Protect me? Oh, really?

In Warren v. District of Columbia, DC’s highest court ruled it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

The Supreme Court has upheld such decisions.  Police have no duty to protect individual citizens.  (See here for several citations; the Wikipedia citation is down on SOPA protest day.)

So why do they rule that speed traps and drunk-driving checkpoints are legal?  Aren’t those designed to protect individuals?  Some states get it right, and either prohibit them or don’t conduct them because police lack the statutory authority.     I like this page about the legality of the checkpoints, noting the “DUI exception to the Constitution.”

What could possibly be the states’ vested interest, other than – wait for it – protecting individuals?

So what the courts are really telling us is that governments (police forces) don’t have to protect individuals unless they can potentially make money from it.

The American Bar Association is on the government-solution bandwagon

The ABA has done it too.   In its Resolution 111-A, it asks the government to help out students who voluntarily take on too much debt.

They’re asking the federal government to alter the terms of loans the individuals took from private corporations — commercial lenders.  Sure, they’re asking the commercial lenders to change terms as well, but the idea of asking the federal government to change loan terms after-the-fact is an anathema to me.

To the ABA and anyone else…

If you want to go to law school, fine.  Figure out how to pay for it, negotiate for the loans if needed, then live up to your end of the contract.  If you make a mistake, live with it.  DO NOT ask Uncle Sam to take care of it for you.

What our government bureaucracy rewards

I would hope civil libertarians have this on their scope:

“Finalists named for top federal workforce awards”

Note what the Washington Post considers noteworthy.  The first one they list is someone who will regulate what goes in to your body.  Now, I’m in no way defending smokers; though I quit over 10 years ago, I’m not the rabid anti-smoker, and don’t care what you do to yours.  What I do find reprehensible is a statement like “We have a fundamental authority now that no other country has.”  Fundamental?  Really?  What they have is an assumed authority based on a fundamental assumption that the government has a right to control you.  In my book. Deyton would be doing a great service if he advertised and educated, so people understand what they’re ingesting, and its effects.  From there, personal responsibility takes over.

I’ve not gone to the full list of nominees. In a couple of past years, some deserving folks have actually been recognized.  This year, I hope it’s not the one the Washington Post is cheering.

NRA being hypocritical AGAIN

We’d been talking about perhaps heading to Charlotte, NC for one day of the NRA annual meetings.  After all, we’re both life members.

Then we learn the NRA has contracted to hold its annual meetings in a place that does not allow the carry of firearms.

What hypocrites.

The NRA is supposed to be fighting working for the rights of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans.  Unless it’s inconvenient.

Ted Nugent, supposedly a fighter for our rights, is quoted in the latest issue of America’s First Freedom as saying Americans have to make their voice heard.  Yeah, right.

THIS American will be letting the NRA know what I think.

I’ve come to the realization that the NRA’s greatest strength is it’s propensity for self-promotion.  Second is it’s ability to try to guilt its members into sending donations.

Hello, Uncle Sam? I’m over 21. Adult. I vote. I pay taxes….

LOTS of taxes.

But Uncle Sam wants to regulate how much salt, fat, trans fats, sugar, beef, pork, and who knows what else I eat.  It’s not enough the First Lady is imposing her will on kids, with or without the consent of their parents, but the FDA will regulate what someone (in a “free market economy”, by the way) can sell me.  No wonder Mr. Obama is/was reading The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.

So much for choice.

When I was a kid, I used to hear adults say “What???? I’m free, white, and over 21.”  I always wondered why they had to be white.  And when I was a teenager, someone decided we were adults after 18  (unless we want to drink, or buy a gun; then we’re children).

The point is that as every day goes by we’re being treated more and more as children, and we’re not going to the ballot boxes in droves to say “No”.  That’s the part I really don’t understand.

Explaining my faith (?!) in elected officials

Earlier I posted about the issues with entering Fairfax County courthouse – a taxpayer-funded, publicly owned building – with a cell phone, recorder, camera, etc.  I sincerely do NOT understand how this makes anyone any safer, where the authority to ban these items comes from (though I quoted the code sections that are posted), and I wrote my supervisor.

The supervisor’s aide answered, with poor grammar and spelling.  I posted that as well, and invited him to read that post.

Now it appears I should accept the staffer’s word because he is or was a Captain in the Marine Corps.  Whether he thinks I should be shamed into accepting his position out of patriotism, intimidated by a (big-shot, I suppose) Captain, or simply impressed by a lot of words after his name, I don’t know.

Looks like spell check didn’t run before I sent the e-mail.  I believe all cell phones and PDAs will be restricted in the future since most have cameras on them in order to protect the identity of people testifying in court.  Feel free to post this online as well.
Semper Fi,
Captain Brett W. Kenney, USMC
Operation Iraqi Freedom

Still hasn’t answered the question about how the ban makes us safer.  Still hasn’t responded to what gives the authority; I asked how these code sections give authority for a ban.

Now, somewhere in this answer is a response I could almost understand – protecting the identity of those testifying.  That is not the cited reason, however, in either their first response or the posted code sections.   It would justify, in my mind, a ban on video – perhaps even audio – recording in courtrooms, but not in the courthouse as a whole.

‘Nother question.  Should a Marine be using his official title in conjunction with a paid position as a staffer?  I think it unethical, if not contrary to regulation.  Might have to check that one out.

By the way, I tried to copy my response to Supervisor Hyland.  His e-mail is not listed; clicking on his e-mail link takes one to a form.  Please, if you’re so inclined, you might also request of Supervisor Hyland a response.

Why women should abandon the Republican party in droves, immediately.

Talk about a disrespect toward women.  The national Republican party has directed its health insurance provider that it will  opt out of abortion coverage.  No one who works for the party can elect a perfectly legal procedure, making her own choice, and have it covered by insurance.  (Want to bet they can have breast implants, face lifts, or liposuction, though–things that make the little woman more attractive?)

Because, of course, the little women can’t make the choice for themselves.

Because the little women need to be “protected” from their own decisions.

Republican party chairman Michael Steel said “”Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”  This from the man who thinks Democrats’ power has gone to their heads.  ( He also said [about the NY-23 race] “If you don’t live in the district, you don’t vote there, your opinion doesn’t matter very much.”   Funny how that doesn’t apply if he isn’t a woman and didn’t fertilize that egg.)

Damn, I almost wish I worked for the Republican Party, just so I could publicly resign.

ALMOST Anybody BUT Cuccinelli (or: I Made a HUGE Mistake)

I’ve been mistakenly supporting Steve Shannon for Attorney General in Virginia.

All this time, I thought he had voted to override SB1035, commonly referred to as the “restaurant ban”.  Virginia has a law that says you may not carry a concealed weapon in a restaurant that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises.  Thes, it’s open carry only.

Unless you’re a Commonwealth Attorney (whether or not you have a concealed handgun permit).

Or a Deputy Commonwealth Attorney (whether or not you have a concealed handgun permit).

Or other categories of privilege.

Shannon has in the past few days proven himself to be susceptible to the Brady Bunch’s attitudes, and appears to have taken his campaign ads from their website and from Omar Samaha.  (Yes, he’s the guy who took $5000 from ABC to “prove” he could buy a gun without ID.   Got news for ya, guy.  So can any criminal on the DC streets.)

Since I cannot in good conscience support Ken Cuccinelli, I need to find an AG candidate within the next 11 days.

What next … “for the children”?????

There’s a news report on one of the local TV stations that DC is considering banning smoking in playgrounds.

Outdoors.

In covered areas.

But “it’s for the children” who “shouldn’t have to breathe secondhand smoke”.  Frankly, unless there are a boatload of smokers around, Mother Nature will take care of it.

More laws.

We know what’s good for you.

When will it end?

Because someone else will “protect” us

The young “lady” who couldn’t see the open manhole because she was texting plans to file a lawsuit (well, her parents do — after all, they must’ve taught her to whine about someone “hurting” her) against the Deparment of Environmental Protection, probably against the city and the state and the mayor (well, that’s ok) and the city council and anyone else who might have a spare nickel.

Can you spell P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y?  Apparently, that’s no longer an American value.

So your government will protect you from being a dipshit.