy but his addictions tanked his journalistic career.
I also recall some legal turmoil involving Hogshire, Mike Hoy / Loompanics and royalties from Bob Odenkirk's movie based on JH's book "You Are Going To Prison".
Parfrey, Hogshire, Krafft, Rollins, Hoy...what an enjoyably odd circle that was!
Maybe a column on that circle? That would be great!
From Bob Odenkirk’s book “A Load of Hooey”:
BASEBALL PLAYERS’ POEMS ABOUT SPORTSWRITERS AND SPORTSWRITING
“ELEGIAC”
What does the word
“elegiac” mean?
What about “pastoral”?
And “contemplative”?
Why do you
Keep calling
Baseball all these weird French names?
Stop it.
Douchebag.
THE BLANK PAGE
Fat fingers dance across
the clattering keyboard
Grinding out meaning
Ennobling the actions
Of real men doing something tangible
for a living
And not sitting on their asses
“analyzing” shit.
Pathetic.
SPRING TRAINING
A gin and tonic for breakfast,
plenty of sunscreen,
a note pad.
A hot dog.
Fat ass
Planted in the stands.
Taking it all in,
gorging yourself.
SPRING TRAINING pt. II
Later, alone
in a motel room,
farting.
INSTANT ANALYSIS
We played hard
We lost
End of story.
You, however,
are the real loser.
Wow-- Hogshire's work sounds very interesting! From Wikipedia:
In 1993, one of Hogshire's infamous prank calls, "Bacon and Eggs", was made into a short film starring Linda Blair and Bill Pullman.
In 2006, a movie adaptation of his non-fiction guide You Are Going to Prison was released by Universal Studios as Let's Go to Prison. The movie stars Dax Shepard and was directed by Bob Odenkirk.
In 2009 Feral House released an updated version of Hoghire's book Opium for the Masses.
One of Hogshire's better known short stories "The Electric Cough-Syrup Acid Test" was excerpted by Harper's and has also appeared in the book White Rabbit, and a book about zines. The story first appeared in Hogshire's zine, Pills-a-Go-Go.
A cover article by Jim Hogshire titled "Animals and Islam" appears in The Animals Agenda, October 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hogshire
Very interesting info on Hogshire here!
https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/hogshire_jim/hogshire_jim.shtml
Great piece by Odenkirk imagining the day McCartney revealed the song "Blackbird" to the other Beatles:
https://thecomicscomic.com/2014/10/13/the-origin-of-blackbird-from-bob-odenkirks-a-load-of-hooey-book-excerpt/
I totally thought of gerbils when I read the name of that impious sybarite Richard Gere. In fact I imagined a gerbil prison breakout of Gere's ass. The ghosts of thousands of imprisoned gerbils breaking free of the wicked Mr. Gere as if they were the ghosts of murdered children breaking free of Freddy Kruger at the end of part IV. "My children, Nooooo!!!" cried Mr. Gere as the gerbils freed themselves from their corporeal prison, but it was to no avail. No Sir, the gerbils were free. Now what about Rod Stewart? Was it a Great Dane or a horse? I've got money on Scooby.
Your comment reminded me of the documentary Zoo (2007):
https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/8w7pk7/zoo_2007_the_true_story_of_a_man_that_died_after/
> "impious sybarite Richard Gere"
LoL. 😉🙂
Wired to Kill is one of my next movies to watch, I am a massive fan of crappy movies & the story behind it is even better which adds to it all. My husband isn't enthused & he has you to blame.
LOL!!!!! My sincere apologies to him!
He went off to do something else but he could hear the constant screams from the other room.
Where did you find that one?? I just looked it up and the plot sounds insanely great!
Here's where I wrote about it in 2020:
https://www.takimag.com/article/downstreaming-a-conservative-reaming/
ah-- I remember this one! I think I'll skip it for now. Maybe if I'm incapacitated w/ nothing but my remote and a cooler full of beer I'll cue it up!
LOL!!!!
It is so bad, I just watched it most of the last part of it was just people constantly screaming, but he did throw in the obligatory crosses & nice granny who prayed but got maced in the head, so he figured that was religious enough, those investors got ripped off but in the comments on the youtube channel someone was also directed there by Dave & they couldn't get back to where they came from.
sounds like a bottomless pit in a parallel universe!!
Dave, I could be wrong . . . But, isn't the particular federal statue implicated in the instant case the Sarbanes Oxley Act? I again, may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that said act was intended to punish folks who shredded or otherwise impaired the availability of documentary evidence, like the accounting firm for Enron did.
I would add this, the DOJ investigated U. S. Capitol Police Lt. Byrd for violating the civil rights of Ashley Babbitt, when obviously the investigation was of an apparent homicide. See 18 U.S.C. Ch. 51 §§1111-1114 BTW, note the penalties in each cited section.
Another thought provoking piece Dave. Thank you. I want to hate you for all the shit you give conservatives, but I can’t, because your either right or a really good bullshitter. (Or both)
Don’t you have to prove intent on the obstruction charge though? Sure, the a-hole who beat up a cop and said he was “there to hang a bunch of senators and obstruct an official proceeding” yea that guy can rot for 20 years. But what about the dolts who were taking pictures like they were on a historical tour? They’ve been in jail for 4 years? Charged with the felonious obstruction?
So I get we are handing them a knife to stick in our backs but if we don’t they just shoot us in the face.
I appreciate the comment, Clifford. Next week's piece is the piece I wrote in April that would've run yesterday had I not found so much fault with the decision. And it directly addresses your point about the people on J6 who were just "there for the ride." A week from now, let me know what you think!
Read Barrett's dissent. She ably deals with your question.
Now you're forcing me to do work! I HATE YOU TOO, DAVE.
And you are going to drop a long one tomorrow . . .
I would buy you a Kumis, but I am waiting on my new debit card to arrive.
Dave I read the entire entire thing. My take is that the Court has to deal with a lot of bad law. Congress enacts poorly drafted statutes, and the Justices try to untangle the mess. If the Fed's would stick to their proper role everything would be better. Now I need a drink!!! Thankfully I don't have to milk the mares Scythian style to obtain my alcohol.
Seems to me that the tard shoulda been charged under 18 U.S. C. §115, of course the penalty is less severe.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/115
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22784/6
As an aside, Barret, she was in fact, outvoted, hence she wrote her dissenting opinion.
Yes, and White was "outvoted" when he dissented in Roe and said the matter should be up to the states. 50 years later his dissent became the majority. "Outvoted" doesn't matter. Sometimes a dissent becomes the consensus over time.
"Whizzer" White scores!
AMEN!!!
Indeed, White was right, the majority stretched the constitution all out of shape . . . emanations and penumbras. Similarly, DC prosecutors charged the J6 tards under the incorrect statute, they stretched the application of Sarbanes- Oxley beyond its intended function.
"Or otherwise obstructs" is no different from "shall not be infringed." You can read it tight or loose. It's a choice. Well-regulated militia only? Or Neckbeard McGillicuddy with his collection of two hundred ARs. The court routinely decides whether to be tight or loose in interpretations. In Fischer, they decided to be SUPER tight. Barrett was only giving them the loose interpretation they'd have embraced had this been a gun rights case.
That's what happens when humans make complex legal decisions, instead of say, a TTL logic circuit, such as an OR gate !!! I wonder if Scalia would have overruled Chevron, if he had the opportunity to do so?
That’s EXACTLY what that statute was written for, not this J6 bullshit. It’s a typical “emanation from a penumbra” interpretation.
“Or otherwise”
I understand where you are coming from on this one, and being honest, your concerns are probably somewhat valid. Reading their decision (is rough, geez man, it's like scripted torture) I can see their logic, and it's pretty sound; Droll but sound.
I know you read it, so I'm not going to waste anyone's time by parsing out the relevant text, and trying to sound scholarly about it.
But between what you said, and what they said, basically all of your concerns are addressed by other laws, statutes, etc.
Otherwise, like they said, if "they" wanted to, they could send virtually every Congressional protestor to prison for 20 years, if so charged, for countless protests during proceedings.
However, Dave, because I like you, I'll just end with this famous Nietzsche quote-
"I listened for the echo, and I heard only praise"
As an aside, I think we are seeing more and more indications that some of our newer justices, are kinda dumb, like low IQ dumb.
Cheers!
As I point out in the piece, all J6ers can certainly still be charged for trespass and assault. As I ALSO point out in the piece, those are the kinds of charges that can be knocked down to misdemeanors, whereas the federal obstruction charge can't. Yet that's no longer a concern for anyone why physically intimidates elected officials, thanks to this ruling. It's a soft-on-crime ruling, dude. There's no way to put perfume on that turd.
I think the J6ers should all be charged with Being Giant Fucking Retards.
Problem solved!
Get ready for a “mostly peaceful “ Intifada
The word “corruptly” is there to distinguish peaceable, lawful protest from criminal actions
Yeah, but they spell it out pretty clearly. This law wasn't written for this "crime", doesn't apply to this "crime", and shouldn't be used for this "crime". Like I told Dave, it's may not be a perfect interpretation, but when you read their ruling, it's legally sound.
All they are really saying is that these guys shouldn't have been charged under this law, because their actions don't fit the intent of this law.
There's all kinds of other laws, just not this one.
Barrett's dissent makes a better case. I'm assuming you don't think the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to private citizens.
The way I interpret the 2nd amendment is, since a "well regulated Militia" (i.e., armed forces, police, IRS agents et al.) is a necessary evil, the people can keep and bear arms so that the gummint's "Militia" can be fended off if it's deployed unjustly.....
While she makes a solid rhetorical argument, in that sense, it's a not a sound legal argument. broadly interpreting laws, based on dictionary definitions can be a dicey enterprise. In this case "or otherwise" parsed from a law with a very specific intent- document destruction, which is what 80% of the law is about.
The question becomes, how broadly would you like to interpret "otherwise"? Because following her thinking to it's logical conclusion, this one law about document destruction could be broadened by legal precedent, to include EVERY "otherwise".
That, my friend, could include an endless wealth of "otherwises", and I think that is what the majority was trying to prevent.
But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer, nor a Supreme Court justice, but that's how I read it. Perhaps laws shouldn't include phrases like "otherwise" to be interpreted thinly or broadly?
Conflating the Second Amendment? That's a bizarre stretch, for her, and for you. We are talking about the Enron Law, scripted with a specific purpose, not an article of the Bill of Rights, written over 200 years ago.
Otherwise, and I know you know this, "arms" could include ICBM's and nukes; To maintain military parity with the Government (I'm know you've seen this argument).
Overall, this a decision that I can live with, and I don't think it's implications are as rash as you do.
Besides, selective prosecution is why antifa and BLM don't get busted for doing the same shit, not this interpretation of "otherwise" in this one law.
Now, if antifa and BLM started shredding documents to halt a proceeding, they'd be in some real trouble!