Guard Dog

I really wonder if the powers that be in the US comprehend that we are on a road that will only lead us to shooting at each other again?

Actually I disagree with my esteemed colleague Volourn. SJWs do believe in equality. The believe in enforced equality. They believe in the kind of equality that can only come at gunpoint. What they do not believe in is merit. Take the grasshopper & ant example. It is of small import to the SJW that the ants worked hard for what they had and the grasshopper did not work at all. They see ants having something and the grasshopper having nothing so it is only fair to take half of the ants labor and give it to the grasshopper. That is equality as they define it.

The party of authoritarian government at it's best. "Shut up you filthy peasants... we know what's best for you"

The dogs woke me up last night around 2 AM wanting to go out. Small wonder when they refused to wake up and go out at their usual time 10 PM. So while they were taking care of business I sat down in the rocking chair on the porch... and dozed off. I guess I was out for an hour or so when I woke up feeling like I was being watched. I was. Not a meter away on the porch hand rail was a little screech owl. She was just sitting there looking at me making a very soft chirp. Then I realized she was actually "talking" to another one over in the magnolia tree in the front yard. I was trying to be very still and just see what they did. After a minute the other one lands on the rail next to the first one and they are both sitting there looking me right in the eye. After a minute or so they both flew away. I would have KILLED for a camera right then. The dogs were already back in the house.. in the bed no less. Some protection they are. I'm sleeping outside at the mercy of every passing owl and they are on MY pillows! But seeing those two was extremely cool.

Low 50's clear skies with a light breeze.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but it's been a hell of a long timesince sanctions on Iraq was an issue. The only relevant politician who was in office to cast a vote on that was Bernie Sanders. He voted against sanctions in the 90's, votes against the invasion in 2002 and opposed interventions in Syria & Libya. The only other candidate to stick to their principles the way he has was Rand Paul. I would not vote for Bernie and I would not want him as President. But I will say this, he is the only candidate still in the race I respect.

Hillary is NOT Bill... more is the pity.

It took me a minute or two to get this one!

I for one have changed my mind. I'm now supporting Hillary Clinton for President! Yay Hillary.... go Hillary! Really she will fix everything! Higher taxes means I won't be able to drink as much because I won't be able to afford the quality of liquor I've become accustomed to. So already my health will improve. She will seize my retirement accounts and that means I won't have to constantly worry how they are doing. She will take away my guns so i won't have to worry about accidentally shooting myself and self defense won't be an issue because after the IRS is done with us none of us will have anything worth stealing anyway. And to top the lot she has the ultimate response to the whole "bathroom" issue: mandatory gender reassignment surgery for anyone who thinks I can't piss in the ladies room because I "feel like a woman" today! Let them see how it feels! Hillary in '16. All hail the pantsuit politburo! Now to paste this and send it to Correct the Record PAC. I'm gettin' paid!

Apparently Hillary is paying people to Troll for here on the web: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/22/pro-hillary-pac-spending-1-million-to-hire-online-trolls/ Hey, I'd never give up MY principles! But I might sell them.... wonder what she is paying?

Dear Commissioner Manfred, Please do not schedule the Rays and Marlins off on the same night anymore. What am I supposed to do tonight? Respectfully, Guard Dog

I finished reading The Scar by China Mieville. It took a little bit for me to get into but it was pretty good. A little weird. I understand his novel Perdido Street Station was in the same setting. I'll give it a look later. Now reading The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom by David Boaz. I just started that one on my lunch break today. Also reading Just Life by Neil Abramson. I didn't like his first novel Unsaid at all. And while he does have a better story idea this time he just doesn't have the writing skills to pull it off. Reading his dialogue is so awkward it hurts my brain. I'm glad this one is a library book.

Until SIRI can answer a complex question without completely misunderstanding it or just googling for me (seriously SIRI I could do that myself) I'm not worried.

Ah... gotcha!

Motive is not and cannot be an element of a crime at trial. What your talking about is intent. Scenario 1: We get into an argument in a bar. I punch you, you fall back, hit the bar and break your neck. That is manslaughter because I caused your death but that was not my intent. You really can't say definitive what my motive was but you can judge my intent because I did not use a weapon so it was reasonable for me to believe my actions would not lead to your death. Scenario 2: Same situation only this time I pulled out a weapon. That is 2nd degree murder because I intended for you to die and that can be inferred because I used a weapon. Once again though, my intent was clear... what was my motive. Only I know that. Now if you were a different ethnicity or sexual orientation than me and either scenario plays out the same I'm on the hook for a hate crime. My motive is suddenly "obvious" even though only one detail of either crime has changed. You see the problem here? I don't think either of us are all that well versed in criminal law, but motive and intent seem to be 2 different things. Motive is what brought you to the bar to fight, or what made you take the punch. Intent is what you wanted to happen when you punched me. They can both be vague or clear as day. It isn't a guarantee that you get charged with a hate crime if I'm a different race. There has to be evidence that says you took the swing because of my race. Oh yeah they are different things. What you were describing in your first post was intent more than motive because that is what escalates the severity of a crime. Motive, unless the perpetrator actually says what it was cannot be known to a certainty. So it cannot be used as an element of a crime for the purposes of trial. It CAN be used for the purposes of arrest and indictment because there the standard is "probable cause to believe". I was just reading an article that made an interesting argument. Since is is already settled in law that a person without sufficient Mens Rea to formulate intent can't be punished like someone who can (the insanity defense) it is impossible to punish motive because the human brain can't help wanting what it wants and shouldn't be punished for what can't be helped. Not that I buy the argument. I just found it interesting.

Motive is not and cannot be an element of a crime at trial. What your talking about is intent. Scenario 1: We get into an argument in a bar. I punch you, you fall back, hit the bar and break your neck. That is manslaughter because I caused your death but that was not my intent. You really can't say definitive what my motive was but you can judge my intent because I did not use a weapon so it was reasonable for me to believe my actions would not lead to your death. Scenario 2: Same situation only this time I pulled out a weapon. That is 2nd degree murder because I intended for you to die and that can be inferred because I used a weapon. Once again though, my intent was clear... what was my motive. Only I know that. Now if you were a different ethnicity or sexual orientation than me and either scenario plays out the same I'm on the hook for a hate crime. My motive is suddenly "obvious" even though only one detail of either crime has changed. You see the problem here?

I missed it then. Clue me in! I will say one thing. Aegon is not Rheagar's son. He is a Blackfyre. Martin practically told us in the excerpt.

That is like saying "I heard on the news it will rain in Seattle today"

The thing I dislike about the whole hate crime thing is you are not punishing the act, you are punishing the motive. More often than not the motive is unknowable. Yes there are some repulsive a-------s who are up fromt about why they did what they did and take a perverse pride in it. But that is not the norm. When the state presumes it can know or minds and punish us for what it finds there we are well on the way to living in Oceana.

He will be charged with Thoughtcrime and taken to the Ministry of Love for "re-education". The dog of course will be killed.

It seems Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75k in donations from employees of the DOJ. The Donald on the other hand has received just $381 from two employees. It seems to me the DOJ are the people who would accept or decline the FBI's recommendation to try and indict Hillary if she violated the law by transmitting classified material via unsecured means and then covered it up by destroying the evidence. http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-rakes-nearly-75000-justice-department-employees/ So the democrats in the DOJ are protecting the democrats nominee for President from criminal prosecution. And the requests for a special counsel have been repeatedly denied by the current President who is also a democrat. And yet it's the Republicans who are being partisan? Once upon a time I'd laugh at the absurdity of this but who has the energy?

If I'm going to write in a candidate I'm writing Mickey Mouse. MOUSE IN '16! PUT THE LITTLE BLACK MOUSE IN THE BIG WHITE HOUSE!

Yep. And I could just buy a Powerball ticket. I could win.

Like the city of London was ready to elect a new police chief.