I wonder... do you suppose the New Hampshire Department of Corrections will allow one of their "guests" to have and use a broadcasting studio?
The reason I ask that is, as you may have heard, Al Franken tackled a heckler at a Dean event. Mysteriously, Franken claimed that his tackling of the heckler was an effort to protect free speech. I suppose that's the sort of thing that passes for logic among DUMB-o-cRATS most of the time.
I'm not a prosecutor... I'm just a law student, and I don't even live in New Hampshire. However, with the magic of LexisNexis, I was able to look up the relevant criminal statutes in New Hampshire. Here, without much legal analysis, is a list of the handfull of criminal offenses that I think Al Franken violated. I doubt he'll be charged (he should be) but he could end up spending a great deal of time behind bars (it wouldn't surprise me if the total possible time could exceed 20 years).
1. RSA 644:1 Riot - It appears that Franken and "the press guy for Dean" may have been working together. That's a CLASS B FELONY.
2. Conspiracy - I didn't look up the RSA number, but the agreement to commit a crime by more than one person constitutes a "conspiracy". Franken claimed to have been "deputized" by the Dean camp. This might even implicate Howard Dean. In this case, Mujahi-Dean could be held criminally liable for all the same crimes as Franken. Since we've got some felonies here, this would also be a FELONY.
3. RSA 644:2 Disorderly Conduct - It's a VIOLATION.
4. RSA 633:2 Criminal Restraint - According to the language of the statute, Franken's actions in wrestling the fellow down would probably count. It's a CLASS B FELONY
5. RSA 631:2-a Simple Assault - MISDEMEANOR.
6. RSA 631:2 Second Degree Assault - This one is a little more of a stretch, but if the actions could be shown to be severe enough and of the sort that would normally be expected to result in serious bodily injury, he could go up the river on this one too. It's a CLASS B FELONY.
Al, when you read this, please note: You're actions are significantly different than, say becoming addicted to painkillers because of a serious medical condition. You're actions were totally volitional. If I were the prosecutor, I would accept nothing less than a guilty plea to at least one felony AND at least 60 days behind bars. So much for your right to vote!
WHY DOES YOUR CRIME-RATE GROW?
Mark Steyn does in the British Gun-Control/Radio Poll story:
"A "listeners' law" is, of course, a pathetic gimmick. Judging from the reaction of Stephen Pound, MP, the modish proponents of "direct democracy" believe in letting the people's voice be heard only so long as it agrees with what their betters have already decided. So, having agreed to introduce the listeners' choice as a Bill in Parliament, Mr. Pound was a bit shocked to find the winning proposal wasn't one of the nanny-state suggestions (a ban on smoking, compulsory organ donation, mandatory voting) or the snobby joke ones (a ban on Christmas decorations before December), but the right to defend your home."
"Why, the People's Champion himself, Stephen Pound, dismissed it as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation. I can't remember who it was who said, `The people have spoken, the bastards'."
"That would be Dick Tuck, a long-ago California state senate candidate, in an unusually pithy concession speech. It's an amusing remark as applied to the electorate's rejection of oneself. It's not quite so funny when applied, by Mr. Pound, to people impertinent enough to bring up a topic that you and the rest of the governing class have decided is beyond debate. As used by Mr. Tuck, it reflects a rough'n'tumble vernacular politics; as used by Mr Pound, it comes out closer to "Let 'em eat cake"."
"The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest."
"But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then."
"...you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene."
"And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser."
Most gun-control is not crime-control, but citizen-control. And goes hand-in-hand with the abolition of the Death Penalty. In response to a brutal shotgun-slaying of 3 policemen 40 years ago, the liberal answer was to abolish the Death Penalty, and to register, and later ban, most gun-ownership.
If the State says to criminals "There is NOTHING you can do that is vicious enough for us to execute you!", even after a long & deliberative process, then it certainly isn't going to let individual victims make that determination on the spot. Though you'd never know it, many European publics support the Death penalty.
The English jurist Blackstone, who is to Law what Edison is to electronics, asserted the right to armed self-defense is an 'Absolute Right'; one that pre-dates & supersedes even Constitutions & societies. So when Steyn says "... once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it.", he is quite right on the deterrence point...but the State cannot 'give' you that right; it can only honor or dishonor the right previously given by one's Maker.
British gun-control cannot be looked at apart from several other bad liberal ideas; the disparagement of traditional morality and the introduction of massive numbers of third-world immigrants, a certain number of whom have no loyalty or respect for British culture. And elites have never appreciated Thomas Jefferson's formulation: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Or perhaps they've appreciated it all too well.
Steyn points out one more unintended consequence; criminals now wait for victims to arrive home and turn off their burglar-alarms; can burglar-alarm-control be far behind?
As for the alleged slaughter that would take place; was there a slaughter when the people were allowed to defend their homes years ago? Did I miss this scene from "Mary Poppins"?:
Winifred Banks: "George; what ARE you doing?"
George W. Banks: "Hello, dear; I'm going to shoot a burglar...it's the English way, you know."
Winifred: "But that's no burglar, darling; that's Bert---our chimney sweep!"
George: "One can't be to careful these days, dear,"...BLAM! BLAM!..."Sorry, Bert, but I haven't shot anyone for King & Country all day. Chin up...way to keep a stiff upper lip, old boy!"
Tony State: "I'm afraid you're under arrest for the murder of Rob Petrie, Mr. Banks."
Mary Tyler Moore: "Oh, Rob!"
George Banks: "Who are you, sir...and where is Mary Poppins?"
Tony State: " I'm your new Nanny...Nanny State. Your wife elected me when she got the vote. And Mary is fine. She fought off two purse-snatchers in the park with her umbrella; she should be released soon...it's her first offense, after all."
Mr. Banks: "Oh, thank Heavens; for a brief, terrifying moment, I feared she was in the waiting room at National Health."
Instead of criminals living in fear, the Elites seem fear only one thing:
Super-Callous-Fragile-Victims-Expediting-Justice.
Can pun-control be far behind?
IT'S NOT JUST FOR ELECTIONS ANYMORE!
Sen. John McCain announced a new round of Reform proposals today.
"Christmas has become institutionally corrupt," said the Senator. "I woke up the day after Christmas feeling like a 2-baht Saigon hooker on a Tet Love Holiday. And it's not just me; we just can't stop ourselves."
"That's why I'm proposing Christmas Finance Reform," he explained. "Families are too close to children, just like Parties are too close to candidates; and we don't want children to feel indebted to fat-cat donor-parents. So from now on, all private gift-giving will be a crime and we'll have public financing of all gifts."
"Did you promise little Susie a new doll-house next year? Tough!" said McCain, his eye beginning to twitch. "The Federal Gift-Selection Commision has decided she's getting a toy dump-truck. The Government wants more female truck-drivers anyway. Sure; little Susie will cry, but just tell her we here in Washington know what's best."
Another provision of the Act would ban all Christmas caroling 60 days before the holiday. "That's my favorite part...I've always hated that "We Three Keatings" song! Nobody said Reform would be pretty...but I think she's pretty..." McCain shouted, and then whispered, in the now-familiar, unhinged sing-song voice long known to criminologists and FBI profilers.
While endorsed by many serial Congressmen, a majority of Congress recognize that this Act would violate their oaths to the Constitution.
Pres. Bush also said he was firmly against it, and it is widely expected that the Supreme Court would strike down such an outrageous assault on our liberties.
Therefore, it will very likely be passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Court in time for next Christmas.
Justice O'Conner could not be reached for comment, as she was busy researching Saudi court rulings regarding the celebration of Christmas in Mecca.
When asked what was next on the Reform agenda, Squinter McCain, now in full 'Bruce-Dern-on-a-meth-bender' mode, said: "Ya' know...the 4th of July has always kinda' bugged me."
Individualism 'R' Us"---an essay by P. J. O'Rourke
"The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and - lest individualism run riot - insist upon individual responsibility."
..."That we are individuals - unique, disparate and willful - is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me - and a bunch of kids I've never met - a pony, and we'll share.""
..."The first question of political science is - or should be: "What is good for everyone?" And, by "everyone" we must mean "all individuals.""
"The question can't be: "What is good for a single individual?" That's megalomania, which is, like a New Hampshire presidential primary, the art of politics, not political science."
"And the question can't be: "What is good for some individuals?" Or even: "What is good for the majority of individuals?" That's partisan politics, which, at best, leads to Newt Gingrich or Pat Schroeder and, at worst, leads to Lebanon or Rwanda."
"Finally, the question can't be: "What is good for individuals as a whole?" There's no such thing. Individuals are only available individually."
"By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate. Judaism gave us laws before which all men, no matter their rank, stood as equals. Christianity taught us that each person has intrinsic worth, Newt Gingrich and Pat Schroeder included. The rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving wealth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords. And the industrial revolution allowed millions of ordinary folks an opportunity to obtain decent houses, food and clothes (albeit with some unfortunate side effects, such as environmental damage and Albert Gore)."
Read it all here.
"To those of us watching from afar the ructions over the European constitution - a 1970s solution to a 1940s problem - it seems amazing that no Continental politician is willing to get to grips with the real crisis facing Europe in the 21st century: the lack of Europeans."
& THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONSENT
"A French bastard (William the Conqueror) landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right, if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion."--Tom Paine's 'Common Sense'
Mr. Paine believed in the Consent of the Governed. And evidently, he was no great fan of French bastards. I feel your pain, Tom.
A blog named for Jefferson's famous Declaratory phrase must, of course, examine what is meant by 'consent', what comprises 'governance', and determine the identity of those being 'Governed'. And so we shall...but not today. Today, I merely wish to make Sally Hemmings jokes. If that offends you, well, as Jefferson said to Ms. Hemming's offspring "Hey, kids; lighten up!"
You're right; Hamilton WAS funnier.
Regardless of the rumors, Miss Hemmings had no consent in her own governance. Slavery is tyranny in its most distilled form, except for genocide; the slave 'owners' at least usually sought to keep their 'property' alive. For all its malignant evil, slavery was a stark wrong. Our challenges today are far more amorphous, a Smurf word meaning "Beware the Ruth Bader-Meinhoff Gang of Five!".
It must be admitted that we are, on the whole, much more free, informed, healthy, wealthy and scientifically knowledgeble than at any time in history.
Perhaps that is why one hears so much piffley criticism; only when one is not chained to a galley can one focus on searing indignities such as 'inappropriate looking' or freeing Willie at a cost of millions. I assure you that the hungering millions of yesteryear would have zero time and less sympathy for any People for the Animal Treatment of Ethics (PATE') campaign. Especially one which placed both the egg and the chicken, not to mention chicken-coop Feng Shui issues, before the needs of hungry people.
Consent, and consensuality, are all the rage today. (Ironically however, the phrase 'all the rage' has gone out of style.)
That's why we provide college students classes such as "Orgy 101: Is Inviting Less than a Dozen 'Non-Inclusive'?. But then we insist that the participants sign a form acknowledging consent at each stage of intimacy, until the love-nest is so papered-over that it resembles the False Affidavit Wing of the Clinton Library after a 'Miss Arkansas' contest at the Little Rock Hilton. Marriage may be 'just a piece of paper', but swinging requires its own Dewey Decimal system.
After your institution of higher learning has helped you express your consensuality, it will, of course, provide you with any necessary medical services on a confidential basis.
That means they won't tell your parents, who pay your tuition in their own little-minded, repressed bourgeois way. Because they might actually withhold their consent. And their tuition check.
Which would violate the Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions 242 & 345, The Code of Hammurabi...and might even prevent the Dean of Law from taking his Spring Break vacation with his teaching assistant. And that would have a 'disparate impact' on his Constitutional Right to Consensuality, violate the 'Livin' La Vida In Loco Parentis' Clause of his frequent-flyer miles fine print, causing major self-esteem issues with the resultant lawsuits...and forcing me to use several other latin words and legal phrases.
Trust me, parents; you don't want that. Let it go. Write the check.
And now you understand 'Consent', Mom & Dad.
Oh; and don't forget to sign it.