Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by TAHAWK

  1. 3 hours ago, qwazse said:

    @TAHAWK, it's not me, it's the kids' earworms. This lot is stuck in the 7th and 8th decade of the last century.

    Stairway wasn't on my radar until I "appeared" in the midst of their hammock nest (all week, they kept wondering how I could do that) to enforce lights out, and that's the disk they were spinning.

    Oh yah.  Back when you could understand the words.  

    • Haha 1
  2. Whatever we think about the BSA rules, their language is unusually clear for BSA  - "required,"  not "preferred."

    Youth Protection and Adult Leadership

    Scouting’s Barriers to Abuse

    The BSA has adopted the following policies for the safety and well-being of its members. These policies primarily protect youth members; however, they also serve to protect adult leaders. All parents and caregivers should understand that our leaders are to abide by these safeguards. Parents and youth are strongly encouraged to use these safeguards outside the Scouting program. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities.


    Adult Supervision

    Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided. 

    https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01/ [emphasis added]


    However, the clear language has at least two exceptions:

    Q:  The Barriers to Abuse say that there must be two registered adults present for all Scouting activities and meetings.  Does that include merit badge counseling? Fund-raising events?

    A. Yes. However, the parent or legal guardian of the Scout may serve as the second adult. This parent or legal guardian does not have to be a registered leader.



  3. Of course, the "woke: were not there at the time, but Frederick Douglass was: "To Grant more than any other man the Negro owes his enfranchisement.”

    The Legions of Ignorance  are unimpressed with the view of Douglass, to the extent they know of Douglass at all:

    "Protesters in San Francisco on Friday toppled the statue of former President Grant, who led the Union Army during the Civil War, in Golden Gate Park.

    San Francisco police said that approximately 400 people gathered around 8 p.m. to take down the statue, though no arrests were made, according to NBC Bay Area."

    "Saturday, June 20, 2020, in San Francisco, Calif. [San Francisco Chronicle]
    The toppling of Ulysses Grant’s statue in Golden Gate Park on Friday night reminds us that we need an engaged, passionate debate about Grant’s legacy, but we cannot depend upon the whims of a dictatorial mob to deepen our understanding of our nation’s troubling history."







    • Upvote 1
  4. "ROCHESTER, N.Y. 'July 17, 2020] - At the site where escaped, enslaved people once boarded ships to make their way to Canada and freedom, the present met the past on Thursday — with hopes that the future will be impacted.

    A new statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was erected at the Kelsey's Landing site at Maplewood Park in Rochester, the location where Douglass, Harriet Tubman and others shuttled former slaves who had navigated the Underground Railroad en route to Canada. This statue replaced one that was toppled over on July 5. [2020]."

    • Thanks 1
  5. 4 hours ago, DuctTape said:

    If you have evidence of the perpetrators I am certain law enforcement would like that information. But as of now the identity and the motive are unknown. Just as some have speculated it is as you describe, others have speculated it is a retaliation to the taking down of confederate statues. It is also possible that it is motive non-specific just plain vandalism. Point is we don't know. And as additional information this statue was replaced in 2018 as it was damaged by vandals two years ago. 

    It is likely "plain vandalism."  Much of what happened in Cleveland recently was "plain vandalism," "Plain riot," and "Plain looting."  I have no evidence whatsoever, not having visited Rochester in many years.  I am happy to see that the statue is back up.  

  6. I merely did a cut and paste on the headline.  As teacher and Scout trainer, I was taught that larger type is easier to read.  Apparently, situations alter cases.  

    Here; "Seattle rioters seen damaging, looting stores; police say fire sparked at precinct, officer hospitalized [.]"

  7. Published 3 hours ago

    Seattle rioters seen damaging, looting stores; police say fire sparked at precinct, officer hospitalized



    NOW: Antifa Militants and Black Lives Matter rioters are breaking into Amazon Go Downtown Seattle. This protest has turned into a riot. #SeattleProtest #AntifaDomesticTerrorists #seattleriots #BlackLivesMatter


    Photos available.  Police precinct building attacked with Molotov Cocktail - like device.  Fire extinguished.  

    City government "leaders" and Congress members from Washington continue to demand that federal law enforcement, protecting federal buildings, leave Seattle so as to stop  interfering with mobs of rioters and looters.

    In further news, Flat Earth Society denounces systemically inaccurate maps and "world globes" as a public health crisis.

  8. First, I was commenting on criminal law, not public awareness or social concern.  Manifestly, awareness and concern have risen steadily over the last fifty  years.

    Next, most criminal law is state law, not federal law.  So the history of federal law on the topic of sexual abuse of children is hardly dispositive of the topic of when such behavior was a crime, WIKI to the contrary notwithstanding.  Federal jurisdiction is, in fact limited.  Sex crimes occurring in a single state generally fall under state law.

    Until relatively recently, many crimes were criminalized by judicial decision - "common law" - rather that statutes.  In Ohio, common law crimes were eliminated by the systematic reorganization  and codification of the criminal code effective in 1974.

    I realize that this is difficult to credit these days, but any sexual activity outside of marriage was a crime under state law for "adults" from the foundation of the colonies in North America until relatively recently- the crime of "fornication."  Fornication was a crime in Virginia within this century.  So any adult having sexual relations with any minor not a lawful spouse of that adult was committing a crime for most of our history as a nation state.

    The age at which one becomes an "adult" for purposes of law regulating sexual activity is a legal construct, unrelated to biology - the "age of consent."  It has been as low as 10.  Hence this 1818 statute:  "That if any person shall ... carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of ten years, with or without her consent; every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of rape, and upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary, and kept at hard labor, not more than twenty or less than seven years."   Statues of Ohio and the Northwest Territory (1818).

    The first rape conviction in the history of the State of California involved the rape of a female child (1856).




  9. 1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

    I'm still baffled how liability that had long ago expired against situations that society did not understand and that did not have the laws we had today can be reversed.  It baffles me how past incidents can retroactively have liability applied.  It seems we should be applying the laws and liability in placed when the incidents occurred.  Anything else is unfair and immoral.

    Sexual abuse of children was a crime when these alleged acts of abuse took place.  Civil actions for damages based on criminal conduct are older than our Civil War.  The logic behind statutes of limitations is that allegations from too long ago are difficult to disprove.  Here, the alleged criminals are largely dead, as are the adult witnesses.  The plaintiff's bar now has a virtual money-printing machine - thousands of claimants whose allegations cannot be refuted even if  - if - totally invented.  This logic is ignored in extending limitations period back several generations - another form of "virtue signaling" by politicians.  

    This reminds me of requiring "insurance" for "pre-existing conditions," totally contrary to the entire rational for "insurance" - the pooling of money over time to guard against risk.  Here we have no contribution by the "insured" and certainty rather than risk.  So it is a social welfare program paid for by all those actually buying insurance, for which certain politicians take credit.  I am less disturbed by the benefit than the hypocrisy.


    Google  < Cleveland child  Murder > and first up is Tamir Rice, fatally shot by a rookie cop from a few feet away when he drew a very realistic "toy" pistol.  The cop was let out of his car by his "training officer" right on top of Tamir, who reacted by drawing his toy pistol.  You have to search further down that Google political slide to find that civilians (fill in the rest) killed ten children in homicides in Cleveland, Ohio's murder capital, in 2019, up from seven in 2018.

    Twenty were shot in nine hours in Cleveland on July 4th, four children, and three died - all shootings by civilians.  

    A 15-year-old was murdered yesterday in East Cleveland, a failed inner -ring suburb of Cleveland.  Her name was Keviania James.  She was a popular and well-liked student in her local high school.  She had dreams.  Shot in the head in a "drive-by" for the "crime" of being alive and in the way of the bangers' shots.  Say her name.  CNN did not.  New York Times did not.  Washington Post did not.  BLM, even locally, has no published comment.  Just the background "noise" of urban slaughter.  Shot by the "wrong" persons.




    • Upvote 1
  10. 1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

    I'm still baffled how liability that had long ago expired against situations that society did not understand and that did not have the laws we had today can be reversed.  It baffles me how past incidents can retroactively have liability applied.  It seems we should be applying the laws and liability in placed when the incidents occurred.  Anything else is unfair and immoral.


  11. 5 hours ago, Navybone said:

    There is debate on the actual “alliance” with anarchist.  There are elements on the extreme left AND right who are using the protest as an opportunity to fan the flames and creat riots.  BLM has a responsibility to try to distance themselves for sure and not get “co-mingled” with these groups.  But again,  BLM protest does not equal riots and violence.   

    but to your original post that I responded to, BLM  not advocating turning over the government.  And to this point, BLMmis not advocating riots and violence, and destruction all over the country.  

    "I said," Newsome told the host, "if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation."

    "I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary."


    I just love that "by any means necessary."  Like they invented it.  Do they know why Malcolm X was murdered and by whom?


    Having been sentenced to hang for "treason" against "our one true Republic of Ohio" by the "common law" "True Supreme Cpourt of Ohio,"  I take a dim view of "sovereign" types of any color or ethnicity. 

    Given history and the other systems, I believe we are on the right track in the U.S. and oppose "burning down this system" in favor of the  Red Terror.  But that's just me and some tens or hundreds of millions of others. I would never get elected to City Council in Portland.  

    Sixty years ago,  I thought I would never live to see a Black President, the collapse of the Soviet union, the end of Boy Scouts, or theoretically sane people calling for eliminating police departments, courts, prisons, and the entire concept of "crime."   Not to mention a statute of Frederick Douglass toppled by "woke" White college "virtue signalers," who don't even know who he was or what he did.   Yet here we are. 

    I know the older are traditionally not always pleased with the younger.  I am an old fogey.  Plus, I taught history.  Ignorance seems to me to be a prime requirement for our young  "enlightened" revolutionaries.  Here's a clue from 1970.  Riots don't always end well for the rioters, and I don't mean just  your lower face, neck, and chest covered with your own mucus from CS gas, but really bad endings.

    As Saddam learned, make credible enough threats and someone may take you up on your offer and "move forward."  



    • Upvote 1
  12. TSUNAMI WARNING!  :confused:

    Of course "racism" exists.  One need not have lawyered for the N.A.A.C.P., as I did, to see it.  Every culture has its negative slang for the "other," and difference in "race," along with religion, politics, culture and ethnicity, mark the "other."  See, e.g., Liberal, Republican, Conservative,  Anti-Semite, Racist, Christian, Muslim, Nuffie, Mackerel Snapper, Spic, Bible Beater, Red Neck, Boong, Gin, Ape, Af, Doujin, Egg Plant, Honky, Wog, Kaffir, Chinki, Jakun, Cholo, Ang Mo, Cracker, Gringo, Farang, Gubba, Gweilo, Bohunk, Medigan, Ofay, Uncle Tom, Okie, Peckerwood, Whitey, Oreo, Kanake, Frog, Chug, Wog, Yanacona, Hori, Hillbilly, Trailer Trash, Pommy, Red Skin, Teuchter, Cubiche, Kraut, Mof, Mick, Snout, Paddy, Guinea, Gaigin, Kapo, Chosenji, Chukhna, Lobos, Apple, Banana, Coconut, Baijo - the list is quite long and international, and all are meant to assert dislike, superiority and/or insult.

    I likely know far more about the evils of American chattel slavery than most, having research it and written about it.  I will probably never truly know what it is like to be an American with African roots.  As a trial attorney representing plaintiffs and, later, defendants, in "civil rights" suits, I know we have, as has each generation thus far in our history, some way to go down the road to true equality.  But I want to see progress within the context of our Constitution, including freedom of speech in the "marketplace of ideas, and not by violent revolution.  But that's me having an opinion again.

    I concede that I overgeneralized about the self-describe "liberals."  Sloppy.  I congratulate you on your friends.  Some "liberals" are clearly liberal. 

    It's just that the silent majority, left, right and center, don't get the media coverage or support.  Not shocking enough for our slovenly media, I guess.  With the exception of  Alan Dershowitz, much hated for not supporting the narrative, those calling for repression of speech, for compulsory of support of "speech" they oppose, get the coverage, left and right.  But support of outright criminalization  of "hate speech" beyond the limits set by the United States Supreme Court is pretty much owned lately by self-described "liberals."  (Once the right demanded "No freedom of speech for Communists," and criminalization of Party membership, and they achieved the involuntarily busing of  public school students to hours-long right-wing "anti-communist" "Freedom Schools,"  but that was before most here were alive.) Today's  illiberals  decry the Constitutional protection of "hate speech," often on the grounds that such expressions of opinion are prohibited  in other countries. (see, e.g.  "Why America needs a hate speech law," Washington Post, 10/29/2019, by Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time and State Department official) .  WAPOO also defends ANTIFA - the folks with the clubs, Molotov Cocktails, and rocks.   Brandeis would be appalled.

    For now, "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies, due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no 'hate speech' exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."

    But ways are found around the Constitution through "hate crimes."  So, these days, by U.S. Supreme Court mandate, burning the U.S. Flag is not a crime because it is "speech" but stealing and burning a Gay Pride flag got one flaming bigot sixteen years in prison for his non-PC "speech" because it was a "hate crime" under state law.

    British civil rights activist Peter Tatchell, opposes criminalizing "hate speech" with these eye-opening comments on the state of the law in the "wider world"that lacks our First Amendment: "I was arrested for saying the homophobia and sexism of Islamist extremists is akin to the mentality of the Nazis. Separately, a youth was arrested for calling Scientology a dangerous cult. In both instances, it was deemed we had committed religious hate crimes."   He would doubtless have been "OK" had he only mentioned National Socialists or fascists.

    Tatchell's  debate opponent, Canadian Joyce Arthur, qv., believes all hateful speech should be a crime: "A consensus exists in most Western democracies on the legitimacy of using laws to punish or inhibit hate speech, in order to prevent hate crimes, provide redress to victims, support vulnerable groups, protect human rights, and promote values of equality and respect. Countries have international obligations to combat racism, which require enacting hate speech legislation." 

    St. Paul  passed a hate speech ordinance years ago.  It was stuck down as unconstitutional in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992), but now there are, as noted above, calls to '"reform" the law to prohibit free expression of ideas now deemed "hateful."   In the California of the 1930's, that would have been used by "populists" to prohibit support for immigration from Asia or citizenship for Asian immigrants, but few dared say a word in support of the "Yellow Peril" - presaging the concentration camps of WWII.  See, the trouble is that if government is not neutral in matters of opinion, today's orthodoxy may be tomorrow's "hate speech."

    The UN has a plan for us:

     "UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech 

    In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour [sic], that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour [sic], descent, gender or other identity factor." ( Calling Old Orange Hair "Dutch Boy" or an "anti-Semitic , racist, Nazi" is probably not covered because it is politically "correct." )

    As for socialism, I understand it to be state control of the economy based on the idea that all good comes from the state.  To maximize that good: 1) the state marshals the wealth of the society by taxes and redistributes that wealth to achieve "social justice.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; 2) The state determines what is produced (as it already does for many drugs, agricultural products [through production and price limits], light bulbs, toilets, vehicle fuels, motor vehicles, sizes of soft drinks, prices received by producers (agricultural products, drugs, dairy supports), and wages (minimum wage laws).  No, Bernie may not get the nomination, probably, but he proudly calls himself a "socialist" and honeymooned in Moscow.  AOC is a "liberal" "leader" who calls for massive, socialist redistribution of wealth and called for Bernie to be nominated.  I see us moving towards greater socialism to the extent that members of my party are elected.  For now, we are each entitled to our opinions. even Michael Moore, I guess.

     I regret if I mischaracterized the words of Congresswoman Cortez, but I think it is fair given her actual words:  "Republicans are all upset that I’m connecting the dots between poverty and crime.... I know most of them haven’t experienced or seen these issues first hand, but I have. This may be hard for them to admit, but poverty and crime are highly linked, both violent & nonviolent alike.” (She was reared in a poosh suburb.)

     Actually, shoplifting and other petty crimes are sharply down in NYC.  What is WAY up is violence of poor people against poor people.  Shall we skip the gory numbers?



  • Create New...