tvc184

People don’t have a clue what goes on today. I would estimate that PA and Beaumont in Jefferson County, there are probably 50 of what the FBI classifies as major crimes such as aggravated assault, murder, sexual assault, arson, burglary and robbery. That doesn’t include the 3 Mid County cities, the county jurisdiction outside of those cities and all of Orange and Hardin counties. So let’s say the immediate Golden Triangle area has 75 major crimes “each day”. That is over 500 per week. With the talk of the Internet spreading the word, how many of those 500 major crimes do we hear about? In truth a lot more crime was covered in the 80s and 90s than there is now. Anytime the police make a report, the basic information is public record and anybody can access it almost immediately. Back when the newspapers and the television stations actually had several reporters, they would show up at many of our scenes. It was common practice when I was a Night Shift patrol officer that when we had a major scene such as a bad vehicle accident, a house fire, a shooting, etc., once the scene was secured, we started looking for a place to stage the media. We knew all three television stations and both newspapers were going to show up and maybe some other people. I did many newspaper interviews and several TV interviews at that time. That was including things that happened at 2 AM. If I went to a major scene today and grabbed a couple of patrol officers and said, find a place to stage the media, they would look at me like a three headed monster and wonder what the heck I was talking about. Better yet would be me asking who wants to do the on camera interview. Even new newspaper reporters were given what is called the police beat or maybe blotter reports in large cities. On many nights they would show up at the police station about 9 PM and request all of the police reports from the previous 24 hours. We would give them a stack of maybe 100 reports in PA. They will flip through the reports and find 2-5 things that looked interesting to write stories. They would then go to the newspaper office and write their articles so they could finish them in time for the midnight printing. Good luck if you can find that in today’s Internet media reporting.

Yes, it is true. Certainly nothing is 100% but as a general comparison, yes.

People can only relate to what they experience. Although in history books, no one reading this forum was there for slavery, Indian displacement and for most people, not even segregation laws in the 50’s and early 60’s. I will be 67 on my next birthday and I was 3 years old when the 60’s rolled around. Just like I wasn’t around for slavery, almost no one reading this was around for Jim Crow laws either. Yes times seemed better in the “old days” or maybe “better” is more appropriately described as “simpler”. Not locking your door, kids not coming home until after dark because their parents didn’t have to worry that they hadn’t seen you all day, some stores having blank checks at the checkout because you forgot yours and you were trusted to fill in your correct name and bank account number and so on. Some people (most?) even left their cars unlocked and many left their keys in the car. That includes the Black community. My best friend’s first cousins lived in Riverside in Orange and I used to go there a few times in the summer to play. We played hide and seek and other games with the Black kids living there and I don’t recall them being in before dark either. I don’t think their parents were worried about them getting stopped by the police for selling drugs or them being the victim of a drive-by shooting. It was a simpler time. Was there racism? Discrimination? Sure, but there was also a lot more freedom to move about without fear. Obviously there is now much more freedom technically/legally and merely acceptance. But is it better? Yes in a strictly legal and acceptance sense. When I first became a police officer in the mid-80s and even until the mid-90s, there was violent crime and n PA but it was mostly located in small pockets and they could easily be avoided. Now? There were no drive by shooting or violent crimes like robberies in neighborhoods. The local Stop and Rob convenience store? Sure and in those limited neighborhoods and I am not talking Black neighborhoods. There were several areas in Black neighborhoods in PA that I never went to for police services. There was simply no need. They were quiet and generally self policed. The violence was mostly concentrated in the areas of short Texas, Sally’s alley and a short strip of Houston Ave. I don’t think parents are less worried about their children today because it is different. Quite the opposite. Violent crime isn’t concentrated in a couple of small pockets of a city. People are not wise to leave their doors unlocked or even your car door if you are out of it for even a minute. I was probably in my late 20s when I first started thinking about locking car doors. So while it is easy for a 40 year old today to say it is better now, what is their experience time frame? A person turning 40 this year was 15 years old in 1997. That person has no direct knowledge of the “old days”. I could only guess but I think the Black kids that I played with in Orange who are approaching 70 years old, might long for the old days but without the discrimination. Maybe like, I wish it was like 2022 but back when I was a child in 1963. So yes things are bad now and they were bad then but for different reasons. It goes by a person’s experience. For all its faults, some of the previous generations had a much simpler life. It depends on if you look so the glass as half full or half empty. In my opinion….

To say that she was animated would be an understatement.

No, “Republicans” aren’t entertaining it. With about 275 million adults in this country, it is easy to find some minuscule group that believes something stupid. The further stupidity is when anyone believes that the tiny group represents nearly the entire race/party/ethnicity/etc. You might as well toss in, “you people”. Democrat US Representative Hank Johnson asked in a hearing if the island of Guam might capsize if we get too many Marines stationed there. If I suggested that “Democrats” or Blacks are so stupid, they entertain the idea that an island can (in his words) tip over and capsize, what would you think? Want evidence? There is a Black Democrat member of Congress saying it for all the world to see so it must be true….. right? When you start painting with a very broad brush, be prepared to get splattered.

Golf carts don’t park??

Pretty much. Every state has different laws but I doubt any prosecute when no one wants to file charges. Unless the victim is dead, there aren’t any likely automatic prosecutions.

Cultural appropriation is a silly premise.

Things always remind me of jokes….. After Osama bin Ladin was killed, he awaited his 72 virgins, promised to those that waged jihad. Instead he was confronted by George Washington who began beating him with a cane. He left but immediately Patrick Henry appeared and started doing the same. Then came Thomas Jefferson, then Robert E. Lee and on it went. OBL asked, what’s going on here as he continued to get the crap beaten out of him. He heard, you must have misunderstood, it was 72 Virginians.

The mistake is people that thought they were named after a large feline….

Probably everyone knows the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

Everybody knows it is wrong. It is sometimes easy to tolerate a transgression when it is “your team”.

I think “already planned” if the key. Maybe you missed it. The trip is scheduled and Disney will get their money (or may have already gotten it) whether or not any protest shirt is worn. While there however, why not stick a thumb in Mickey Mouse’s eye? An even better touch might be a selfie with Mickey wearing the PNG shirt…. Maybe with Cinderella’s Castle in the background.

They did get away with it. You can’t and won’t get anything against Disney. People line up to pay $100 must to get in the gate. A family of 4 who stay all day, eating a couple of meals, will probably cost $2,000. What do you suggest as a blowback against them? Maybe 25 people from this area go somewhere else and they move 5 minutes of operating expenses for the year? They wanted to wash their hands to show that they are woke. They are entitled and they did so. Nothing will change for them and probably nothing will change for PNG. Both sides have said their piece and hopefully it is over.

However…. Going by my legal experience and knowledge (which I think is pretty good in this area) and by a comment (I think by Chief Justice Roberts) during the Trump impeachment), it can be whatever. During an impeachment/removal trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over it. (Again) I believe it was the Chief Justice who said when asked what was a high crime or misdemeanor, the response was that it was completely up to the House during an impeachment. In all aspects of laws, definitions are everything. It can be from common language (typically defined in a dictionary), specifically defined or statutory/written law, common law or case law. As an example, “premises”’ is generally defined in the dictionary as any buildings and its land. In the Texas Penal Code under carrying a handgun under an LTC it says that it is a crime to carry on the premises of a school. So if you were out shopping and legally carrying a handgun under and LTC and you picked up your kid on the way home in the parking lot of the school, you are then a felon? No because…. (c) In this section: (4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. So even though the common and dictionary meaning of premises includes buildings and land, criminally in carrying a handgun under an LTC, it only means buildings. Why is that important? To say that is huge would be an understatement or the difference between a noncriminal act and a felony. As we say in teaching the Penal Code, to check any word or phrase in a law we look for in the order: a. The phrase “in this section” b. The phrase “in this chapter” c. PC Section 1.07 (definitions applied through all Texas laws unless otherwise defined as above) d. The dictionary. So the example of premises under an LTC, it says in this section premises means….. What does that have to do with impeachment and the Constitution? High crimes and misdemeanors is not defined as justification for impeachment. Again I believe it was Chief Justice Roberts who made the statement that it was entirely political and could be defined in whatever the House and later the Senate wished. The separation of powers in the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to make rules for the other two branches. They can only interpret the Constitution as written and that definition is not written. . The reason that was brought up was that people supporting Trump, including me, said that the claimed collusion was lawful for the president so it could not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor. Basically even if he did everything as accused, it is still not grounds for impeachment. That’s when CJ Roberts made the comment that high crime or misdemeanor was not defined and could be whatever political reason they wished. After all, we might assume that high crime means felony but what about the undefined “misdemeanor”? So when asked, what could a president be impeached for? Whatever the House wishes. That is likely why it takes a 2/3 vote. You could impeach a president every week but unless 67 senators agree, it is meaningless. Under the Obama administration, the Senate Democrats made a mockery of the cloture rule for a filibuster. The Dems didn’t have enough votes to pass Obama federal judge appointments so they changed the longstanding rules with what is called the nuclear option. Mitch McConnell told them that was a mistake and they would pay for it in the future. They did when Trump was able to get three Supreme Court justices without enough votes to get past the filibuster. It is my opinion that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats made a mockery of impeachment when they twice impeached Trump, once within about a week of him leaving office.. Just like their vote on the filibuster rules, they might in the future be paid back for the silliness. I don’t really expect an impeachment of Joe and the #$& but what could it legally be for if the Republicans take back the House and so desired? Anything.

You quoted “legally” in your opening but summed up your post with this… ”Now, the question is, how bad does it have to get before something like this becomes reality.” I answered that.

So will the moderates not vote Democrat since that is exactly what the Dems did for 4 years including trying to impeach Trump after he had lost the election and within days of him leaving office?

The part where you believe that it is even remotely possible that maybe 12-15 Democrat senators will play along.

They seem to name everything they are involved in as “Indian”. They may “prefer” another term but that hardly makes it racist or derogatory. If I had to choose I would probably prefer to be called white instead of caucasian which sounds like a mountain range but my preference doesn’t make either racist. My favorite example is a “Native American” protest group formed in 1968 to fight for their rights and named it… American Indian Movement. [Hidden Content] I think much of the claims are by people looking to be offended. Many times it is not from Indians but people looking to show their sensitivity by claiming racism for another group. Of course much of the accusation from Indians isn’t racism but now “cultural appropriation”. When Blacks straighten their hair, is that European cultural appropriation? Colored contacts? Did Abba or the British rock invasion appropriate American rock which was appropriated from Black blues? Should Eminem quit entertaining because his rap was appropriated from hip hop? This 250 year melting pot called America sometimes seems to want to go back to segregation or a feeling of “please notice me!”. I could care less if PNG changes their name. Back when I was school some of us Nederlanders called them PNG River Rats so I think them “forced” (politically, not legally) might be seem wrong but somewhat humorous. But obviously the choice is theirs. They didn’t choose the mascot out of any racism or intent to capitalize on a culture. They didn’t nor do they need permission. in my opinion…..

Yes.

Fortunately the Supreme Court doesn’t issue statutory law. They can only rule on the constitutionality of signed law. What she will have in most situations is a strong ally in Sotomayor. Sotomayor is the epitome of the definition of an activist judge. Looking at decisions like Kansas v. Glover in 2019 shows Sotomayor following feelings and not the law or Constitution. Sotomayor in that case was the losing side of an 8-1 decision. The 8-1 dissent isn’t a big deal but you have to read the justification for the vote. When Kagan, Ginsberg and Bryer side with the “conservative” justices in what to me should seem like a logical conclusion, it really shows your prejudice to try to rationalize the opposite. Sotomayor will probably soon gain a strong ally.

If America means 6% of the population.

If Indian is offensive, why are several of their organizations and services named Indian? It would be like a guy saying redneck is offensive. Then he goes on to tell you that he is the president of the redneck fan club, gets his insurance from Redneck Insurance and he is a proud follower of his high school mascot, Rednecks.

Because they probably got a complaint and they were trying to wash their hands of it and make PNG the scapegoat.

Maybe you could realize that the Constitution is not criminal law. It is guidelines for the federal government.