State of the primaries

Our most recent primary, South Carolina. counties won by Romney in orange, Gingrich in purple. Released in to public domain

New Hampshire primary by town. Orange is Romney, Gold is Paul, Crimson Huntsman. Public Domain

Iowa caucus by county. Orange is Romney, gold is Paul, dark green Santorum, dark blue Perry. Public Domain

At this point in the Primary season, all three primaries thus far were won by separate candidates. Iowa was taken by Santorum, New Hampshire by Romney in a landslide, and South Carolina by Gingrich in a landslide. The number of delegates so far per candidate is 31 Mitt Romney, 26 Newt Gingrich, 10 for Ron Paul and 8 for Santorum. 2nd placers include Romney in South Carolina and Iowa, and Paul in New Hampshire.

Prior to this point, there were a whole bunch of shooting star candidates, starting with Michelle Bachmann at the beginning of the year and continuing with Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and then Newt Gingrich. All of them followed nearly the same trajectory, a steep graphed chart for the RCP Polling Average in all 50 states, reaching a peak, and then coming down with the same velocity that they arose, like a little boy throwing a ball. Then, Gingrich took South Carolina, by a landslide, and all the sudden everything changed. What's more, the very last of these trajectory candidates, Santorum, is still on the map and is looking strong in the Florida Panhandle.

Even before this surprising result of three states in three hands, we should've known we would be in for a very different primary season. The historic nature of this election had forced turnout way up. The Tea Party had greatly changed the Republican Party in the last 2 years. Several major candidates (including Gingrich and Santorum) failed to make the ballot in a couple states. Lastly, RNC rule changes made all early primary states proportional representation out to at least 3rd place, bringing the traditional early state landslide to an end. Now, at this moment, we see not a short primary season of the 2004 or 2000 variety effectively ending on Super Tuesday but a protacted 50 state duel between Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul. Paul inevitably wins Virginia, as he is the only candidate on the ballot besides Romney and 60% of Republicans will not vote for Romney under any condition, and so then Paul too shall be right up there with the victors of our three early states.

So what precisely brought us to this point? There is a growing sense in both parties that the same puppet masters control both, and yet there was always a percentage that either refused to accept this conclusion or was comfortable with it. Add in a few Mormons and a few New England moderates, and you have Mitt Romney, the inevitable one.

But this time around, too much had been done, and the Tea Party was too fully aware that it had rescued the GOP from the dustbin of history. Revenge was desired. Many candidates came forward, and the GOP being a new movement with few experienced members, most of them were of fairly low caliber. As a result, they were catapulted with vengeance, recognized, and then forgotten. Eventually they even took on a member of the establishment who sympathized with them, I believe you the reader can figure out who that is. Then something happened with the very last two, Santorum and Gingrich.

In the case of Gingrich, it was finding his old fire as the glorious speaker of the House of Represntatives from 1994-1998. We saw him, in those last days of the election, command the respect that had made him palatable to the Tea Party to begin with. See, Gingrich was never a natural choice, he had BEEN a member of the establishment, and as a result of this fact had to prove himself. Having proved himself, the voters knew how he had proved himself, and when he proved himself once again, he returned.

In the case of Santorum, many people still did not accept Gingrich. He was still dirty, and lets face it, he made many questionable decisions and pseudo-decisions, including support for the Individual Mandate at the federal level, which he calls "a tactical decision against HillaryCare" [divide and conquer?], his decision to support TARP, which is probably more then anything else his university professor side coming out, and his decision to continue supporting social conservatives despite hardly being a role model for them, which, in Georgia, is called winning your election. Being a real politician, he doesn't come out looking real clean. For these malcontents, Santorum and Paul were the remaining choices, and Paul is considered by many to be of questionable judgement and temperament, leading to a vote by elimination for Santorum. Combine some social conservatives and Iowa farmers, and you have Santorum.

Ron Paul voters, of the typical kind, are simply too unique to be explained in this small space. However, in addition to his regular supporters, Ron Paul has received an edge from both malcontents of the kind that supported Santorum, and states where, in this remarkable election, two of the major candidates did not make the ballot, and Romney is still not accepted.

But aside from all of this there is the simple fact that the election is now on. The trajectory candidates were around when there was still time to find someone new - that time is gone. We, the Tea Party, can't replace shooting stars anymore. We are at our last chance. The time is now, the election has begun.

Out West Newspaper

WyrdLight-McCallum www.wyrdlight.eu, license: c.c.a.s.a 2.5-gen

Have you ever wondered where to buy a wooden Indian? Do you want to know how the border between US and Canada was made, or what crazy German (hint) thought of it? Do you like puns made by extremely cheesy Western small business owners? Is your mind dirty with jokes about outhouses? Do you just love photographs of wide open roads?

If so, have we got a treat for you! "Out West was a quarterly "on-the-road" newspaper founded in 1987 by roving editor/reporter Chuck Woodbury, who spent much of the following 13 years exploring the two-lane highways of the American West in an RV searching for stories about whatever he found interesting." No longer published, having printed its last issue in 2000 with a final subscription base of 10,000, this gem of the open road is now almost totally available online for free, along with links to resources about RV's, RV camps, a bookstore in an RV, and lots of crazy odd pictures that once showed up in the magazine.

I found this magazine by mistake when searching for a good short history of the Pig War, the almost conflict (in some ways analogous to what is currently happening in Egypt, but a bit more toned down) that ended with Kaiser Wilheim I proclaiming an official, general, easily recognizable border between America and British possessions in North America. In finding it, the pictures and content immediately made me miss home, and the wide open spaces of Washington State along with the humor and charm of its people. In particular, no where else in the world would a electric company put up a sign saying:

"Let us remove your shorts"

Or would you find a business that specializes in shipping Wooden Indians!

The eccentricities and hopeful love that the writer, Chuck Woodbury, showcased are great attributes of the great land called simply the West, and though many people have cried and sung about its passing away, really, it's still there. It's changed a bit, the industries and jobs are different, and in a few places open space has been lost, but overall, the West is still live and well.

We'd recommend this great old paper to anyone!

Chuck Woodbury still runs a blog of short, about bi-monthly posts out of rvtravel.com. Our Prayers are with him over recent loss, and that he may stay as lively and curious as he has always been and, with promise, will always be. He still travels and lives life with wonder as he did in his Out West Newspaper days.

Free Letter from K.L. Jamison

The following letter, according to my friend Shane Seckler, is available to anyone under the following conditions: 1) the letter is credited to its author, the honorable and good K.L. Jamison, Attorney at Law of 28 years experience, specializing in self-defense and weapons, state of Missouri, 2) the letter is unaltered and a notice like this one is provided with it. Any variance from these terms will result in the right to publish it being waived.

Considering how many hungry lawfirms would love to swallow you whole for losing the right to publish this, I suggest you don't.


IT'S JUST THE LAW: Police Protection Law

by K.L. Jamison

The law allows a policeman to command a citizen to come to his aid. The reverse is not true. In 1849, Jonathan W. Pottle was held captive and forced to pay $2,500 for his release. Mr. Pottle thought that this was unreasonable because the sheriff was present during the extortion and refused to assist him. As a loyal American, Mr. Pottle sued over this failure to act, and lost. In an 1855 decision the United States Supreme Court perfunctorily recited the facts, and ruled that there is no right to police protection and no right to sue over its lack.

Since that decision, there has been no right to police protection recognized in the United States. It could have been worse. More recently, women in a Washington D.C. home were raped and tortured while other women, hidden upstairs, twice called for help. Twice officers drove past the house without investigating. The hidden women were then discovered and tortured over a fourteen hour period. They sued. The court was sympathetic, but ruled there was no cause of action.

The states have the same philosophy. In a Missouri case, an outraged community sued their sheriff demanding that the court order him to perform his duty. The requested order was to force the sheriff to close a facility that did not measure up to community standards; or at least those members of the loyal American community that filed lawsuits. The court refused to issue the order. A long chain of federal and state cases state that police have a responsibility to protect the community as a whole, but no duty to protect any individual within that whole. It may help to visualize the metaphysics of the philosophy to realize that the point is to prevent victims of crime from suing the police.

The courts have allowed that the police must protect persons with a "special relationship" to the police. Such relationships are so special as to be nearly extinct. In my early years at the bar, the courts found special relationships in cases involving drunk drivers and protective orders. Federal courts have put an end to these special relationships. On May 16, 2006, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in McCloskey v Mueller III, finding that the FBI had no duty to arrest a violent criminal. The criminal in question, Gary Lee Sampson, had called the FBI and advised them that he wanted to surrender on an armed robbery warrant. The FBI did not oblige.

Reacting badly to the perceived snub, Mr. Sampson murdered three people. Their estates sued, but the court ruled that the FBI had no duty to the victims.

Protective orders in adult abuse cases typically require police action to protect the subject. However, the Supreme Court has put an end to this fuzzy thinking. In Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, Jessica Gonzales had obtained a protective order against her husband. The order contained a "Notice to Law Enforcement Officials" which stated:

You shall use every reasonable means to enforce this restraining order. You shall arrest, or . . . seek a warrant for the arrest of the restrained person when . . . the restrained person has violated or attempted to violate any provision of this order . . ."

The husband violated the order by kidnapping the couple's three children. Ms. Gonzales notified the police repeatedly, alerting them to the protective order and even the location of her husband. Mr. Gonzales subsequently murdered the children. The Court ruled that the explicit language of the order did not require the police to do anything and provided no cause of action.

There is not even the right to have the police patrol one's neighborhood. In 1972, Kansas City, Missouri conducted a patrol experiment to discover the impact of vehicle patrols on crime rates. Some neighborhoods received increased patrols, some the same level, some none at all. The neighborhoods involved were not informed they were part of a test, much less given a choice as to which group they could join. The experimenters were surprised to find that vehicle patrols made no difference in crime rates or citizen satisfaction. A later withdrawal of patrols was less popular. On June 1, 1996, drug dealers in the area of 27th and Benton in Kansas City became outraged at the arrest of one of their guild and rioted. Police units were withdrawn from the area in order to allow emotions to burn themselves out. While doubtless good operational practice, it was a trifle hard on the citizens at 27th and Benton. The rioters burned a passing car and attacked the owner.

It might have been worse. During the April 1980 riots in Miami, police headquarters was under siege by the rioters. It could be a great deal worse. National Guard troops assigned to guard airports after 9-11 carried unloaded weapons in many cases. It appears that some commanders were more concerned about a John Wayne mentality among their troops than they were about terrorists in the airport. It might have been a very great deal worse. In 1919, the Boston police went on strike for 102 days and Home Guard units formed for WW I had to be called in.

One can never be certain of police response. There are regular "blackouts" in Kansas City when no police officer is available for any call. When they are available, there is no guarantee they can be called. The Kansas City emergency communications system is notorious for dead spots, areas where it functions badly or not at all. Even the Plaza, a fashionable shopping district less than five miles from the communications building, has numerous dead spots endangering police, firefighters, and citizens.

A Kansas City police officer, while vainly radioing for backup, was shot and wounded by a drug dealer. Officers were a minute away, but the radio crackled and hummed ineffectively, telling the assailant that the officer was alone and vulnerable. The officer sued the radio system builders. It is possible to sue such outside parties, but not possible to sue the police.

When police are available and can be called, they may not respond. A New York City woman pressed a silent alarm when an armed robber entered her business. The alarm company called 911; the operator, however, garbled the name of the business. The lady was murdered while the authorities put it down as a false alarm. After her funeral, the company received a letter threatening no response if there were further such alarms.

A Kansas City businessman was alerted to a burglary by his alarm company. He went to his business, expecting to be met by the police, only to find himself pursuing the burglar alone. The alarm company had called 911, but the dispatcher refused to send police officers because the business' alarm permit had expired. In fact, the alarm permit had not expired. A permit system intended to limit false alarms has instead been used to limit police protection.

The ACLU has provided video cameras to residents of a crime-ridden St. Louis neighborhood. The cameras are not to provide evidence of crime, but to document police brutality. While police brutality does occur, the effort is not likely to speed officers to calls in the neighborhood.

The problem of "de-policing" has arisen since the Cincinnati riots of 2000. The term describes a demoralized police force which no longer initiates action out of fear of criticism, police discipline, civil suits, and even criminal charges. In the last twenty years, "community policing" has relied on aggressive enforcement of seemingly minor laws on the theory that lack of enforcement indicates a tolerance of serious crime. With criminals filing bogus criminal charges against aggressive officers, and wild charges of racism (some both wild and true) many officers are reluctant to exercise the requisite aggression.

When the system functions, and an officer is available, and an officer responds, it may still not be enough. One department's policy is to wait for backup when responding to domestic violence reports. This sensible practice had a woman stabbed to death while a police officer sat in his car three doors away, waiting for backup.

Police response is directly related to police contact. This contact is tied to cell phone coverage and the 911 system. Cell phone coverage can be eccentric and dependent on the reliability of electronic devices. Even today, not all of Missouri is covered by the 911 system, and there is no map of the places that are not covered (for those who like surprises). Some places have the equipment to locate a 911 call from a cell phone to within 75 yards, but most can only narrow it down to the nearest cell phone tower. A Missouri cell phone user can dial *55 and be linked to a Highway Patrol headquarters, but not necessarily the nearest headquarters.

Police are recruited from "Type A" aggressive personalities. They want to rescue people and charge into danger; it is their nature. However, they are ruled by bureaucrats and politicians both in and out of uniform. If these rulers decide that a person or persons shall not receive police protection, there is no recourse. One federal court has proclaimed that "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Fortunately, there is a constitutional right to the means to defend ourselves.

Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense.

Article Critique

Open Clip Art Library. Public Domain.

I am not posting this post to the top of my blog list, as it is not, in my mind, 100% original, even though I have violated no laws and plagarized no one in writing it. Rather, it is a critique, and not wanting to be subservient to anyone, I will not post it, under any condition, to the top of my list.

Update 10/12/2010: CNN writes an inferior version of the same article I am critiquing.

I am normally a huge fan of the Guardian. They are quite possibly the greatest left-wing newspaper in the world, with high quality artistic prose, good summaries of important stories, and honest, intelligent editorials from a rational leftists perspective. However, this particular editorial I cannot endorse.

It executes, among other things, a major "No True Scotsmen" fallacy (LOL, it's from Britain) in deciding that opposing people who made irresponsible decisions with their money IS opposing the working and middle class, when these are the very people that the Tea Party seeks to save from growing government inteference, high taxes, a lack of choice and freedom, and worst of all, the stifling of their very spirit as Americans, the spirit that the working-class and the middle-class love more then anyone, their storge, in their darkest hour, keeps them alive, and like a little girl wanting to throw a wildcat in a cage to "take care of it," people like Obama would deprive them of the thing these people love most. The Tea Party, like the working class, opposes the bailouts to bankers and high-flying corporate aristocrats that steal the futures of working class children.

The Tea Party also opposes the partisan industrial complex that was best summarized by Anarchists 6 years ago who chanted, on the eve of the 2004 election, "Bush, Kerry, are the same, the only difference is the name." The PIC has been a curse to the entire continent of North America for many years now, and, among other things, endorsed the spending, corruption and ruinous habits that have both deprived our working class of their jobs and threatened their say in the workings of our democracy, while ruining the careers of politicians, like the Late Washington Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, who sought to correct the course of our nation from this horrific treason against democracy.

Many readers of this editorial will excuse the errors by saying, "well, they are a far-right doctrine, just like Fascism," and my response to them will be, "no, actually." Here again we have a fallacy of definition. "Right-wing" has been redefined tremendously since the 1940's, is a term whose meaning changes nearly every year. To correctly assess similarities between the Tea Party and the doctrine of Fascism we would have to use the definition of Right-wing that fit Fascism, a definition that includes a state-endorsed aristocracy and elite, collectivization and tyrannical nationalism, the very things that the Tea Party opposes with a passion.

And again the editorials errs by saying, accusingly, "But polling shows that when it comes to poverty, the elderly and education, if anything people want to do more rather than less." For once in a long time, a Gaurdian article has referenced a Washington Post article that is its superior. While it is true that many Tea Party members would be very pleased if certain measures were taken on behalf of the poor, the elderly, and our education system, it is also true that the Tea Party, as a noncentralized grassroots organization very much of the Anarchist spirit, can change course very quickly, and once those who threaten the ability of government to handle its responsiblities well have been politically destroyed, from Republican Mike Castle in Delaware to Democrat Harry Reid in Nevada, the Tea Party can change course quickly, and wield the same power that put Christine O'Donnell on Delawares ballot to assure that our poor are taken care of reasonably well. Like the Great Hordes of Genghis Khan, maneuvers, formations and armor mean nothing to the Tea Party readying for battle on its grassroots steppe and out of its hundreds of buckskin tents.

The ability to make compromises will prove crucial at such a point in deciding whether the Tea Party can survive such a maneuver, though the public opinion and grassroots apparatus alone assure that an attempt will be made, but here I resort to a great French mathematician named Pascal. The worse thing that could happen is that, after destroying these particular Democrats, the Tea Party splits up, and new Democrats (but new ones) ascend to the congressional leadership. If such happens, we have made a powerful statement of the ability of the American people to hold their politicians accountable, and our new liberals will be more rational and responsible, perhaps more like the Guardian when they haven't gone crazy, when they ascend to congressional leadership. The best thing that could happen, on the other hand, is the people destroying the political party as we know it for good, and replacing it with true civic involvement at all levels of legislation. Perhaps even if they do split, they will proceed to conquer the two American parties and subject them to their barbarian rule.

Thus, either way, a Tea Party member wins his wager. Even the conservatives among them will appreciate a more fair and reasonable liberal hand should that happen, and all will appreciate the people rising to leadership if that should happen. Either one of these would be an acceptable goal of and by itself, and they are the set of possibilities. Thus, my congressional democrats - check... mate.

Alki: Coyote and Raven Talk

Totem Poles at Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC, by Peter Graham. Use permitted under CC 2.0G License

Coyote: Yes we did!

Raven: What did you do?

Coyote: We've done it!

Raven: What have you done?

Coyote: Change is at hand!

Raven: Change to what?

Coyote: We fought the rich!

Raven: You fought for what?

Coyote: We stood up to the special interests!

Raven: Which ones?

Coyote: A new bright era has dawned!

Raven: A bright era for whom?

Coyote: The future looks bright.

Raven: Bright for what?

Pioneer Square, 1907. Public domain, author unknown.

I would recommend Mourning Doves "Coyote Stories" for a traditional Plateau Indian characterization of the character of Coyote. I've read the book myself and loved it. I don't know of a single excellent source like this for Raven, being something I was more raised with, but this site seems to have some reasonable content. Professor Nichols site from Pittsburgh State University also seems to have some solid coyote background.

Al-ki is a traditional Salish statement of skepticism.

Patriotism - What's the Point?

Flag courtesy of Wikimedia. Public Domain

I was speaking with a liberal awhile back and, while I can hardly remember what the discussion was about, one particular argument he made right towards the end has stuck in my mind ever since. He said:

"Conservatives have already shown that they will not do what's right or effective on principle. They always base their decisions on what America is, which is always changing!"

I don't know exactly how true that statement is, but I'm hoping not as true as he thought it is, for if we truly have no principle, what are we fighting for? What's the point? Why should, someone who believes as this man believes, be heartless enough to ask somebody to give up their life, their happiness, their property, even a moment of joy for a big fat nothing.

Liberals like this fellow always talk about how patriotic they are, but if they feel this way about their country, how can they be patriotic? How could they have the heart to be? If your nation is truly nothing, represents nothing, stands for nothing, why should anyone care? And even if, for practical reasons, patriotism is useful, don't you think you owe the people who have been so good to you more then a big fat nothing in return for their service?