Let’s kick this week off, shall we?
- Trump to campaign manager: ‘You’re fired!’ — All those Trump fans are getting the reality TV show they voted for. There’s something backward about this, though: If the Trump campaign wanted to get rid of its greatest liability, The Donald himself would be the first to go. Meanwhile, the NYT has apparently read the WashPost‘s story about Roy Cohn’s influence on Trump, and done their own version of the story, with additional details.
- Cavaliers win NBA championship — For those of you who complain that we don’t have enough sports here. As Kent Babb, former sportswriter at The State (now with The Washington Post) Tweeted, “Royals … Cavs … Cubs? Ain’t nothing impossible anymore.” He neglected to mention this year’s greatest sports miracle: Leicester City winning the Premier League, with a bit of encouragement from Richard III.
- High Court Turns Away Challenge to Semiautomatic Gun Law — This counts as a victory for gun-control advocates, as at least this is one battle they didn’t lose. Meanwhile, Here Are The 4 Gun Proposals The Senate Is Voting On (Again).
- Coroner: 3-year-old dies a day after twin brother — I could hardly stand to look at this story. It’s one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen. Forgive me for sharing it, but it just cast a pall on my morning. Twins are such a blessing, as I’ve been privileged to learn. Such a loss staggers the soul. My thoughts and prayers go out to this family.
- The Guardian view on the EU referendum: keep connected and inclusive, not angry and isolated — Somehow, they fail to persuade. But this is fairly typical, for me, of their “leaders.” Still don’t know how I’d vote…
This just in! I’ve learned that Capt. Jack Aubrey, late of Her Majesty’s Navy, has come out for Brexit, and has given his jolly tars a pep talk urging them to vote the same:
Capt. Jack Aubrey: England is under threat of invasion [evidently a hyperbolic reference to increased immigration from EU countries], and though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship, is England. So it’s every hand to his rope or gun, quick’s the word and sharp’s the action. After all… Surprise is on our side.
Crew: Huzzah, huzzah!
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly?
Crew: No!
Capt. Jack Aubrey: Want to call that raggedy-ass Napoleon your king?
Crew: No!
Capt. Jack Aubrey: You want your children to sing the “La Marseillaise?”
Crew: NO!
OK, so he’s distorting things a bit. But don’t stop him; he’s on a roll…
Watching the Brexit campaign closely, but still undecided…
Related Posts
My “Master and Commander” quotes come from my personal reaction to this line in the Guardian piece, under the subhed “Fantasy Island:”
Reminds me of my progressive friends’ derision when I speak fondly of the past here.
The past that people who love Britain have in our minds is not “imaginary.” Yes, Jack Aubrey is a fictional character, but he never does anything in those novels that was not equaled or exceeded in real life by Lord Cochrane and others.
It was a very real Britain that produced:
Of course, I could go on for centuries, but I won’t…
Michael Caine as Harry Palmer.
Of course, to be fair, I should mention all the rich cultural artifacts that the EU has given the world, such as… and also, um… and don’t forget, ah….
Never you mind, I’m sure there’s something out there…
Did you ever see Love, Actually? It’s a cheesy Christmas movie, but it’s not horrible. Lots of folks love to hate on it, but I like it. It has a great part, where Hugh Grant, playing the Prime Minister talks about what makes Britain great.
I enjoyed Love, Actually — I’ve seen it several times — but the part you point to is the one part I did NOT like.
It portrays the PM suddenly developing a spine and standing up to the boorish, bullying American president. The whole scenario is derived from the popular (on the left) notion that Tony Blair was George W. Bush’s “lapdog.” Which is not the way I saw it at all. Blair was the guy who fully understood the War on Terror and could articulate the need to go into Iraq FAR better than Bush could. He wasn’t some weak sister who kowtowed to the will of the American neocons. This is the guy who had to kick and push Clinton into acting in the Balkans.
Right after 9/11, when this country and the Brits were gearing up for the fight, I wrote in a column something to the effect of, “If we’ve got to go to war, can’t Tony Blair lead us?” (Actually, I was quoting something Mike Fitts had said, with which I fully believed.) Britain may have been the junior party on account of the relative military might of our countries, but Blair was the leader I respected the most.
So when I find movie audiences cheering Hugh Grant, implying that they wish Tony Blair had had such spunk, it kind of ticks me off…
“Blair was the guy who fully understood the War on Terror and could articulate the need to go into Iraq FAR better than Bush could.”
Yeah, too bad he based his decision on bad intelligence and wasn’t smart enough to understand the consequences of his actions. Sort of deflates the rhetoric in hindsight.
His own words:
“I can say that I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though he had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought,” Blair said in an exclusive interview on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.
Blair told Zakaria that besides the flawed Iraq intelligence, he also apologizes “for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”
You’ll notice that what he did NOT say was, “Bush made me do it.” Which is what too many Brits, including the twits who wrote that part of “Love Actually,” think. Which irritates me no end…
Blair was motivated by a sort of global communitarianism that is very much like what I mean when I say that strong countries have a obligation to stand up for certain things in the world.
David Brooks explained it well in a column that I in turn blogged about in 2007.
It’s interesting stuff. And on a whole other plane of thought from what we heard from W. et al. in this country…
I guess I sorta watched the cheesy rom-com with my political hat off. But if you can’t take your political hat off, I can see where it would rub you the wrong way.
Personally, I can’t take off my lawyer hat when I watch legal movies, so I’m always the guy rolling his eyes and talking to the TV during those kinds of movies. Oh, the legal TV shows are even worse. Way worse. I can’t even sit through those.
I imagine it’s like what doctors see when ER was on NBC back in the day.
I can’t watch most shows about teachers for the same reason. They’re generally portrayed as plucky, inspirational overachievers stemming a bumbling horde of burnt-out wrecks. Or just as a bumbling horde of burnt-out wrecks.
How about the TV shows and movies in which journalists just routinely violate every ethical rule that real journalists live by?
Most fictional shows that feature journalists seem to be written by the very worst, idiotic critics of media, who just ASSUME that journalists do things that I’ve never known a journalist to do…
Did you ever watch The Newsroom with Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston? A good part of the tension in the series was generated by the conflict between being first and being right. I wonder what your opinion of it is–is it an accurate representation of what happens in a newsroom?
I did not, for several reasons. Here are two:
1. I read accounts of the first episode. It seems the protagonist goes into an on-air rant in which he tells the “truth,” which turns out to be a bunch of Occupy Wall Street/Bernie Sanders fantasies about billionayuhs running the world. Or something ridiculous like that.
2. It’s not about a real newsroom. It’s about broadcast.
You want to see real newsrooms at their best (and accurately), see “Spotlight” or “All the President’s Men.” You want to see them in a less lofty, but still somewhat accurate, light, see “The Paper” with Michael Keaton (just remember as you watch that it’s a tabloid — but there is much in the film to make me smile in recognition from my career in broadsheets).
Interesting how Michael Keaton stars in two of them…
I suppose it’s nice to be able to take off one’s political hat.
I don’t so much have a political hat as I have a political head. Or at the very least, political hair…
Life would be too exhausting and dull for me if I couldn’t.
By the way, back to Len Deighton…
If you’ve never read any good spy novels and are only willing to read one, read The Ipcress File. It stands completely alone. It’s small-scale, realistic, clever, ironic, and in parts (especially the footnotes) educational. And it’s a quick read.
It’s far removed from James Bond, except perhaps in the unnamed (I think they called him Harry Palmer in the movie, but he had no name in the book — in fact, at one point someone refers to him as Harry and he says, “Now my name isn’t Harry, but in this business it’s hard to remember whether it ever had been”) protagonist’s tendency to buck authority.
In one or two spots when for a moment his life does become Bond-like, he pauses to explain how unusual that is. I like this bit (which Google informs my I’ve quoted before on the blog):
In other words, beautiful spies aren’t an everyday thing with him the way they are with Bond, but he’s going to enjoy it while it lasts…
I’m not saying that’s the BEST spy novel I’ve ever read. That title should probably go to The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. Technically, artistically and as an expression of the genre, it’s pretty much perfect.
But it’s also very dark and grim, with a characteristically convoluted plot (a ruse within a ruse within a ruse), and you have to be a pretty dedicated fan to get through it — in my opinion.
By contrast, Ipcress is breezy and fun to read, while at the same time dealing with some fairly serious stuff…
Ipcress is the sort of thing that can seduce you into reading spy fiction. Cold might scare you off…
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – very good and the movie with Gary Oldman was very well done. There were some good actors other than Oldman in the movie as well. Worth watching but don’t expect the Bond type chases, explosions, and conquests of the opposite sex. It was more on the order of The Ipcress File but slightly different.
Another good short novel was Hopscotch but the movie with Walter Matthau was decent but not great.
I’m more impressed by what The Economist says than what The Guardian does:
Britons favoring Brexit object to the EU’s expanding control over economic, finance, legal, and immigration policies, a result of the unions disregard for national sovereignty. There are certainly strong arguments, primarily economic, for the UK to remain in the EU, but the absence of the notion of federalism outweighs the economic incentives.
Immigration aside, everyday Brits have become rather weary of the diktats of the European Parliament. Grocers are prohibited from displaying prices of their goods by the pound or ounce, but must use the metric equivalents. And no, they can’t display both prices, only the metric will do.
But that’s minor compared to rage caused by the influx of immigrants brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Party and their consumption of welfare payments and establishment of “no-go” zones in which non-Muslims are not allowed. Remaining in the EU will only increase immigration and any disruptions that may occur.
What will be most interesting is if the public votes to leave the EU, whether Parliament will honor the people’s wishes. There are some reports that suggest that the MPs will find a way to ignore results if Brexit wins.
Yes, Brits are required as a condition of membership in the European Economic Community (now EU) to use metric measurements. After all, that’s what the community has always been about: standardization to facilitate the free-flow of goods. But they do have the option of also using imperial weights and measures. So British shopkeepers can still sell England by the lb. – to demonstrate that Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
“Selling England By The Pound” – classic prog rock!
This is random – but it is an open thread, right? Does anybody here watch Turn, Washington’s Spies? Speaking of things British. It’s rather good at showing the good and bad on both sides, I think. The characters and dialogue and acting is very good even if the history is not always exactly right. And they made Washington really look like that portrait with the silly hairdo.
Oh dear, what happened to my subjects and verbs up there. The characters and dialogue and acting ARE very good…… sorry.
Yeah, I started watching that a while back, but dropped it a few episodes into it. I keep meaning to get back to it, since that is a period that interested me a great deal in school.
I’m interested in the dynamics affecting the rebels and American loyalists, and the ambiguous attitudes of others.
My interlocutors here, particularly my liberal friends, see me as a highly predictable cornball patriot, waving the flag and approving heartily of everything my country has ever done.
But I’ve always been kind of ambivalent about the revolution. I’ve never approved of the Boston Tea Party — I see nothing that justified that wanton destruction of property. I have big problems with the minutemen firing upon British troops — the legal authorities, carrying out their duties — at Lexington and Concord.
I favor independence, mind you — I’m just not sure I can approve of the year of fighting that preceded it. I’ve just never been entirely convinced that the British were so oppressive that it justified picking up a musket and firing it at a British soldier.
My respect for the rule of law gets in the way. I often say my favorite Founder was John Adams, and that is in part because I respect him so for successfully defending the British soldiers charged in what the propagandists called “the Boston Massacre.”
Once independence is declared, of course, I’m rooting for the Americans to win. It’s those first shots that concern me.
It’s been decades since I’ve studied the period, of course. I need to find a really good book detailing what led up to Lexington and Concord to see whether it makes me feel better about it, or worse…
Just went and read the fairly detailed Wikipedia account of Lexington and Concord.
What a mess. Unclear who fired first. Fog of war…
By this time colonials in growing numbers realized that a peaceful resolution to the differences between the crown and colonials was unlikely. They had no voice in Parliament and believed that George III’s actions violated British customs and traditions. See the Declaration of Independence, written over a year later, for the colonials’ grievances. In their minds, the government had lost its legitimacy.
Regarding your point on the rule of law as it applies to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the colonials were operating under a resolution of the Continental Congress that called for opposition to any attempt by British forces to execute by force specific acts of Parliament. Citing that resolution, on 3/30/1775 the Massachusetts Provincial Congress issued a resolution authorizing the use of force.
That’s why, when the colonials learned of the British Army’s plans to march on Lexington and Concord to seize the colonials’ firearms and powder – their means of self-defense — they resisted with deadly force, using the weaponry the Brits had intended to seize.
As a former NE Ohio resident I can, with great relief and joy, finally say it: The “Factory of Sadness” is CLOSED! Congratulations to the Cavs for finally getting the monkey off our backs. There is no city that deserves it more. (OK Cubbies, it’s your turn–just not this year. Go Indians! 🙂 )
Is anyone surprised that the Senate voted down the bill that would have prohibited arms sales to anyone on the terrorist watch list? No, not Feinstein’s one.
John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. Democrats voted against it, so it failed.
I guess they would rather have a campaign issue in the fall than incremental and constitutional laws.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As per usual.
I would note, all my objections were the lack of due process. I would have voted YEA.
Due process is not a trifling thing.
Maybe Collins’ compromise will get through the Senate. This may have a chance to at least reach the House.
It appears clear that the vast majority of the nation wants appropriate firearms restrictions. Not a repeat of the Patriot Act knee jerk reactionary pandering, but a sensible crimping of some of the obvious shortcomings of our current NRA manifesto. What we – all of need – now is to see Congress come together to pass 5-6 “common sense” restrictions. Nothing grand; nothing that actually restricts responsible gun owners in even a minor way. But these should include documented background checks for private sales, and other things like that. I’ll lay off the magazine restriction thing to get these passed. It wouldn’t be hard to outline a broadly supportable – civically – list of enhanced restrictions. We all need to see this from our representatives. We need to see them function.
I am still totally open to hearing gun owners’ perspectives; but I’m not interested in the NRA’s views on anything but firearms safety.
There’s a problem when “common sense” is used because it’s so vague. It’s good that you give several specifics, such as “documented background checks for private sales,” but that requirement indicates your misunderstanding of how background checks work now: they are documented to the extent that a check is run and passed or failed, but by law government agencies are not permitted to retain substantial information about the transfers beyond a specific number of days. Congress has consistently prohibited agencies from retaining this information because of its concerns that the agencies could store the information in a database that could later be used in confiscating firearms from otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Before exploring the rationale and logic of Congress’ will, I must confess that my trust in the government’s propriety has decreased over the past 25 years and plummeted over the past eight years.
Operation Fast and Furious was a e US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program that allowed the sale and trafficking of thousands of weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels. The purported purpose of the operation was to trace the weapons to the end users and then collar the miscreants. However, unlike a similar Bush Administration program, the Department of Justice (DoJ) did not involve or notify the Mexican government, with the result that weapons flowed into Mexico without the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government. Attempts by US Congressional committees to get to the bottom of this have been stymied by the DoJ’s claim that there was no involvement by senior DoJ or Administration personnel. Yet despite that claim, the administration has asserted executive privilege to withhold the documents. Congress sued, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Amy Berman has recently struck down the executive privilege claim, so we may soon find out more about how the Obama Administration allowed thousands of firearms to be shipped to violent Mexican drug cartels. More than several folks believe that the real purpose of the operation was to use the flow of the firearms to Mexico as an excuse to impose draconian gun control measures, but the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by Mexican drug gang members with one of the F&F rifles made the F&F initiative public and eventually led to Congress find then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.
The IRS engaged in wholesale harassment of Tea-Party and other conservative organizations. Why trust them?
I also think that you may misunderstand the issue associated with private firearms sales. First, the correct term is “transfer,” not “sale” by law so as to include gifts, non-cash transactions, trades, etc. Second, it would mean that if I wanted to transfer a firearm even as a gift to my daughter, cousin, or whomever, I would have to do so through a Federal Firearms License-holder who would reasonably charge me a fee for the paperwork. Finally, criminals would not bother with any of those niceties, would they? You would impose a burden on the law-abiding citizen that the law-breaker would not.
Stonewalling and naysaying a constellation of tired tropes does not address the fundamental issue at hand. The current state of firearms regulation is abysmal, dysfunctional and corrosive to our nation.
There is a regulatory framework that can balance the needs of our citizens under our Constitution. It is worth an honest, open-minded and fair discussion.
That has not happened since the early 1970s. From either “side” of this issue.
I saw the Tired Tropes open up for Guns ‘N Roses back in 1992.
What is that ” regulatory framework that can balance the needs of our citizens under our Constitution”? Please expand.
A few steps to regulate firearms could include:
1) Lift prohibition on firearms related social research
2) Make firearms acquisition/possession prohibitions for the mentally ill and any non-citizens as least as strong as for felons (hunting as an activity by foreign nationals excepted).
3) Mandate the information flow necessary to have a workable national background check system.
4) Require background checks for all firearms transfers.
5) Require registration of all firearms at transfer.
6) Ban the sale of all magazines or feeder systems over 10 rounds. Ban their transfer and establish a bounty system to pay 2015 FMV prices for all disgorged magazines.
7) Establish a category of the combination of assault rifle/handgun and over 10 round magazine/feeder systems under the NFA and permit each subject to those regulations and controls.
I’ll refrain from calling this a “common sense” list. It might be, or it might not be. It is, however, a coherent framework, I think.
No taker’s? Common sense solutions then I think.
Assistant
Y0u make a good point. A friend of mine sold me one of his pistols a few years ago. (I’ve bought 2 from him).
He’s a guy I’ve known well for 20 years. He works for the state of South Carolina in a well respected position.
I paid him for the weapon, he had me sign a receipt in front of a witness, and I had to show him my CWP which he made a copy of for his own records. He knew I had my CWP and had completed the background check. All of this from a guy who is a close friend. He refuses to sell a gun otherwise.
Why? Because he wanted to protect himself, and document the sale.
All things that weren’t required- and of course things that no one intent on breaking the law with a gun would ever dream of doing.
That’s a wise approach. Twice I just wanted to get rid of a handgun, so each time I took them to a gun shop for consignment sale. I was happy, the shop was happy, and they gave me a check and receipt.
So by a 9-5 vote, the Richland County legislative delegation requested/asked/begged/suggested that the Richland County Recreation Commission suspend its director James Brown due to the ongoing investigations into Brown’s questionable activities. Naturally, Darrell Jackson voted to wait and see what comes out of the investigation by The Richland County Sheriff’s Department, the 5th Circuit solicitor’s office, State Law Enforcement Division and the FBI. There was an eyewitness who testified that he was present when thousands of dollars exchanged hands between Mr. Brown and the people who authorized his salary increase.
When I think of some of the stories I’ve heard of teachers and school administrators being put on paid leave immediately for trivial infractions, it makes me wonder just how corrupt this county is.
As usual, The State, is very, very, very, very cautious in its reporting. No details about the allegations (have to go to The Nerve to get that). They don’t even mention who the people are who would make the decision on suspending Brown — just a nameless, faceless board.
Here’s the link to the members of the board who would make the decision to suspend Brown.
http://richlandcountyrecreation.com/about/board-of-commissioners/
Oh, wait – two of the women on the board are the ones implicated in the kickback scheme. I guess that really helps when you’re facing suspension.
I think residents of Richland County should withhold the portion of their property taxes that goes to the Recreation Commission until the entire board and management staff is replaced.
Responsible newspapers are always “very, very, very, very cautious” in covering such things. Woodward and Bernstein were very, very, very, very cautious in covering Watergate (although not cautious enough at one point), and the Spotlight team was very, very, very, very cautious in revealing the pattern of abuse by priests in Boston.
They didn’t just run what they “knew” the moment they “knew” it, by the average person’s standard of “knowing.” They ran it when they had it nailed down.
Just because a website out there somewhere has reported something does not mean that The State has obtained the same information and is in a position to report it with confidence….
Wouldn’t it be news to at least report the names of the board members and say that there are allegations of payments from Mr. Brown to two of them? I mean, seriously, how about just recapping all the charges against him — there is enough to warrant FOUR separate agencies to investigate him?
Or, hey, I have a novel idea – take the hard work The Nerve has already done and, maybe, follow up on it to see if there is any truth to it? Is that too difficult? Make some phone calls to the people who are accused of taking bribes? Ask Mr. Brown some specific questions? This is far more important to the people of Richland County than anything else going on locally.
More important even than the Penny Tax probe? You should be encouraged that John Monk is now on that case. I am…
Right now, there is little hope for the Penny Tax issue to go anywhere. The State presents it as an intra-agency feud when it is much more than that. Again, they are very hesitant to go after the people who make these decisions. Somebody is authorizing the payments.
If John Monk finds out something that hasn’t been reported already a month or two ago by The Nerve, then I’ll be impressed.
It’s good that Mr Monk and The State were dragged into reporting on it- eventually.
Wow.
Actually, in terms of naming names…
I’m less interested in the names of the board members than I am in the names of the legislators and how they voted — which I was sorry to see missing from the story.
The reading public can’t do a thing about the individual members of the commission — they are in no way accountable to the public. But they DO elect the lawmakers, and deserve to know how they voted…
Just putting the names out there gives them some accountability, especially those accused of accepting bribes.
Certainly. The more people know, the better. But I felt that not setting out how the lawmakers voted was the bigger omission…
The State has been a joke on this issue. Case closed.
I have notified my representative- Jimmy Bales of my disappointment in his vote. I don’t live in Richland County- thank goodness.
Richland is about as corrupt as it gets in South Carolina- and that’s pretty bad.
Senator Jackson just isn’t interested in anyone that might be doing something wrong. He had rather not know about it , or just avoid the issue. He’s so predictable. He just doesn’t care.
all this over a county recreation commission chairperson that makes more money than a host of state agency heads.