Really, You said you Struggled to Make Ends Meet

Hillary Clinton announced her income (co-income as she is married) today.  I guess that I really do not understand what middle class or struggling really means.  Since last year Hillary announced her family was really struggling to make end meet.  Guess what, they aren't broke.  And hey, they only paid 31% taxes (which personally, I believe is too high even for people I detest). 

For my two cents, these people--the Clintons--are not really different from most of the Republican candidates and serious Democratic challengers.  What I am saying is, you are all rich, have little in common with the common man, and need to stop trying to tell us that you are like us.  We are not stupid and can count dollars like the rest of the world.  We have mortgages to pay, student loan debt to pay, etc. just like you Hillary.  And hey, we don't try to act like we are still poor or middle class, because we really are--it is not an act.

Of Course It was the Court in San Francisco

Here I am reading the headlines again at 11:30 pm (Eastern) and I come across this one in the AP wire service regarding Planned Parenthood.  A judge in the most liberal court in the U.S. has blocked the positing of recordings (oral or video) related to Planned Parenthood.  Really, is anyone surprised?

For my two cents, at almost midnight, get a grip court.  Planned Parenthood should be named, "No Parents and No Kids".  Remember, these are the people whose founder says that parenthood should be prohibited to the feeble-minded.  You, Ninth Circuit Court are the most overturned court in judicial history, maybe you should stop and think (maybe you are incapable of thinking) about what you just allowed.

Endame Salad

News flash, on occasion I do try to eat somewhat healthy.  To go with my wine of choice this evening I made an endame salad.

Endame (20 oz), corn (16 oz), black beans (15 oz), chickpeas (15 oz), onions (1 large onion), 1 jar (15- 16 oz) in water roasted red peppers (take out of jar and dice them), ground cumin, hickory smoked sea salt, minced garlic, and fresh cracked black pepper (spices to taste) are the ingredients.  Either buy frozen or freeze corn cut off the cob.  Use shelled endame (soy beans).  It does not matter if the black beans and chickpeas are frozen or canned (if frozen, thaw them out).  Saute the corn for about 2 minutes in a non-stick or cast iron pan over medium high heat (I work with a gas stove in stainless steel or my steel wok). Then add the onion and stir until onion is translucent, add in the endame, black beans, chickpeas, roasted peppers, and spices and stir for about 5 minutes until everything is warm.  Eat it then, or let it cool in refrigerator for a few hours.  I freeze about half of what I make as this is a fairly dense salad.  Can also be used as dip (chips and salsa style).  Goes really well with chilled cabernet blanc or pinot gris (pinot grigio).  I have even had it with Cabernet Sauvignon, but for most people recommend it with the chilled white.

Friday Fun

I only look at the comics on Friday, today I saw this and laughed, so here it is for you to read and shrug or laugh.

Turkish Intransigence

The Turks claim to enter the fight against Daesh, the Turks really wanted to attack Kurds.  I am no fan of socialist governance and ideology, much less potentially communist ideology.  I am a supporter of rights of self-determination.  For me personally the Kurdish question as related to Turkey is a quandary.  The Kurdish PKK is at best socialist in ideological underpinning, and at worst communist.  I do, however, support the Kurdish right to have a self-determined voice in governance in the countries where they exist (Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey are the primary locations of Kurds with a small population location in Armenia).  As a dedicated proponent of self-determination, I even support the idea of a Kurdish state and country (albeit I would greatly prefer to see the creation of such a country by peaceful means rather than violence--sometimes violence is the politically expedient means of creating such an entity).

In 2013 the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) entered into a ceasefire with the Turkish government.  Last week the Turkish government determined that it would strike both Daesh and the PKK labeling both as terrorist organizations.  But the statement by Prime Minister Davutoglu first mentions Kurds then leftists (whoever these are), then Daesh:

"Turkey cannot stand by as Kurdish, leftist, and Islamic State militants target Turkey."

In the last week Turkey has arrested over 1000 suspected members of the PKK, leftist groups, and Daesh.  The prime leftist group appears to the People's Democratic Party (HDP), which is pro-Kurdish and in June crossed the threshold limits to enter the Turkish Parliament for the first time. 

To be fair to Turkey, the PKK has recently claimed responsibility for attacks on and killings of Turkish police.  This information does beg the question of who broke the ceasefire.  But why the sudden Turkish activity? 

For my two cents the answer is fear and intransigence in the Turkish government.  The Syrian arm of the PKK (the YPG--not sure of the meaning of this acronym) has been successful against Daesh and last month took a border town (on the Syrian side of the Syrian-Turkish border)--Tel Abyad--from Daesh, which effectively joined two Kurdish enclaves putting them closer to linking up with the Kurdish controlled Afrin enclave in the Aleppo region.  Turkey fears the rise of the Kurds--probably because the Turks know they have long mistreated the Kurds.  Turkey's government, regardless of leadership and form of governance, is also one of the great examples of culturally intransigent government on the face of the earth.  We are talking about the government/population that still refuses to admit that they engaged in genocidal activity against the Armenian Christian population of Turkey from 1914-1918.  I am not surprised, therefore, by the actions of the Turkish government, just disappointed.

Right to Privacy and UAVs

I believe in the proper use of language in a technical sense.  I abhor people calling a magazine for a firearm a clip.  I also abhor calling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) a drone.  Drones are preprogrammed for a one way flight, most often drones are used for target practice by the military for testing anti-aircraft systems and missile defense systems.  UAVs are controlled by a human being on the ground, if pre-programmed, the program can be interrupted by a human controller.  Regardless of whether you call them UAVs or drones, the growth of civilian use of UAVs can be disturbing.

Recently a man shot down a UAV that was, according to the man in question, hovering over his backyard.  The man is now being charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief for shooting down the UAV with a shotgun.  The man claims he shot directly into the air over his own backyard.  However, the municipality where he lives does not allow discharge of firearms within its borders. 

For my two cents, I agree with both the actions of the man and the magistrate.  The magistrate enforced the laws of the municipality, which an individual is legally required to follow in the applicable location and situation.  The citizen has a right to privacy in/on his own property.  Legally the right to privacy determined by the courts of the U.S. applies to the right of individuals to privacy against the government and its agents.  We do have the right to privacy against civilians as well--through the use of curtains in windows, fences around our property, etc.  The man in question had a six foot privacy fence around his property, if a person climbed on the fence to see inside his property or over the fence onto his property they could be held guilty of trespassing.  The user of the UAV did not physically enter the property of the individual, but with a camera on the UAV can (did) film what was happening in the man's backyard (in this case the man's teenage daughters were sunbathing).

Does the man have a right to privacy against individuals other than the government?  If you complain about your neighbor being nude inside their own home, the magistrate will normally tell you to quit looking in their home.  The magistrate will also ask you nicely to close your curtains, but because you are in your own home, you are violating no laws by walking around nude.  Also, the individual who complained violated no laws by looking through the windows of your house as they passed by unless they were on your property illegally (trespassing).  Can your property be trespassed on via airspace is the question?  Also for my two cents, the answer to this question is yes--particularly if as a landowner you have taken steps to create privacy (erecting fences, cultivating borders of high shrubs, etc.).  The only question to me is how to legally deal with such an invasion of privacy.  Also, too bad that more municipalities are not offering bounties on UAVs (drones, if you must).

   

Civil Liberty and the Magistrate

In case it escaped the notice of most of you, I am very libertarian in respect to civil liberties.  You can assume (without the consequences of normal assumption) that I wish government was much less involved in our daily lives--upto and including the magistrate.  Magisterial authority is needed, as in certain cases crimes against humanity, against a community, are perpetrated.  While I may not agree with all items that fall under magisterial authority, magisterial authority does and ought to exist.

Recently two great examples of failure to respect magisterial authority have occurred.  One involved the arrest of a woman in Texas (who subsequently, as supported by the reports of the official autopsy available to the public, committed suicide in her jail cell).  The other arrest involved the 19 year-old who created a gun firing drone and then made video of it in action for the world to watch.  Both of these arrests stem from an individual disputing magisterial authority in the wrong manner.  She was stopped for a minor traffic infraction and became verbally abusive and uncooperative with the officer involved.  He was arrested on warrant because he refused to answer a questions about his presence in the area of a burglary. 

In the case of the woman in Texas.  The office does have the right to ask you to get out of your vehicle.  This particular officer possibly exceeded his authority in ordering the lady to put out her cigarette in her own vehicle.  The officer might have been too ardent in his telling her to get out or he would "light her up" (referencing using a electric shock device to subdue her).  What would probably have happened if she had not run off at the mouth at the officer--he would have informed her of the violation, written a ticket or a warning, and both would have moved on to the rest of their day.

In the case of the young man in Connecticut, he was stopped by an officer seeking to determine why he was present where a burglary had been reported.  The young man was correct that he did not have to answer any questions asked by the police unless he was properly informed of his rights.  However, the young man attempted to drive off without addressing the officers, a watch sergeant told the officers present to let him go and get a warrant to bring him in for questioning.  The warrant was issued and the young man was requested to simply come to the station on his own.  The young man came to the station and for all appearance (hidden cameras on his person, hidden cell phones on his person, camera in his hand during the confrontation) came prepared to make a scene.  Instead of stating he would answer questions or not (with or without the presence of an attorney) the young man created a situation where police used physical force.

For my two cents, most instances where police are involved should not involve the police.  However, laws exist and we have hired the magistrate to enforce the laws.  Cooperation--not self-incrimination, not accepting undue abuse of authority--simply acting with self-respect, dignity, and recognizing the magistrate is a human doing their job--in most instances--would go a long way to avoiding the ugliness we have recently witnessed.