George Jones and Clarence Thomas

NPR has the piece. Here's the letter:

Here's the song.

Silent Cal's Six Rules

President Coolidge is an underrated President, but he probably likes it that way. My favorite quote from his six rules is:

“It is a great advantage to a President, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”

Indeed. Read the whole thing.

Duck, duck...#Goose

Duck, duck....

Fifth-Grader Suspended for Bringing Swiss Army Knife to School Campout

A fifth-grader in Cupertino, California was suspended and threatened with expulsion for bringing a small Swiss Army knife on a school-sponsored, science-oriented camping trip.

Boy brings a pen-knife to a campout. And gets suspended.

If you're going camping, bringing a small knife of some sort is actually part of your regular gear. It's required. You would be in trouble if you didn't bring one.

I went through Boy Scouts, and in addition to carrying knives we also learned how to make bow and arrows, shoot rifles, read a map, and how to build a campfire.

How this country survived all my potential homegrown terrorism, I don't know.

Back to the Future - Behind the Scenes

If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit.

Footee

Soccer and golf? I'm willing to give it a try.


Who's bringing the beer?

Weekend Open Thread

It's too nice outside to be blogging. See y'all on Monday.

Rusty DePass on the Compress Warehouse Deal

Rusty DePass nicely sums up the City's decision to purchase the Compress Warehouse:

In voting to spend $5,650,000 to purchase a dilapidated warehouse where a developer had proposed to build student housing, the Columbia City Council completely caved in to “preservationists” who talk the talk but want the rest of us to walk the plank to pay for their very expensive hobby.

Read the whole thing. I'm all for the preservationists buying the warehouse. Then they can actually own this historic, run-down cotton warehouse that they love so much.

Oh, the preservationists don't actually want to use their own money to buy it? Why is that, exactly?

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/04/26/2741970/depass-another-bad-deal-courtesy.html#storylink=cpy

Mint Julep Recipes

The Kentucky Derby will be here soon, and you know what that means. Practice making your juleps now. Here's a collection of a few good recipes.

 

Bourbon is coming.

Food Stamp Recruiter?

Wait I'm confused. We have people who are paid to "recruit" other people to enroll with the federal government's food stamp program? This is an actual job?

I have no words.

Thoughts on the College Football Playoff Logos

It's been awhile since we've discussed the most important topic of all - college football. As I'm sure y'all are aware, the NCAA has decided to allow a four team playoff. The fact that it will end up being chock-full of SEC teams is something that will be fun to watch. The Big 10 (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) will be the hardest hit.

Almost as important as the playoff system itself is the logo that goes along with it. First, the name "College Football Playoff" isn't that great, so we're going to need an awesome logo to make people forget about how bland the name is.

Ok, so here are the four finalists. The final four. Sigh...It just kind of makes you realize all over again how stupid the name "College Football Playoff" is in comparison to March Madness, The Final Four, The SuperBowl, etc.... Where's Don Draper when you really need him? He'd be all over this.

Logo #1 Bastardized American Flag Football. Ok, so the first one (starting from the left) looks like a weird version of Captain America's shield with a football at the bottom. If we maybe had Captain Football America as a superhero to go with it, that could be promising. However, it just looks like a bastardized American flag with too few stripes and stars. And flags are supposed to be squared off and the bottom, not football curved. What are we looking at? Not really thrilled with this one.

Logo #2 Football Eye of Sauron. Sorry, I can't claim credit for coming up with that. It belongs to @edsbs, but not that I've started thinking about it being the Eye of Sauron, it's not going to look like anything else. Damn you Spencer Hall! Can't use this one - I'll have nightmares about it.

Logo #3 Insect Antenna. This looks like a weird type of insect's antenna that's been plucked off, or some kind of pincher from an ant. It kind of gives me the creeps. I know that it's supposed to be a silhouette of a football, but good god man, what kind of crazy pincher is that thing? (Warning: Do not click on that link if you are scared of bugs.)

Logo #4 Game of Thrones. Did someone take a bunch of swords and put them under a football? This one could be promising if you got some players and coaches to do commercials where they say "In college football, you either win, or you die". As I've pointed out, college football is already so much like the warring houses of Westeros anyway, this may not actually be a bad fit.

Overall, I'm not really amazed by any of these logos. Your thoughts?

Happy Wednesday: Quick News Whiparound

Happy Wednesday, y'all.

Not much is going on, other than the City of Columbia officially buying the Compress Warehouse, the bill to allow CWP in bars and restaurants passed the SC Senate, and Michael Roth is going to be the starting pitcher for the Angels tonight.

If you're interested in soup, I reccomend the soup du jour:

This Day in History: New Coke Unveiled

On April 23, 1985, Coca-Cola committed one of the great blunders in marketing: New Coke. Interesting details of the story are here.

To hear some tell it, April 23, 1985, was a day that will live in marketing infamy.

On that day, The Coca-Cola Company took arguably the biggest risk in consumer goods history, announcing that it was changing the formula for the world's most popular soft drink, and spawning consumer angst the likes of which no business has ever seen.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Maker's Mark a few months ago. Apparently, people don't like it when you mess with their drinks. I wonder how a New Coke and re-formulated Maker's Mark bourbon would taste. (shudders)

Pope Francis Nixes Bonuses for Vatican Employees

I really like the cut of his jib. Is he interested in running for President?

Boston Bomber: Enemy Combatant or Criminal?

Now that Tsarnaev has been captured, the US government is faced with the question of what to do with him. One of the fundamental issues the government faces is whether the it will consider him an "enemy combatant" or a "criminal". Additionally, how should the government proceed in the interrogation of Tsarnaev? Should we give him Miranda warnings?

As a jumping off point, my Senator (Lindsey Graham) issued three statements via Twitter. The first:

“The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” the senators said. “We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.

Ok. I think that trying to draw the distinction between an act of terrorism and a "common crime" is a problematic idea. It's a false distinction  to differentiate criminals seek to profit from a "criminal enterprise" and terrorism. Just because a crime isn't a profitable criminal enterprise does not make it terrorism. There's a reason that we make terrorism a crime, right?

Also, who's to say Tsarnaev didn't "profit" from the bombing? He did achieve his goal; i.e. detonating a bomb and killing/injuring people. It's just too difficult to distinguish Tsarnev's act from other crimes where there may not be an easily ascertainable "profit". Obviously, bank robbers profit, but what about rapists, arsonists, or serial killers? Is "profit" different than "motive"? As an example: does a DUI driver "profit" from his crime? He doesn't really.

However, I agree with Senator Graham in that we need to know about future possible attacks. That's actually the most important thing we need to know. In fact (from the government's point of view) there's not much that Tsarnaev needs to tell the government other than information that can help prevent future acts of terrorism. We don't need him to confess to the bombing. There's a mountain of evidence to convict him in a civilian court that is independent of any confession. In fact he's already confessed to the person he carjacked. Accordingly, the government doesn't need his confession.

Graham's second Tweet starts to develop this idea:

"Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks."

Now Graham is talking about holding him as an "enemy combatant" who is not entitled to Miranda or counsel. Miranda doesn't concern me. Depriving him of counsel does.

When you detain an enemy combatant, the idea is that you're preventing him from doing further harm because you have no other options besides (1) Killing him; and (2) letting him go. Here, I don't see that being an issue. The US can hold Tsarnaev on his federal charges. He's not a soldier we captured on a battlefield out in the boonies. He wasn't fighting against our uniformed military as part of his own organized unit. We captured him with law enforcement on US soil after he ran from the police after committing a crime.

We can legally keep him locked up (assuming a conviction - which isn't much of an assumption) and he's not a threat to do further harm. We don't have to either kill him or let him go. Therefore, he's not the sort of individual who the government needs to classify as an enemy combatant in order to hold him. In fact, I think it would be wrong, in an objective legal sense, to classify Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant. I agree with Graham (and I think most people do) that our goal at this point should be to extract intelligence from Tsarnaev, as I believe the successful prosecution is a fait accompli.

On the issue of Miranda warnings, I really don't see that as a big deal. Despite what you've seen on Law and Order, the police aren't required to Mirandize a criminal suspect. Sorry. They're just not.

Miranda is a set of rules that the government may choose to follow if it wants to admit a suspect's statements into evidence at their subsequent trial. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Therefore, even though lots of y'all probably think that a suspect is entitled to Miranda protection, it's actually fine for the government to intentionally withhold it - just as long as they don't introduce those statements at trial.

And why would they? The government assumably has this guy cold. However, after a certain period of time, the government is going to have to allow Tsarnaev to see his lawyer, which I assume will be a Federal Public Defender. The longer the government goes on questioning Tsarnaev without counsel, the more objections I have.

Graham concludes his Twitter statements as follows:

“The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to 'remain silent.'"

I think this is really the goal that Graham is getting at, and he's losing the forest for the trees with the "enemy combatant" distinction.

Got The Bastard

Gotcha. God bless the Sheepdogs.

Why The Gun Control Bill Died

If you read my blog at all, you already realize that in addition to being generally awesome, I'm about as conservative as you could ask for. I'm a drinking, meat grilling, cigar smoking, shooting, kind of conservative.

However, I have lots of very good friends who are not. I love them. They are great friends. Some of them are lifelong friends from childhood, some are from law school, and some are from the last few years. The thing is, when you actually get to know people, politics matters very little. Seriously. Very. Little. There's much more to life than politics and economic theory. College football for one. Also, for instance: drinking, grilling, and shooting. Did I mention college football?

One of the worst things about our terribly bitter political system is that it drives a wedge between folks who otherwise are great friends. I hope that I haven't lost any friends because I put my politics out there. Part of that is the lawyer in me who loves the back and forth of the argument. But anyway, I digress.

One of my dearest friends is a very committed Democrat. He's got a big heart, and he's a great drinking buddy. I met him in law school, and he learned to tie a bow-tie from yours truly. Anyway, he asked me what my thoughts are on the gun control bill dying in the Senate:

Would love your thoughts on the bill getting defeated yesterday.  I actually do not disagree that much that the bill would have done little to actually prevent crime, but thought that something was better than nothing...

                       -Bryan's Great Friend from Law School 

Well, here goes.

First, I think the fundamental flaw in the bill was the process. Think about it for a moment. Essentially, the Senate was presented with a bill that two Senators came up with, and it was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The bill didn't go through a committee, it didn't have experts testify, and it didn't have time to get input from other Senators (who were needed).

One thing I've learned from life experience is that when people participate in something, they buy into it, and they want it to succeed. For instance, if you throw a party, if you ask people to bring things that are fundamental to the party, they have a little "ownership" of the party, and they want it to be a hit.

The same thing applies here. The problem with this bill was that it didn't really do much good to stop any actual gun violence. Even the people pushing the bill admitted that. So obviously, the opposition said: What's the damn point of voting YEA for this bill when there's going to be a big negative consequence? Why should a Senator risk his political career (which is what they really care about) when they know that (1) the bill isn't really going to do much good; and (2) the bill will likely die in the House?

But it all had to happen so fast. Right now! What was the damn rush? They should have done this slowly, through committee, and gotten people on board to refine it, to help craft a good bill that would actually do good things and not piss off gun owners who aren't part of the problem.

What this bill did was simply require more sales to go through FFLs. That's basically it. Not all sales, but more. And they ham-handed way they defined things boggles my mind, because I actually know how internet gun sales and gun show sales work. I've actually bought a sweet little gun "on the internet". Guess what? I had to go through a background check.

So, the process was bad. If it had gone through some more Senators, the bill would be different. It would have probably have made sense. The gun control folks don't really understand the best way to deal with guns and gun violence because it's not something they understand. I don't mean that as an insult - it's just not their area of expertise. I wouldn't try to tell an engineer how to best regulate a bridge from falling down. On the contrary, I would listen to his recommendations. The thing is, you don't need the votes from the anti-gun democrats. You've already got those votes in the bag. What you need is votes from the people who are pro-gun. From folks like me.

What didn't help was demonizing people like me. When you tell people who disagree with your idea that they're aiding murder, you're not going to win many allies. It's the old thing that my mother used to tell me: You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unfortunately, the President and the gun-control folks decided to pour vinegar on the whole thing from the outset.

If you watched the President's reaction to the defeat of the gun control bill, you would notice that he never acknowledges the other side is doing anything in good faith. He simply accused them of playing politics and outright lying. That doesn't really rally me to his cause.

So what's an "actual solution"? There's a few things I would do.

1. Get rid of "Gun Free Zones". Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I don't think that anyone actually believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that. It's like believing in the tooth fairy.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

2. Mental Health Issues. Make it easier to commit people to mental institutions. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but that's a solution to taking unstable, crazy people out of the public. Not everyone is able to take a Xanax and be fine. This is a biggie, and it's complicated, messy, and that's why no one wants to talk about it.

3. Background Checks. Keep them the way they are for the most part. If you buy a gun from a store, on the internet from a store, or from a dealer at a gun show, you go through a background check. Private sales (From me to my law school friends, for instance) are not regulated any more than selling shoes are regulated. If you could give the good guys a way to easily check someones's background, they would do it. Make the federal database checkable in an easy internet portal, where you pay $5 or some kind of de minimus fee to check a person through the federal database (which needs to be updated all the time). How to enforce this is the real problem, though. Making folks keep records isn't going to work. Registering the guns isn't going to work. If we can figure out the enforcement for that kind of a system, we'll be on the right track. Getting the input from gun folks would be a first step. Above all others, gun guys want gun owners to be responsible people.

Keep in mind, none of these points are a panacea. Just my suggestions for how to get things going. In any event, the key to all this is to keep a dialogue going between the folks on the left and right. When we accuse the other side of bad faith, we're just throwing a wrench into the gears. We all need to pull together on this.

Summer is Coming!

Samuel Adams told me so.

Richland County Still Unable To Sell Curtiss-Wright Hangar

Almost two years ago, Richland County bought an old aircraft hangar of intense historical significance to aviation in South Carolina, thinking it could be sold to a private developer. That's not going so well.

But I'm sure that the same thing couldn't happen to to the City of Columbia with the Compress Warehouse, right?

The Good Guys Outnumber the Bad Guys

The Boston Bombing is horrible. I know that this kind of stuff happens around the world on a semi-regular basis, and most of the time I'm pretty frosty and unemotional about it, but this story has me a little choked up. And I started to lose heart.

But then I saw this:

Take heart.