Four Legal Notes

A lot has gone on recently in the law, and rather than try to churn out posts on each one of them, I'm going to address each one briefly in turn.

First, Attorney General Eric Holder recently gave an interview to the New York Times in which he said that states' attorneys general should feel free to not enforce laws that they feel are discriminatory.  For the Attorney General of the United States of America to tell fellow attorneys general to cherry-pick laws according to their discretion on whether they think the laws are discriminatory is mind-boggling.  Mr. Holder tried to dance his way around his statement, saying that the attorneys general should employ strict scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend a certain law.  He was addressing his comments to the latest hot legal topic of same-sex marriage, which has its legal underpinnings in the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.  But Mr. Holder has haphazardly strewn a minefield around himself.

If an attorney general decides to employ strict scrutiny to gun control laws that infringe on a citizen's right to own a particular firearm, would Mr. Holder be in favor of his decision to not enforce the law?  Say that a state has enacted a ban on assault rifles.  Would Mr. Holder agree with the state attorney general's decision not to enforce that law?  What about equal protection for those people who want to own assault rifles?  Are they entitled to equal protection just like those people who want to have gay marriages?  The Second Amendment has no limitations on it regarding the type of arms that may be borne.

Mr. Holder is tangling himself in a web that he's weaving to deceive.

Second, the Ninth Circuit has come out with another wacky ruling, for which it's rightly infamous.  A couple of years ago some Mexican students were upset by American students who wore clothes with the American flag on them and were threatening violence.  The school officials, in their infinite lack of wisdom, banned clothing with the American flag on it.  So the American students sued, claiming their rights of free speech under the First Amendment and their rights of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The panel of the Ninth Circuit, citing precedent that allows for restrictions in the name of safety, denied the claims, saying that in order to protect the school and its students, the ban on clothing with the American flag was justified.

Please remember this is a school in California, in the United States of America, and the clothing bore the American flag.

Instead of doing the prudent thing and either banning all manifestations of ethnic or simply hiring security guards, the school banned the American flag.  This makes no sense.  Just because a single ethnic group that is celebrating its heritage is offended by the American flag shouldn't mean free speech is curtailed.  The American flag isn't inherently offensive to anyone in this country; is the school also lowering the American flag on May 5th so the Mexican students aren't offended by it?  As usual, the Ninth Circuit got it wrong.  An appeal is pending asking for a rehearing before the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  I'm not too sanguine about there being a reversal; this is probably headed to the SCOTUS.

But just when it was thought that the Ninth Circuit had reached new lows in jurisprudence, along comes one Cindy Lee Garcia.  She's probably not well-known by her name alone.  Apparently, she appeared in the film that allegedly provoked protests in the Muslim world that were used by the administration as the excuse for the Benghazi consulate attacks.  Mr. Garcia appealed all the way to the Ninth Circuit and finally won on a theory that as an actor in a movie, she has an identifiable copyright claim that was violated when she was put in the movie Innocence of Muslims.

I have not read the entire opinion, but I've read enough to know that Ms. Garcia may well have grounds to object to usage of her image in the film, as it would appear that she did scenes for another movie, Desert Warrior, that was never released, and the voiceover that was done was not of her doing.  Injunctive relief on some breach of contract theory might have worked.  But what the judge did was find that each actor in a film has an identifiable copyright that protects that actor irrespective of whatever copyright the movie, the screenwriter or anyone else may have, and on that basis, ordered Google and Youtube to remove the film.

Think about the ramifications of this ruling for a moment.  Robert Redford himself has an identifiable copyright for The Sting, The Way We Were, The Natural and any other film in which he appeared.   If he disagreed with the way his performance was edited, he could sue and stop release of the film.  Or he might be able to ask for a higher wage for his involvement.  I'm sure intellectual property attorneys are doing more than scratching their heads trying to figure out ways to stop or exploit this ruling for their clients.

There is an old saw that bad facts make bad law.  The Ninth Circuit proves this virtually every month with its rulings.

As for Eric Fast and Furious Holder, there is no explanation.  He recently went into the hospital complaining of some such thing.

Frankly, I thought it was to have his head checked.

Postdata:  Kerry Kennedy was acquitted of driving under the influence.  I don't know the facts of the case, and she may well have deserved that verdict.

But is there a court in the land that will find a Kennedy guilty of anything?  Even Michael Skakel had his conviction thrown out.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Liberals and Free Speech

It would be unfair to tar all liberals with the brush of this madness.  The problem with it, however, is that there are many liberals who behave this way if not actually utter the same words.  The mantra Do as we say, not as we do, is the unspoken motto of liberalism.  But this latest article takes that to new lows.

Unsurprisingly, it comes to us from a senior undergraduate student at Harvard University named Susan Korn. Apparently, Ms. Korn finds opposing viewpoints offensive.  One would think that with the SAT scores she must have achieved, combined with her advanced high school curriculum and sundry life experiences that qualified her for matriculation into Harvard, she would be familiar with the Voltairean concept of I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it which, when examined closely, is an awfully liberal approach to life.  While Ms. Korn may be familiar with the notion, she roundly rejects it.

Ms. Korn's argument can be distilled easily:  Instead of academic freedom, she proposes it be replaced with a concept she calls academic justice.  Essentially, this passes as academic code for the repeal of the First
Amendment.  Why?  Because opposing views that don't meet with Ms. Korn's sensibilities are oppressive to her perspectives of justice, otherwise known as freedom.  It's a preposterous idea, but what do I know?  I was only educated at substantially inferior institutions, studied constitutional law in law school and practiced law for nearly a quarter century.  By no means should I contest the esteemed words of someone who's about to graduate from such an august university.

Lest anyone think that the brush with which I paint is overly broad, consider this:  The Obama administration has sought to inject the FCC into newsrooms to see how stories are chosen for publication, has seized the phone records of James Rosen of Fox News and those of his parents, has defended accusations that the Department of Justice hacked Sharyl Atkisson's computer by saying To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised..., has had the IRS targeting conservative groups who filed not-for-profit applications, has gone after nuns who don't want to comply with Obamacare's dictates to provide artificial contraception coverage to employees and other lesser assaults on First Amendment rights.  To say that Ms. Korn is delusional is barely scratching the surface.  To say she's disingenuous is closer to the truth. To say that she's engaged in cognitive dissonance is hitting the nail right on the head.

The truth of the matter is that many liberals, of whom Ms. Korn is the latest poster child, descry any conservative attempt to air its viewpoint.  For liberals, conservative thought is necessarily and dangerously pernicious and should not be allowed.  

Ms. Korn would do well to learn some history at Harvard, starting with a couple of very famous and accomplished alumni of its law school.  First, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment does not protect all speech, and gave the example that a person does not have an unfettered right to shout fire in a crowded theater.  That implies that certain actions that would be injurious to the public weal will not be tolerated and therefore protected.  That is, there can be no prior restraint unless it is known that the speech presents a clear and present danger to the public. Without hearing different viewpoints, how can it be known whether it they present a clear and present danger?  Certain speech, like sedition or advocating the killing of the president, certainly qualify.  But if someone opposes affirmative action, is that sufficient for prior restraint?  That there will be people opposed to that viewpoint is unassailable, but that doesn't mean there's a clear and present danger presented.  

The other foremost alumnus with whom Ms. Korn may want to familiarize herself is Louis Brandeis.  He advocated that sunlight is the best disinfectant, suggesting that if allowed to be aired, a particularly noxious viewpoint will be cleansed by its airing.  Actually, it refers to transparency, but it can be applied to speech, as well.  Prior restraint of disagreeable speech only allows it to fester.  Had Skokie suppressed the Nazis' right to march in a largely Jewish neighborhood, who knows what could have become of the Nazi movement in the States?  Instead, Skokie made the enlightened but difficult choice, despite the large number of Holocaust survivors who resided in Skokie, and the skinhead movement in this country is mostly marginalized. Compare that to Germany, where even Nazi symbols are banned.  Such bans are emotionally understandable, but they're counterproductive.  Germany probably has one of the largest per capita rates of Nazism in the world.

Ms. Korn is deluded by her intellect.  She probably believes, earnestly, what she propounds.  The problem is that her argument has the potential to boomerang on her, just as Senate Democrats face that prospect by changing the Senate's rules on the filibuster.  I firmly believe that when the Republicans are in power and they use the Democratic party's new filibuster rules, there will be howls from the other side of the aisle.

But with speech, I don't believe conservatives would ever resort to such a strategy.  Typically, when confronted with an opposing viewpoint, conservatives would rather destroy it rather than hide it.

For all her intelligence, Ms. Korn is sadly mistaken, as are many of her liberal friends.  

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

More Randomness

Meh, I don't have one theme for today, so it must be more randomness:

-- Interesting debate we had late last week with a disabled veteran who blames Republicans for his receiving a paltry $15 a month in food stamps.  Nevermind that the the original post had to do with gun control, or that we thanked him for his service, or that it might not be just Republicans who were keeping him from getting the benefits he deserves as a vet (he was disabled in a car accident after he served, hence the italics)...he was incensed that Republicans are keeping him down.  I wonder what he makes of Mr. Obama's announcement downsizing of the military.  I can't tell anyone because he's now blocked me for my incendiary comments after he told my girl to fuck off.

-- As for the downsizing, from what's being reported, the administration wants to reduce the military to pre-World War II levels.  As an adherent of George Santayana, I bridle at this:  Being weak before World War II caused us to be well behind the curve when we got into it, same with Korea, same with Vietnam.  The Islamofascists only respect one thing -- power -- and downsizing doesn't project power.  Far from it.

-- That being said, I'm all for a lean, streamlined military.  But putting the burden on the backs of our servicemen and their families while insisting that the minimum wage for civilian employees in support of our military gets raised just defies reason.

--  So much for being the recipient of twerking.

--  Thankfully, the Olympics are over.  We now resume our regular programming.

--  Alec Baldwin's announcement that he's leaving public life is like a person on Facebook announcing he's leaving Facebook.  Yeah, right.

--  I like agave sweetener.  Who knew?

-- I don't watch golf as a rule, but those shots the Frenchman made this weekend in the Accenture Match Play playoff were just amazing.

--  Alexander Hamilton is a fascinating Founding Father.

-- Ooooo...Dancing With The Stars made a roster change.  Wake me when it's over.

--  Sometimes, people are too predictable for their own good.  At least to me they are.

--  I can't figure it:  Custer will poop and pee when he's out of the kennel, but he only pees in the kennel.  And when he gets out of the kennel, he does his business outside like he's supposed to.

-- Speaking of my little buddy, I want to have Karen get some footage of him playing.

-- Have I mentioned lately that Karen is the sweetest, most thoughtful person in the world?

-- Regarding the aforementioned disabled vet, after he got done blocking us, he went on a posting tirade completely misrepresenting what we'd said to him during the discussion.  Unfortunately, Karen deleted the conversation so we can't rebut him.  But it's hard rebutting a moving bong anyway.

--  I get that people don't like the President.  I understand that Mr. Obama has done some very disagreeable things.  But Ted Nugent went too far in his description of him.  Ad baculum and ad hominem attacks don't distinguish anyone, especially the person employing them.

--  Another visit from the Polar Vortex this weekend.  I don't mind the cold, I just find the overuse of the term Polar Vortex amusing.  Whatever happened to the Alberta Clipper?

-- Iced tea is a mixed bag in restaurants.  Some of it is good, some of it is horrible.  I'm such an iced tea snob.  I just want iced tea that doesn't taste like it went through a dirty sock on its way to my glass.

-- Soon I may need another wallet for more rewards program cards.  This is out of control.

-- Great, the Oscars are this Sunday.  And we're told that the people who get paid millions to pretend they're something they're not are going to get swag totaling more than $80,000.  Interesting how income equality doesn't apply to friends of the President.

--  We had the misfortune to visit Ikea this weekend.  Aside from the typical complaints I have about the place, they butchered Spanish in one of their signs which, when one thinks about it, is slightly humorous.

-- Seeing what my high school tutoring student has to go through these days, I'm glad I graduated from high school when I did.

--  Yup, I'm left brained.

--  It's amusing to watch these narcissists on Facebook post things about themselves in a transparent bid for attention and then try to gussie it up as if it's humility.  There's not much worse than a dishonest narcissist.

-- This outbreak of homeowners defending themselves in their homes using firearms and being encouraged to do so by the chief of the Detroit police isn't getting much air time in the MSM. I wonder why only gun rights activists are reporting the news.

-- I really like Brit Hume.  He's about the only thing named Brit that I can think of that I like.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Demagogues on Parade

Well, after the night we had last night with the dogs waking us up at irregular intervals, it's only fitting that the news awaiting us this morning provided more grist for my mill.  Where to begin, where to begin?  I think alphabetically is the best choice.

Leading off, Alec Baldwin gave another long-winded exculpation of his behavior to a reporter for New York Magazine which is no mea culpa, believe you me.  The rambing history of all things Baldwin explains chapter and verse of how wronged he's been by the media, how the public misunderstands him and how he just wants to blend into the crowd in New York but can't, thanks to an invasive media.  This from someone who shows up on Saturday Night Live when he's not the host, has Capital One commercials running twenty-four hours a day, had a talk show on MSNBC and constantly gets in conflicts with the media.  Methinks the man dost protest too much...but that's the point, isn't it?  This is Mr. Baldwin's world and we should all just be thankful he allows us to live in it.  Try to have an educated discussion with the man and he browbeats and shouts over the top.  But he's never, ever wrong -- and my, isn't he talented?  I wonder if he has a publicist because if he does, he's wasting money.  He does a much better job getting publicity for himself, he probably doesn't listen to their counsel and who wants that headache anyway?  How he's managed to get two beautiful women to marry him is beyond me; fifteen minutes alone with the man probably suffices to know that one would be nothing more than a consort and a baby vessel for the man.  I'm sure he has some redeeming qualities, but I'll be darned if I can find any.

Next up we have the irrepressible Minister Louis Farrakhan.  He's now come out and told the world that, contrary to the dictates of the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education and even Dr. Martin Luther King, blacks need their own court system because they can't get any justice in white courts.  Apparently, Mr. Farrakhan longs for the days of Plessy v. Ferguson and its support for the notion of separate but equal. Well, if Mr. Farrakhan wants to play the racial card, perhaps we should respond by allocating to his separate court system a proportionate share of the revenues based on population size.  The most recent statistics I could find show that blacks constitute 13.1% of the American population.  Therefore, they should get only 13.1% of the revenues allocated to the judiciary.  That would also apply to the penal system, as well as everything else.  This latest attempt to race-bait is ludicrous.  Although there are clearly abuses in the system, blacks alone are not the only parties that suffer from them.  Mr. Farrakhan needs to shut up and sit down with Mr. Baldwin to figure out a better course of action...for both of them.  That Mr. Farrakhan made this speech in Detroit, where for the last couple of weeks there has been a spate of black homeowners shooting black intruders and were encouraged to do so by the black chief of police only makes the story that much more poignant.

Hitting clean-up is the one and only Piers Morgan.  Mr. Morgan comes to us from the enlightened shores of the United Kingdom, where divide-and-conquer is a political technique perfected over centuries of tyranny. Mr. Morgan gained notoriety in this country with one of those insufferably rote talent shows wherein he played the role of the wizened and tough judge who knew better than anyone else.  This got him cast on Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice (where has that show gone...?) which, in turn, garnered him his own talk show on the Clinton News Network.  Mr. Morgan, whose background consists of fluff work reporting on celebrities and hacking their cellphones, fancied himself an expert on America.  His scandal-ridden career reads almost as long as Mr. Baldwin's dirge in the New York Magazine.  But based on his veddy British accent and his well-honed liberal Darth Vader routine, the Clinton News Network thought it had found the unimpeachable host for a show giving liberals a platform to attack conservatives in this country.  Only thing was, there was a slight little problem: For all that British breeding and obnoxious accent, Mr. Morgan rubbed people the wrong way by trying to inject British perspectives into American political thought.  The best example of this was when he debated the Second Amendment's application to the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and challenged an opponent to show where in the Amendment it referenced semi-automatics, clearly being based on muskets when enacted. The reply was classic:  It refers to semi-automatics right next to where it mentions muskets.  Argument over, winner declared, thanks for coming.

Mr. Morgan was haughty enough to declare that he would bury Fox News when it debuted The Kelly Files. Megyn Kelly is not only easy on the eyes she's educated -- not at the toniest schools, but in law school -- so any debate on politics and law would favor Ms. Kelly.   Within a little over four months, The Kelly Files crushed Mr. Morgan's show.  Mr. Morgan's take on the demise of his centerpiece CNN show is whimsical: Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.  That's putting it mildly:  There's nothing an American likes less than a Brit lecturing us about our Constitution that was put in place after we ousted the tyrannical Brits.  To call them cultural issues shows just how misguided misguided Mr. Morgan is; they're political issues, they're constitutional issues.  To say that they're cultural issues is to say that giving the Republic of Ireland back the Six Counties Britain withheld at Partition is a cultural issue.  To speak euphemistically about such an inherent right is to talk down to an American, and Mr. Morgan shows he simply doesn't get it.

So for unintentional hilarity, we should thank Mssrs. Baldwin, Farrakhan and Morgan for giving us plenty about which we can guffaw today.  From the narcissistic Baldwin and Morgan to the woefully out-of-touch Farrakhan, each has delivered more cud than a herd of cows could chew on in a year.  Each of them, in his mind, is unfairly picked upon by American society, albeit for different reasons -- Mr. Baldwin is misunderstood, Mr. Farrakhan is a minority and Mr. Morgan is a Brit -- but when each episode is distilled to its finest particle, they share one incontrovertible trait:  They're woefully out of touch with reality and living in their own utopia which they want to foist on the rest of us.

There's a term for this.

It's called demagoguery.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

A Saturday Out With My Girl

Karen and I don't get many opportunities to go out by ourselves and just do what we want, so yesterday was special.  We had a date day of sorts, but it probably wasn't like what most people do on date day.

For starters, Karen's car needed gas, so I went to what gasbuddy.com told us would be the cheapest gas in the area, Kroger.  It's not that far away, so when I arrived expecting to purchase gas at $3.32 with my .03 discount, imagine my surprise when I saw the price was $3.59.  I hightailed it to the Meijer, hoping that its price was still at $3.35 and was presently surprised to see that it was.

After we filled the tank, we went across the street to the bank.  Karen told me to go through the drive-through, so I did.  This bank has a drive-through that is wrapped around the back of its building through one lane, which then opens out into three spaces.  As I pulled up to where the one lane empties into three, there was an SUV waiting there to see which stall would finish first so she could take it.  She wouldn't pull behind one of them, thereby depriving me of taking the one empty spot where I could deal directly with the banker. Rudeness is not just found in Illinois.

We went to the WalMart to buy more shells.  The guy who helped us kept looking at me when he'd ask a question, unaware that Karen is far more experienced than I when it comes to shooting.  As we left the counter, Karen said, Well, he sure didn't like you.  Of course not, I said, he didn't like that I couldn't answer his questions.

After we got out of there, we went to grab a bite to eat.  I went through the McDonald's first to get fries and drinks.  I placed the order then went to pay,  When I went to pay, the window was closed, and I thought I saw the car ahead of me transacting business at the next window, so I pulled up there.  I was chagrined to see in my rear view mirror the car behind me paying at the window that I had thought was closed.  So I had to go around the entire McDonalds, zip past the cars placing orders and race to the pay window, which was still closed.  When I got there, the person opened the window.

We made our way to the shooting range and Karen pulled out her replacement GPS.  Karen knew the way to the range but wanted to test out her newest Rhoda -- which is what she calls her GPS -- and it took us a slightly different way.  So we got off at the exit to which it directed us and got to the range.  We filled out the paperwork, bought me some ear protection and bought some shells for shooting.  We got into Lane 9 and fired away.  We must have shot nearly two hundred bullets.  Karen's a good shot, that's for sure.  But we had a couple of problems with shells caught in the ejection port, one for each of us.  I even had a bullet sitting perpendicular to the rack.

After we shot we looked at guns we'd like to buy.  I now know that Karen wants a Remington .22 to go with the bracelet watch she picked out for Valentine's Day.  I can't wait to see her open her birthday and Christmas presents later this year.

Since we'd only wolfed down a hamburger each before we went shooting, we were both hungry, so Karen said she wanted to go to one of her favorite Italian restaurants that she insisted I'd been to before with her. When she told me the name of it, I didn't recognize it, but she kept insisting that we'd been there before. Finally, when we got to the restaurant, it was clear I'd never been to the place before.  To add to the disjointed nature of our visit, the doors would only open so far before getting stuck on the concrete -- something of which we were warned by the handwritten signs on the door -- and we found out that a funeral reception was just getting over.  Despite the fact it was only around 2.30p and they didn't open to the public until 4p, they agreed to serve us.  The food was of middling quality, with Karen's spaghetti residing in a watery red sauce that reminded me of my Mother's efforts at making spaghetti.  Our waitress couldn't wait for us to leave, and it showed.

We then went to look for a stand that would hold the printer next to the bed in the second bedroom.  We first tried a Thrift Store that was closed due to a recent fire, so we decided to go to the nearby Ikea.  My memories of Ikea on weekends back in Illinois weren't good:  Imagine being at an Ellis Island, although no one is controlling anything.  People from various countries with differing approaches to shopping are all thrust together in this Nordic labyrinth and there's no way out other than to go through the store.  One way in, and one way out.  Even the parking lot was hideous.

We finally got out of there, loaded with a half dozen cinnamon rolls that a lesbian couple convinced Karen to try in the check-out aisle.  We took the scenic route home because there was such a wait to get on the expressway, but that took us past Costco, and we needed a couple of things for home.

In another post, I mentioned some immutable natural laws that Newton missed.  One of them hit me yesterday:  I literally spent five minutes driving around trying to find a parking space that wasn't located on the other side of the moon.  And this was toward the end of the day.

We came home and watched one of the two Redbox movies we'd rented the night before.  At least this one wasn't scratched.

I returned the movies and came home to watch the Justin Timberlake appearance on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.

Then Karen insisted that we break down our guns to clean them...at 10.00p.  We broke down the guns and I was toast.  Today we clean 'em.

So that's a brief rundown of our date day:  Shooting, eating, shopping, movies and cleaning guns.

Yep, we're real highfalutin.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Concealed Carry Laws

My former state, Illinois, became the last state to enact legislation allowing people to carry weapons in public with concealed carry permits.  One would think that it would be reason for gunowners to be joyful.  One would be mistaken.

Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit struck a California concealed carry law requiring an applicant to show good cause to receive a permit.  The court ruled that the Second Amendment required no such showing and the law was therefore unconstitutional.

Gun control advocates are being pushed and prodded by courts to recognize Second Amendment rights yet are not acting in good faith when it comes to enacting legislation that complies with the constitutionally guaranteed right.  In Illinois, for example, the new concealed carry laws are described as Byzantine.  An excellent article explaining the labyrinthian regulations can be found at:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-27/news/ct-guns-concealed-carry-law-20131227_1_gun-violence-cook-county-forest-preserves-law-enforcement

The examples given include:  Being able to keep a gun in the glove compartment at a museum, zoo or stadium, but not in the post office parking lot.  One could park on the street outside the post office, however, so long as it's not controlled by the post office.

Another oddity is that a person can carry a weapon while walking through a large crowd on the way to a destination, but that person may not carry a weapon while attending a gathering.  The example cited in the article says that a person could carry a gun through the crowd at the St. Patrick's Day parade while walking through the crowd, but the same person could not stand with a concealed weapon and watch the parade.

Needless to say, enforcement of such a law is open to caprice and whim.

The example given of a person trying to ride public transportation with a concealed weapon is almost ludicrous, however believable and realistic the scenario.  The law is unnecessarily burdensome and raises the specter of unconstitutionality.

In California, meanwhile, the requirement of good cause was clearly unconstitutional.  It gives the authorizing body too much discretion to determine what is and what isn't good cause.  Good cause is a legal determination that only a competent judicial body can make; arrogating that decision to elected officials who may or may not have political bias opens the door to questionable decisions on individual rights.

It's high time the gun control zealots fashioned reasonable concealed carry laws that didn't seek to punish law-abiding gunowners.  A trade-off could be strengthening punishments for those who use guns in the commission of crimes.  There are hate crime statutes wherein punishments are heightened when convictions are obtained.  The problem is that do-gooders believe that putting people behind bars for longer periods of time serves no purpose.  What results is that those who commit crimes get the benefit of the doubt in the form of rehabilitation, while gunowners are penalized with the thought that owning a gun leads to more crime, and they should therefore bear a greater burden simply to own the gun.  There is no question that a gunowner should be great responsibility for his ownership.  The trouble for gun control advocates is that gunowners already do that and then some.  It's the criminals who break the gun laws that cause such panic.

As a new gunowner, I'm mindful of the awesome responsibility I have and the great privilege I possess in owning a gun.  I take neither lightly.  Most gunowners are the same.  Law-abiding citizens should not bear the burden of the crimes of others and be penalized as if they'd done something wrong.

In a civilized society, there's always a balancing of relative rights.  It's time for more balance and less political correctness.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Private Business and Personal Beliefs

Over the past year, two incidents have occurred that stretch the blur the boundary between personal rights and equal protection.  A court ruling in New Mexico found that a photographer could not decline to provide services to a gay couples in commitment ceremonies because it violated the states Human Rights Act.  The SCOTUS has upheld such acts as constitutional.  Later, an Oregon court ruled that a baker could not deny services to a gay couple for a wedding cake.  In both cases, state laws provide equal protection for gays and the denial of service for them is a violation.  The question is, should it be?

On the one hand, discrimination based on race, gender, creed or sexual orientation is illegal.  One should not be able to deny service to blacks, as happened under Jim Crow laws prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education.  The same applies whether it's gender or creed or sexual orientation.

But should sexual orientation be considered to be equal to race, gender or creed?  Arguably, race and gender are inherent characteristics, so those traits are separate from creed, which is something that a person can freely choose, unlike his race or gender.  The question of one's sexual orientation is not settled, however, with some who believe that it's an inherent characteristic while others believe it's an acquired trait.  More science is needed to definitively answer that question.  I'm sure gays disagree with that.

Yet, unlike race and creed, for which there is no competing right, with sexual orientation there are people who oppose homosexuality in all its various forms because of their creed.  It's not limited to just one group, either.  By imposing this duty on purveyors of goods or services, it necessarily causes them to violate their religious principles.  I"m not saying that gays shouldn't be able to contract with people of opposing viewpoints, but why should people be forced to violate their religious beliefs?  Moreover, isn't this violative of their First Amendment rights?

I think a far more sensible approach is to allow those people who don't want to serve gays to refrain from doing so. The result is that gays will take their business elsewhere.  The marketplace will determine whether those who don't provide service to gays will continue to prosper.  As it is, there are communities where stores cater only to people of a certain culture, or only speak a certain language.  Perhaps by opening their stores to other peoples they would realize greater profits, but these stores chose to keep their client base narrow.  So be it.  The same should be true for those who want to abide by their religious beliefs.

I understand the gays' arguments in these cases.  They seem themselves as equal to minorities in the fight for equality.  They have a point.  The problem is that those who would not serve them are relying on their religious beliefs, for which there is scriptural support, whereas the bigots who would not serve blacks had no such religious support.  Even so, the question begs whether the human rights of gays trumps the religious freedom of the purveyors.  And aren't the religious freedoms of the purveyors part and parcel of their human rights?

Personally, I have no trouble at all representing gays.  My faith teaches me to treat all people similarly.  I am not to engage in homosexual activity, but I have no inclination to do so, so it's a mute point.  Unlike some people, I don't judge people for their behavior unless and until it crosses the line into actual criminal activity that is designed to hurt or harm others.  Homosexual behavior is personal, largely, and is either an inherent characteristic or something to which people gravitate.  I've seen strong arguments for it being an inherent trait.  That being the case, can I surmise that God didn't intend for it to happen that way?  And if He did, then it must be acceptable to Him.  I'm unworthy to judge one of His creations as inferior.

Even so, there are others who believe otherwise.  I can't force them to accept my way of thinking.  The First Amendment gives them the right to believe as they wish.  I believe that right protects any manifestation it may take, including the right to decline to sell things to people whose lifestyles conflict with their religion.

Let the marketplace determine this.  In a battle of competing constitutional freedoms, it should be a draw.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

One Year Ago

A year ago today I spent my first day in my new state.  I'd fled Illinois, once the Land of Lincoln and now the land of corruption, cronyism, high taxes and no opportunity, to move to a state seeking a fresh start.  I'd been to this state several times over the past decade and fallen in love with it before I ever met my beloved Karen who, coincidentally, is from the state.  We talked it over and decided that the move was the best thing for us, and I came here to set up a practice.

To say it's been a struggle would be a massive understatement.  Setting up a practice and attracting clients is not something at which I'm skilled, so I've kind of had to learn on the fly.  I've met with success to the extent that I've had clients, but I need more of them.  The lack of income from my end has unnecessarily been beyond stressful.  Steps are being taken to ameliorate that.

But what I remember about my move here is the same feeling of newness I felt when I arrived in Spain almost thirty years ago.  Sure, there are differences between the two, chief among them cultural.  But there are similarities, too.

Knowing how to get around my new location is probably one of the biggest differences.  I can get around anywhere in most of Chicago's metropolitan area, but I didn't know how to get from one end of my new little town to the other without referring to a map.  Going to the store was different, because there are slight differences in the way things are handled here.  Driving is largely different, although I do acknowledge there are crazies both in Illinois and this state.

Karen said that the feeling is different in this state, and I agree, by and large.  People are more laid back, less concerned about appearances.  Gun ownership alone distinguishes this state from Illinois.  There are so many different feelings in the way of life here.

Illinois is the home of my birth.  Our Mother is buried there.  I am a proud graduate of the flagship school of the state.  But I spurn the state that has turned out to be on of the most corrupt, most expensive, most taxed states of the union.  I can no longer waste what time I have remaining trying to enjoy life with the challenges Illinois presents.

My new state is both beautiful and relaxing.  It's exciting in that it's mostly new to me, with plenty of places and things to explore.  Seeing it through Karen's eyes adds to the enjoyment.  I'm not sure how long we'll live here, and it's been difficult at times, but the move was the right thing to do.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Natural Laws Newton Missed

What goes up, must come down, Isaac Newton famously said, and he has been proven correct.  An object is either at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.  That's actually his first law.  When one body exerts force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.  That's Newton's third law; his second is too long to retype and it confuses me anyway -- something about F=ma.

There's no doubt that Mr. Newton was an observant and intelligent man, years ahead of his time.  No matter how perceptive and skillful he was, Ike missed a couple of natural laws that are as immutable as the ones he set down.  Needless to say, they are as unerringly accurate as Newtonian laws and are based on the same infallible experimental tools as observation and repetition in real life trials.

Cord Wrappus:   This can happen with any cord, but mostly happens with vacuum cords.  When vacuuming a rug, the cord will always wrap around a table or underneath a door, causing either the table to move, the vacuum to pull or the cord to stick under the door.  It's doubtful whether Ike could see this one coming.

Refrigerator Bombs:  The cold within a refrigerator can cause expansion in foods that, upon the door being opened, thereby creating additional space, cause the foods to fly out onto the floor.  A corollary to this law is that the food so ejected is usually the one that is planned for lunch or dinner...as happened to me this morning.

Selective Forgetfulness:  When confronted by a list of things that need to be recalled later, the single most important of them will be the one most likely to be forgotten.

Cable Outage:  Another one probably beyond Ike's ken, whenever a much anticipated show is awaited, the cable will go out.

Geriatric Lane-Hogging:  Although this typically refers to automobiles, Ike may have noticed this with horse and buggy arrangements.  Whenever speed is essential, a geriatric will necessarily occupy the position immediately in front of the person in the same lane.  In Ike's time and place, stone walls were a problem. Now it's faster traffic in the other lanes.

Change Interruptus:  When purchasing something for a small amount, it never fails that I lack the smaller denominations to pay for it and have to use a twenty, resulting in the small change that I could have used to pay for the item.

Toilet Paper Two-Step:  Who hasn't used the bathroom only to find out that the toilet paper is gone or nearly gone...and there are no replacement rolls nearby?

Plunger Envy:  A closely related law to the Toilet Paper Two-Step, this only occurs when one needs to be out the door quickly.  And the plunger is never in the bathroom where it's needed; it's in the bathroom where it was needed last, which can't possibly be the same one in which it is now needed.

Key Roulette:  That two keys are so similar on the same key ring only means that it will always happen that when the needed key is sought, the key that won't work will be found first.  This usually happens while struggling with grocery bags.

Alarm Clock Misfires:  There is absolutely no rationale for this:  When needed, the alarm will not go off for whatever reason.  When it is going to work, I wake up every hour on the hour to make sure I don't miss the alarm clock not going off, which only ensures that it will go off twenty minutes after I've finally fallen asleep. Mr. Newton assuredly had it easier with roosters only.

Daylight Savings Denial:  Mr. Newton never had to deal with this, and lucky for him that he didn't.  No matter how much I'm supposed to get to sleep when we fall back in the autumn, I never get to either because the dogs wake us up, or I'm thinking about something too much, or my internal clock still controls me.  It's a bitter disappointment.

Parking Space Roulette:  If I look for a parking space, spots open up where I can see them but can't get to them before another car does.  Or if I find what I think is a space, a pick-up truck is straddling the lanes so that I could get in the space, but I'd never get out of the car.  I've spent five to ten minutes in parking lots looking for available spaces.  Ike never had these problems because he could park his buggy or horse just about anywhere.

Costcoitis:  Certainly unheard of by Isaac, this is peculiar to Costco where if they have an item that I really, really like, they'll discontinue it within a few months without warning.  When I ask them whatever happened to it, they act like they never heard of it before.

Karen's Too Nice Rule:  Luckily for Mr. Newton, he never met my Karen.  Karen will witness someone being rude, then tell me about it and forbid me from taking the person to task.  I suppose she's just more civilized than I am, but it grates nevertheless.

Coupon Obfuscation:  No matter how assiduously I keep track of my grocery coupons, they always get lost.  Presently, they're MIA.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

My Valentine

When I was in grade school, the only way I got any recognition on Valentine's Day was when it was enforced, sort of like voting in communist countries where people are forced to go to the polls.  Thankfully, the delivery of Valentines was more democratic, with everyone getting one from every other student of the opposite gender.  I quickly disabused myself of the notion that these were anything but mandatory Valentines and didn't put much stock in them.

High school and college were a veritable drought for this holiday.  I'd see everyone else getting them and knew, just knew, that I wouldn't be getting one, and I was right.  For me, Valentine's Day became a Hallmark holiday, something that was trumped up for sales of mushy cards, smelly flowers and chocolates ruined with jellies pumped into them.

A few years ago, my life changed irrevocably.  I met the love of my life, the darling of my heart.  I knew it from the moment I first talked with her.  When we left each other, I was shaking.  It was that powerful.  And from that day, I've had but one dream:  To live for the rest of time with this woman.

Karen makes every day happier, brighter.  She is the most generous, most giving woman I've ever known. She always does things for me just because.  She'll bake this or that, make this or that meal, just because she thinks I'll like it.  She's as thoughtful a person as I've ever known.

Lest anyone think I have this woman wrapped around my finger, she does the same thing for others.  Last night she went out to buy candies for her coworkers so they'd have something nice when they came in today. That's just the kind of person she is.  She's the best person anyone will ever know.

I love her not only because she's intelligent, fun, beautiful, caring, thoughtful, sensitive, humorous, energetic, strong, playful and many other wonderful things.  I love her because of her inherent goodness, how she makes the world a better place just by being in it.

Somehow, some way, she's decided to share her life with me.  I am the luckiest guy on the face of the earth as a result.  No matter how bad things are going for me, all I have to do is take one look at that beautiful face and know that I'm already ahead of the game.

She's made me a better person and continues to encourage me to better myself.  She's supportive and confident in me.  Having lacked that for the better part of my life, it's a breath of fresh air, albeit a little disconcerting, to have this round the clock.

Make no mistake:  We have our fights.  Some are doozies.  With her Scots background and my Irish background, what would one expect?  But in the end, we realize that each of us loves the other, and compromises are made.  Given that we've met each other later in life, we had our routines already developed when we fell in love, so we had to recognize what was truly more important.

I don't want to consider my life without Karen in it.  The only regret I have is that we didn't meet sooner.  I love her thoroughly, completely and honestly.  I am inadequate when it comes to describing just how and how much I love this woman.

So today, the day traditionally held out for slackers who forget the other days of the year are for love, too, I ask my sweetheart if she'll be my Valentine again.  That's my selfish request.

I tell her, at the same time, that she's my getaway car, my true companion, my forever, my one more day, my dance, my morning yearning, my promise.  I'm all in, tangled up in her, making memories of us, sure that there's no place that far, wanting to grow old with her.  Come on, come on.  It is you, sweetheart, whom I adore and love with every part of my being.

Happy Valentine's Day, sweetheart.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

DOJ and Gay Rights

The DOJ recently issued an edict that its gay employees would be treated the same in their marriages as straight couples for the purpose of acknowledging benefits and allowing legal proceedings to be filed by gay couples.  In theory, it's a laudable decision, one that would seem to be in line with the declaration that all men are created equal.  Conceptually, I have no truck with it.

But it raises some interesting issues that will likely be contested on the slippery slope that has now been created.

First of all, what about those states that don't recognize gay marriage, or have laws that disavow the marriage of people from the same sex?  Are those states supposed to overlook their own laws and allow for gay DOJ employees to have superior benefits than non-DOJ gays?

Second, doesn't this create a class of gays with superior rights to other gay federal workers?  What about gay military personnel, gay legislators or gays elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy that aren't part of DOJ?  How does this promote equality?

Third, what about common law marriage, both gay and straight?  Are we to assume that common law marriages, which are recognized in many states -- fifteen, plus the District of Columbia -- are somehow inferior and therefore not entitled to the same protection as gay marriage?

Fourth, the announcement stated that married gays can now file bankruptcy petitions as a married couple. Under the Bankruptcy Code, the exemption allows certain states to opt out and use state exemptions instead of federal exemptions.  Will some of these states, assuming that they are resistant to recognizing gay marriage, be forced to accept gay couples using their exemptions even though they are not legally allowed to marry in the state?

Fifth, is this constitutional?

Personally, I'm not opposed to the concept of civil unions for gays.  I still believe that marriage should be reserved for people of the opposite sex.  But on this issue, I'm torn.  Gays are just as competent -- or incompetent -- of marriage as are straight people.  I don't think there should be discrimination regarding employment, legal benefits or anything else.  But to declare this ad hoc approach to gay rights certainly creates as many problems as it's attempting to solve.  It's probably being hailed as a progressive step in the right direction, which it is in theory, but it creates more divisions than it probably intends.

Given how this administration views the rule of law, I wouldn't expect anything less.  I'm glad for gays that their rights are now more visibly acknowledged.  I just think there's a better way to do this than by fiat.

Perhaps when Fiat bought Chrysler it should have announced that it had also bought the U.S. government.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Presidential Fiat

By most measures, Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster.  The rollout, which was supposed to be smooth, was anything but.  While that debacle unfolded another, more invidious, realization crept across the country in the form of broken promises made by the President himself that doctors and plans could be kept...period.  This turned out to be untrue, although it took weeks for the administration to acknowledge it and the President himself to apologize for it.  Although things have improved, slightly -- how could they not? -- they are still a mess, with expectations far from being realized and people and companies bailing left and right.  At the same time, the President and his chief lackey, Jay Carney, reassure the American people that all is going well, conjuring up memories of Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House:

Horror stories continue to drift in, and the administration is using its best cognitively dissonant approach to combat them.  Democrats are running away from the President as far and as fast as they can with the midterm elections approaching.  The MSM is doing its unlevel best to put a happy face on the situation while it struggles to do its job to report the news in an unbiased fashion, usually defaulting to the former over the latter.  And yet the stories keep coming.

The President, meanwhile, is still caught up practicing politics instead of governing as he swore to do when he took his oath of office.  After getting the ludicrous bill passed aided by the Nancy Pelosi approach to legislation --

-- the President is now working with business and unions to mitigate the effect his brainchild will have on them, and thereby the economy, by cutting side deals by way of Executive Orders delaying the implementation of Obamacare for as much as three years.  At first blush, three years is an odd term, given that most incremental postponements are either a year, two years or five years.  But those periods won't work for what the President and his cohorts need.

The midterm elections are later this year.  Unless something catastrophic happens to the country, in which case the President and his party will get a bump from people rallying around him, the Democrats face huge losses in both house of Congress, solidifying the Republicans' control of the House and guaranteeing a takeover of the Senate.  Faced with a Republican Congress, the President's attempts at crafting his legacy in the remaining time of his term are doomed.  Almost certainly, attempts to repeal Obamacare will emanate from Congress, with the President sure to veto them.  If Congress is constituted in such a way to override a veto, that will tarnish the President's legacy beyond all hope.  The best he can hope for is to maintain the status quo for the balance of his term.

But he's not happy with just that.  Aware that even if he keeps the tenuous balance in place, a Republican may use Obamacare to carry the 2016 presidential elections.  To that end, Mr. Obama has issued executive orders extending the compliance dates for companies until 2017, conveniently beyond the 2016 elections.

Far be it from me to be cynical about the President's motives, but it would seem to me that a lawsuit is in order to contest the President's ability and power to unilaterally change aspects of the law to suit his political needs.  Perhaps he's actually motivated by a desire to assist big business, but even so, does he have the power to change by executive order features of existing legislation?  Moreover, why is no one challenging this in court?  Why is no one asking for a temporary injunction until such time as a competent court -- probably the SCOTUS -- weighs in?  It would seem to me that the very basis of our system of checks and balances would require action by at least the legislative branch challenging the executive branch's use of executive orders to modify existing law.

I'm no constitutional scholar, and I never taught constitutional law as did Mr. Obama.  Perhaps he's justified in doing what he's doing, but I question it.  Executive orders shouldn't be used to modify existing laws. What's all the more enervating about this is the Mr. Obama is using executive orders to change the law that he fought so hard to get passed.

Somehow, the old saw be careful what you wish for applies here, but it, too, needs modification:  Be careful what you wish for, because not only might you get it, but you may have to change it after you find out that what you wanted was exactly what everyone else warned you you'd be getting.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Gun Stupidity

I am on record regarding gun ownership and the requirements for gun ownership.  I believe in the inviolability of the Second Amendment with reasonable restrictions, e.g., no AT4's, no SAWS, etc., and the need for a more integrated national background check system.  But I disagree with those who would outlaw guns absolutely.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Unless there's some sort of design or mechanical flaw in the weapon causing it to accidentally misfire without being touched, it requires either a human or a human rigging it to fire.  So ultimately, people do kill people with guns, as they kill them with cars, knives, poisons, wood chippers, candlesticks, fire and countless other means.

Still, that doesn't mean that people who are otherwise mentally sound don't have moments where they lose it. Recently, two such events made the news.

The first involves, of all things, a retired cop in Florida who became upset with a young father who was texting before the movie began.  The facts are what they are, and it would appear that the young father injudiciously threw popcorn on the retired cop, but the cop turned around and shot the man dead in the theater in front of his wife.  Now he's claiming self-defense.

The second incident occurred more than two years ago.  An older white man approached a car with black teens listening to what he called thug music, whatever that is, and asked them to turn it down.  They refused, he insisted, he claims he saw a gun and he pulled out his pistol and sprayed the car with shots, wounding some of the youths and killing one of them.  No weapon was found in or around the car by the police. Again, the man is claiming self-defense.

Does it surprise anyone that both of these incidents took place in Florida?

But I digress.

Gun control advocates can point to these incidents as support for their argument that guns should be more tightly controlled.  I disagree.  There is no way that law-abiding citizens should have their rights infringed for these hideous acts than motorists should have their licenses restricted because there are idiots out there killing people while driving impaired.  It's utterly illogical to penalize the good for the actions of the bad, yet that's what gun control advocates would argue.  They'd never think to restrict drivers' rights because of the incidence of drunk driving, but restricting gun owners' rights is perfectly acceptable to them.

That being said, both of these shooters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, found guilty and thrown in jail for as long as they can keep them.  These were depraved acts that admit of no logic.  There was no self-defense; in the first case, the response was disproportionate.  In the second, there is no evidence that the youths had a weapon of any kind.

There is no way to legislate against stupidity or anger.  There is no way to prevent either from overtaking a person.  Laws can act as deterrents, but they cannot prevent things from happening.  When laws are broken, as I believe happened in both these cases, punishment must be meted out.  It is now incumbent upon the judicial system to do its job and put these criminals -- because they broke the law, that's what they are -- behind bars for as long as the law allows.

Two innocent lives were snuffed out because someone's version of right and wrong was offended, not because anyone was threatened with imminent death or injury.  These shooters broke the law.  The laws are followed by the vast majority of gun owners, but these two broke the law.  It can be argued that Adam Lanza's mother broke the law as well by not only keeping guns near her mentally challenged son, but by giving him access to the guns with which he carried out his deadly attack.

Laws exist against drunk driving, robbing banks and raping women, yet those laws are broken, sadly, everyday.  These gun owners were stupid, angry and criminal.  They should be fully punished for their actions.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

IRS Scandal

I've only kept a casual eye on the ongoing IRS scandal, never caring enough to pay close attention to any specific case.  That is until yesterday, when I saw one of the few pundits whom I respect, George Will, setting for the facts of the case that his own attorney is handling for the plaintiffs.  The charges should chill the spine of every American irrespective of party affiliation.

True the Vote, run by Catherine Englebrecht, trains election volunteers and seeks to eliminate voter fraud -- noble goals both -- applied for tax exempt status in July, 2010.  Another entity with ties to the Tea Party, King Street Patriots, also founded by Ms. Englebrecht, filed its application with that of True the Vote. Shortly after filing the applications, the groups allege, they were hit with the following from the federal government: Six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("ATF") and the U.S. Department of Labor Occupationsl Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") and Texas environmental quality officials.

Now, call me a cynic, but the occurrence of those visits, audits and inspections so shortly after the applications were filed is suspicious at best, actionable at worst.  Whether the groups targeted are liberal or conservative, this is simply wrong.  But with this President, there's nothing fishy whatsoever.

First, he said in an interview over the weekend that the problems with the IRS were the result of a few boneheaded decisions made in Cincinnati.  If that were the case, the applications filed nearly four years ago would be resolved one way or the other by now.  Private business understands bad press and rectifies the problem expeditiously unless it has boneheads running the show.  Draw your own conclusions as to why these matters still remain unresolved.

Part of it is that the government doesn't seem to worry about bad press.  This is partisan politics at its sleeziest.  Perhaps if the attacks had been a little less obvious, a little...fewer...this wouldn't be so objectionable.  It's one thing to have IRS audits, but to have ATF and OSHA inspections?  Seriously?  Why is the administration so blatantly trying to suppress its opponents?  What does it fear?

Were the shoe on the other foot, liberals would be screaming bloody murder.  There would be calls for independent investigations, special counsels and heaven knows what else.  And those calls would be justified, just as they are here.  But to have the administration investigating itself, to have the investigations drag on for four years, and to have the IRS deny comment, hiding behind the privacy concerns of the aggrieved party -- True the Vote -- is simply ludicrous.

When he was elected, the President promised transparency.  We've gotten precious little transparency.  I know I'm beating the same, old, tired drum, but this is straight out of the Chicago political playbook, from the actual audits and investigations themselves, to the stonewalling on the resolution of the applications to the types of investigations launched at the groups in the first place.  This doesn't pass the sniff test.

What can be done about it?  Very little until the next elections.  With new blood, boiling because of the last six years of bad government, the legislature could launch any number of independent investigations that the Democrats seem disinterested in providing.  Hopefully, in its lust for payback, the Republicans will hold a tight rein on their emotions and not go overboard.  Perhaps an independent investigation will show no malfeasance, which would shock me.  The President and his minions have handed the conservatives yet another loaded weapon with which to destroy the Democrats.  It should be used wisely.

Partisan politics has gotten out of control.  I'm quite sure that were the roles reversed, there would be abuses coming from the other side of the aisle.  My hope is that the Republicans and conservatives in general are not only collecting injustices but taking note.  Santayana's dictum is always in play, especially in politics.

It's something that this administration seems to have forgotten.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Philip Seymour Hoffman, et al.

The recent overdose death of Philip Seymour Hoffman is provoking the typical gnashing of teeth and rending of hair at the loss of another American institution, the finest actor of our generation, blah, blah, blah.  It's a little disgusting, if you think about it.

Let's start with Mr. Hoffman's early life.  He was the son of a judge and a Xerox executive.  I don't know that that means he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he certainly didn't grow up poor.  He grew up in a suburb of Rochester, New York, which probably isn't the same as the ghetto.  His parents divorced when he was about nine, and for some kids parents divorcing at such a young age for the child is a traumatic experience, so perhaps he needed therapy for that.  Nevertheless, he attended NYU, not a shabby school by any means.

The year after he began his career as a professional actor, he appeared in Scent of a Woman.  Thereafter, he appearedin such movies as Nobody's Fool, Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski, Patch Adams, Magnolia, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Almost Famous, Punch-Drunk Love, Cold Mountain, Capote, Charlie Wilson's War, Moneyball, The Master and The Hunger Games - Mockingjay.  He worked with such luminaries as Paul Newman, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Amy Adams, Nicole Kidman,Renee Zellweger, Julie Robers and Jennifer Lawrence.  He won an Oscar for his title role in Capote.  Given that he died at age forty-six, it is fair to say that there are actors all over the country who would love to have had the career that Mr. Hoffman did.

Did he live a full life?  Probably not.  But his life wasn't wracked with disappointment, deprivation or denial of much.  He had three children, although it doesn't appear that he ever married the mother of his children, which was probably a personal choice.  He lived in New York City, which means he could afford to live there and support his family.  By all accounts, he was doing well for himself.

Is it sad that he died?  Sure, especially for the kids who will never know their father in so many different phases of their lives.  What's more, they'll grow up hearing about the circumstances of their father's death, which was with a syringe still in his arm after he administered heroin to himself.  Yes, four people have been arrested in connection with his death, and it may or may not be the case that he bought tainted heroin.  But let's get beyond that.

By no means do I understand or know drug culture.  But the man had the wherewithal to purchase seventy bags of heroin and use at least twenty of them, since reports indicate that fifty filled and twenty emptied bags of the drug were found at the scene.  He also had other prescription medicines around him, one of which was supposed to help him kick the habit.

So while Mr. Hoffman may not have lived a life of privilege, he certainly didn't have a hardscrabble life.  He moved among the Hollywood elite, had a decent upbringing and graduated from a very fine school.  Again, it might not be a full life, but he did have by all measure a decent and perhaps good life.

Sympathizers will point to his drug and alcohol abuse and claim that he battled demons his entire life. Perhaps that's true.  But is that any reason to lionize him, to claim that we've lost a national treasure?  We lost an actor, a person who pretended -- well -- to be other people for a living.  He won plaudits and accolades and awards.  He probably traveled all over the globe to promote his movies.  He was paid handsomely for his efforts.

But the man did not cure cancer, he didn't kill Bin Laden, he didn't prevent a natural catastrophe.  He was an actor, people!  Why should we give his death any more publicity than the poor person in the projects whose demons, being infinitely more real, caused him to spiral down in drug abuse ending with a similar death? Take a person who can't get a job and provide for his family, who's treated unfairly due to his race or her gender, who wasn't born into a cushy suburban family with two competent and present parents.  Would anyone begrudge the person his demons?  Aren't those demons more real than any Mr. Hoffman may have imagined?  That's not to say Mr. Hoffman wasn't entitled to his demons.  It's simply that for all his wealth and position, Mr. Hoffman had the infrastructure to overcome them more easily than a person from the projects with no job possibilities and no hope.  Mr. Hoffman lacked neither.

Whether it be Amy Winehouse or Philip Seymour Hoffman or Eddie Mercury, what we have are people who have crested their respective professions, earned fame and fortune from them and thrown it all away for the lure of drugs or sex and then become lamented disproportionately with their passing.  We don't give a second thought to the poor guy who, in a drunken stupor because he's trying to dull the pain of his joblessness , mistakenly stumbles in front of a passing car at two in the morning.  If anything, there's a small blurb about it on the evening news or in the local paper.  When someone like Mr. Hoffman dies, we have wall-to-wall coverage examining the great loss it is to society, the nettlesome problems that led to his passing and what a teachable moment we have for our youth.  Investigations are launched that wouldn't see the light of day were it Joe Sixpack who died.  It's disproportionate and wrong.

I'll miss Mr. Hoffman.  I thought he was very good at what he did.  But I don't mourn his death more than I would the child in the projects whose life was snuffed out by an errant shot in a gangland shootout.  Mr. Hoffman made poor choices and ended his life as a result, whether he intended to or not.  He left three children fatherless.  The innocent victim caught in the crossfire of a gang feud, the young mother who has to bury that child, or the young Marine who died in a faraway land protecting our freedoms deserve my attention, and consequently my concern, more than a coddled actor who should have known better.

Yes, we are now deprived of future roles in which Mr. Hoffman may have tantalized us.  But that young victim might have found the cure for cancer.  That young mother, now bereft of hope and saddled with the memory of her innocent child taken too soon, might give up her plans to be a pediatric nurse.  The Marine might have turned out to be the best President this country had ever seen.

And not one of them would have been pretending to be someone else for a living.

Rest in peace, Mr. Hoffman.  Grab some perspective, America.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Fox News

Recently, on a Facebook chat about sports, the issue of Fox News came up, and one of the guys chatting there was mildly upset to my reference about the station, referring to it as Faux News.  By my isolated comment, he believed that I was a devoted patron of the station, which I'm not.  I watch one show on that network religiously -- The Five -- and will check out the station from time to time if there's a segment on one of the shows that might interest me.  I do the same thing on the Clinton News Network, which I revile generally, but I don't patronize any one news organization for the simple reason that paritsanism has infected journalism.

That being said, there are some reasons to tout Fox News beyond my favorite show.  If nothing else, Fox News provides a counterbalance to the overtly biased network and cable news shows that populate the airwaves.  The network news shows -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- have largely abdicated their responsibility to investigate the government while it is Democratic and work overtime when it is Republican.  Even when there are glaring reasons to investigate the government, such as Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, the Keystone pipeline delay, Obamacare, the Secret Service investigation, the AP scandal and myriad others, the MSM takes a pass.

To wit:  I read somewhere that the MSM had investigated the ongoing Chris Christie flap, in which no one died, exponentially more than it had looked at Benghazi.  Given the relative seriousness of the outcomes, the only logical conclusion is that there is bias within the MSM.  To its credit, Fox News takes a look at the Christie imbroglio as much as it looks at a given scandal that came from the White House.

Fox News isn't perfect.  That's not the point.  Bill O'Reilly is pompous beyond measure, Megyn Kelly is the virginal dominatrix and the panel on The Five need to learn how not to talk over one another.  Greg Gutfeld is simply sophomoric with his neverending attempts at humor, proving the point that the law of averages does work; sadly, he's a very insightful thinker who should stick more to commenting on his observations and quit trying so hard to be cute and funny.  Some of its lesser talent needs to get its facts straight, but that issue isn't peculiar to Fox News.  ABC, for example, when looking into the Aurora, Colorado movie shooter, found a guy on social media who it presumed was the suspect, and that he had ties to the Tea Party.  It turned out they had a man with the same name but no connection to the shooting.  Zealous to attack the right, ABC got it wrong.

The women on Fox News are not just eye candy.  For example, he aforementioned Ms. Kelly worked for a well respected law firm as a corporate attorney for a number of years.  Kimberly Guilfoyle is a former prosecuting attorney (who seems to revel in the role of sex kitten, but that's another issue...). Dana Perino is a well educated former spokesperson for former president George W. Bush.  Other women who regularly appear on the network are similarly experienced and credentialed.

What critics of Fox News conveniently forget to mention when taking the network to task is that, despite their dislike of the news Fox puts out, at least its commentary isn't base and reprehensible.  At MSNBC, for example, it's had to let Martin Bashir resign -- although not firing him was a huge mistake -- for his uncouth comments about Sarah Palin, fire Alec Baldwin for his homophobic rant, force Melissa Harris-Perry to apologize for her moronic and insensitive comments about race and countless other missteps that are uttered in the name of journalism.  Suffice it to say, a network that would give that notorious race-baiter Al Sharpton his own show should have its license revoked by the FCC.

At least with Fox, there is an attempt to present the side that the vast majority of the MSM is ignoring.  That certain groups don't like it underscores their complaints.  What other news person or journalist would have pressed the President as Mr. O'Reilly did Sunday?  When a Republican is in charge, they probably agree with the late Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

It is, of course, unless one has no olfactory sense or likes the smell of stench.

Then one becomes a vampire.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Things Few People Know About Me

It's Monday.  My girl's home from work today, sick.  The Super Bowl, of which I may have watched five minutes of playtime, was yesterday.  I had more fun playing laser tag with Karen and her grandbabies.

I was going to do a post on something serious, but I just don't have it in me today.  So here's a random list of things very few people know about me.

I have never been to a strip club or a bachelor party.

I've never seen the movie E.T.

One year, I read seventy-nine books.

The fastest I've ever ridden on a bicycle when not going down a hill was thirty-eight miles an hour.

I have two Hoberman spheres in my office.

I always leave the meat on my dish for last, as it's usually the best part of the meal.

I put on both my socks before I put on my shoes.

I've never had a speeding ticket.

I have bottles of poitín and aquavit.

I attended each of my three schools without first visiting the campus.

I knew a survivor from Dachau.

I've read Don Quijote in Spanish.

I've never seen the Pacific Ocean.

I've been to Canada, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, France and Italy.

I took up golf at age thirty-seven and haven't played in the last five years.

My Mom gave me two middle names because she didn't get one at birth.  She also named me after a friend of hers, a priest.

I love the smell of coffee, but I can't drink it.

My favorite color is green, the one I don't like most is either pink or orange.

I never dated an Asian woman.

I've never smoked anything.

I'm horrible at Scrabble and Monopoly, but pretty good at Risk.

I have no interest in traveling in the Far East.

I had a job during college where I learned to put in streets, sidewalks and sewers.

I can't skate.

I once spent the night in a phone booth, and I wasn't stuck or drunk.

I snuck into a five star hotel on the Mediterranean.

I've seen professional sporting events in thirteen different venues.

I once met an actress whom I'd already seen naked in a movie.

I've never ridden on a motorcycle.

In high school, I had a job glazing donuts.

I've never caught a fish.

I enjoy real wrestling, not the fake pro wrestling.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles