A MERE TECHNICALITY

By Larry Parr

Stan Booz, with his usual brevity, tells us that GM Alex Sherzer got off on a
"technicality."

That technicality is called a JURY.

heh heh heh the same technicality that allowed OJ to walk free.

good one.
"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...
A MERE TECHNICALITY

By Larry Parr

Stan Booz, with his usual brevity, tells us that GM Alex Sherzer got off
on a
"technicality."

That technicality is called a JURY.

"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...

Stan Booz, with his usual brevity, tells us that GM Alex Sherzer got off
on a
"technicality."

That technicality is called a JURY.

They didn't find him innocent of coming to molest a minor. the found that
the state's case had a technical flaw.

StanB

"StanB" writes:
They didn't find him innocent of coming to molest a minor. the found that
the state's case had a technical flaw.

Yeah, the state's technical flaw was that they put him up to the crime.
Some technical flaw.

NO CRIME COMMITTED

By Larry Parr

Not only did the government spend taxpayer dollars trying to entrap
Alex Sherzer with the goal of growing its bureaucracy, it also accused him of a
victimless "crime."

Yes, to be sure, Dr. Sherzer conducted himself poorly. But travelling
across a state line or having sex with a 15 year old are not criminal acts in
themselves. Having sex with a 15 year old may not be within the law in one
locality (and be quite legal elsewhere) but the act itself is not criminal
under natural law.

The law that the feds tried to use is more of a social regulation with
prison teeth than a normative law dealing with what natural law would regard as
criminal behavior.

Even if Dr. Sherzer had been convicted, he would not have been a
criminal in the eyes of many -- merely a victim of a justice system that is as
much concerned with social control and shaping of societal attitudes as it is
with criminal behavior.

One new rgcp-er from Tennessee spoke of Dr. Sherzer's "intent" to have
sex with a 15 year old. Wow! "Intent" as a crime. And show me the dividing
line -- the precise one -- between "intent" and "having thoughts" about sex
with some 15-year-old?

The truth is that many, many millions of males would have to be locked
up if the chap from Tennessee had his way. Society would come to a halt.
There might easily be more men inside jail than out.

Once again: any legal system that locks up millions or tens of millions
of people is not the solution. It is the problem.

Either that, or the society is not much worth saving.

On this last subject, the great Daniel Webster once delivered a rousing
speech against military impressment or the draft. The year was 1827, and the
terrorist and anti-American Webster put the matter succinctly: if Americans
won't voluntarily fight for their homeland, then the homeland is either wrong
or the does not deserve to survive.

One mentions the draft because this involuntary servitude is clearly on
the way back. There will not be enough Americans willing to volunteer to fight
and die in places that have nothing to do with our vital national interests,
though they would be serving the interests of Bechtel and Halliburton and, yes,
Israel.

The Founding Fathers would have regarded anyone favoring a draft (our
Revolutionary army was volunteer, even at the lowest point in our fortunes) as
anti-American. Today, those who favor such slavery imagine they are the real
Americans.

Still, one would find oneself in good company behind bars. Patrick
Henry, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson, Daniel Webster and others would be our
cellmates.

Our guards would include John Fernandez and Randy Bauer.

Yeah, the state's technical flaw was that they put him up to the crime.
Some technical flaw. -- Paul Rubin

(Parrthenon) wrote in message
...
SHERZER 'NOT GUILTY'!!
By Larry Parr

My total unfaith in the American TV peasantry has taken a jolt.
Hurrah! Hurrah!! Hurrah!!! Not for Alex Sherzer. But for us.

The Reign of Virtue bureaucrats and hungry federal prosecutors,
anxious to grow their bureaucracies, have suffered a setback.
As I stated previously, this case never should have gone to trial.

Mr. Parr:

On 8 June 1978, in his commencement address at Harvard University, Alexander
Solzhenitsyn denounced, among other things, the "television stupor" of
United States culture. Did that occasion have any bearing on your usage
of the expression, "the American TV peasantry"?

"Words are but the vague shadows of the volumes we mean. Little audible
links, they are, chaining together great inaudible feelings and purposes."
--Theodore Dreiser (Sister Carrie)

--Nick

One new rgcp-er from Tennessee spoke of Dr. Sherzer's "intent" to have
sex with a 15 year old. Wow! "Intent" as a crime. And show me the dividing
line -- the precise one -- between "intent" and "having thoughts" about sex
with some 15-year-old?

Thoughts are ideation; intent involves some tangible evidence that one is
trying to carry out the thought.

GETTING A DATE WRONG

By Larry Parr

Unccountably, I typed 1827 as the year of Daniel Webster's famous speech
against military conscription. It was delivered in December 1814, a few months
after the British had captured Washington and burned the White House.

Reading it today makes one realize how far we have travelled in creating
a system of justice that attempts, as in the Sherzer case, to punish intent
involving a victimless "crime."

Webster told Congress that if it passed a conscription law (which it
did not) he would return to his constituents and advise them to take up arms
against the government. In short, yes, given the attitudes of our day, Daniel
Webster would be a terrorist.

Webster further argued that any man impressed into involuntary servitude
and who then died at his government's behest would be murdered. In his view
unconstitutional military action involving unwilling men was criminal.

Finally, in that speech, there was something else that one found in all
of the Founders and their immediate progeny -- a willingness to discuss quite
openly the end of the United States at some future time when it transgressed
against nature. This kind of open oratory, common to nearly all of the
Founders, would be shouted down as treason these days.

As Webster said, "The question is nothing less, than whether the most
essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism
embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept
away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only,
I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course
unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those,
who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back,
as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are
plunging."

Continued the treasonous Webster, "The people of this country have not
established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased
at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be
slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is
it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents form
the children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the
folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"

Concluded Webster in calling for resistance if the measure had passed,
"I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my
constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution, which teaches
us, that 'the docrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression,
is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.'
With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these
measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of
providing for the security of their own liberties."

In short, fight to the death against the involuntary servitude of the
coming military conscription.

I READ THE HARVARD SPEECH

By Larry Parr

Mr. Parr: On 8 June 1978, in his commencement address at Harvard University,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn denounced, among other things, the "television stupor"
of United States culture. Did that occasion have any bearing on your usage of
the expression, "the American TV peasantry"? -- Nickbourbaki2

I read Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech, but I confess to having no
recollection of his comment about "television stupor."

Still, if stupor is mental dullness and apathy, then it comes close to
how I view the American TV peasantry. Especially apathy.

One of the lesser understood points behind the imperial pomp of
Washington, DC -- most especially, the cult of the presidency -- is to create
within people the feeling that what IS is what WILL BE. This belief is the root
of all apathy.

I think Greg Kennedy and others noted that print journalism is often
little better than the stuff on TV. My response is that print requires an
active engagement of the intellect. Once you bring mind to a problem, you
create the possibility of reading between lines. That's how Russians approached
Pravda and Izvestia. The printed word also leaves traces, and one can compare
what was said yesterday with what is said today.

THE DAY BEFORE IS HAZY

Two weeks ago Colin Powell visited Iraq and extolled our progress. Last
week George Bush sought some 40,000 foreign troops. This week, if you read
papers, you know we are planning to send more reserve units. Conclusion:
success is so extraordinary we are sending more troops. Further conclusion:
chances are 90% that Powell simply lied in Iraq, knowing the real score all
along.

Countries don't sink billions and ever more soldiers into a conflict if
all is getting better and better in a splendid little world.

A big difference between America today and the past is how we glean
information. Those who read the many newspapers of 50 years ago were forced to
think about the words therein and would occasionally notice blatant
contradictions in public speeches and the like. Today, the TV peasant who gets
most information from the tube is essentially trapped in the parochial present
of the instant that an image is flashed at him. The day before has already
grown hazy.

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...(to Randy Bauer):
I'm sure Scam Spam is not a "maroon". They were former slaves (and their
descendents) who escaped and, usually, joined the Indigenous American nations
in battling the slavocracy, although, sometimes, "maroon" communities were
not associated with Indigenous American nations. I've never heard the word
used to describe humans other than in those ways.

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

"In some respects, Toussaint L'Ouverture's rebellion against the French in
Saint Domingue can be seen as the most spectacular and successful of slave
rebellions which became a permanent feature of the Carribean once Africans
were imported to replace Arawaks in the sixteenth century. Runaway slaves,
called *Maroons*, were able to defend remote and inaccessible islands or
portions of islands and of the South American mainland against white attempts
to reclaim them. These rebellions were led by African warriors captured in
battle and sold by African potentates into the backbreaking work of the
canefields. As forests disappeared under the relentless progress of sugarcane
cultivation after 1700, Maroon bands survived only on the larger islands like
Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica. So fierce was Maroon resistance on Jamaica
that in 1738 Governor Edward Trelawney was forced to recognise two Maroon
homelands on the island. A similar situation prevailed on Saint Domingue where
the French governor signed a treaty with a Maroon named Le Manuel, whom he
could not defeat, who had occupied the forested highlands between Saint Domingue
and Spanish Santo Domingo. But in general, slave rebellions, even spectacular
ones like that which controlled the Danish islands of Saint John for six months
in 1733 and the 1760 revolt in Jamaica which required a year and a half to
quell, while violent, were short lived."
--Douglas Porch (Wars of Empire, pp. 84-5)

The Danes were able to crush the 1733 Maroon uprising on Saint John only by
employing many 'loyal' freed slaves (who also might have been motivated by some
traditional African tribal enmities) as mercenaries, who were responding to
Danish promises of land and freedom as the reward for their 'loyal service'.
Some of the Maroon 'rebels' fought to the death; other Maroons (including entire
families) killed themselves rather than be returned to slavery. Eventually, the
remaining Maroons surrendered after the Danes had pledged to spare their lives;
in many cases, the Danes then did not honour that pledge.

Maroons also constituted a significant part of the fierce, protracted Seminole
armed resistance to the United States's invasions of the Seminoles' traditional
homeland in Florida. In 1837, the United States flagrantly violated its own
flag of truce in order to capture Osceola, the supreme Seminole leader, who
soon died in a United States Army prison. From what I have heard, some
Seminoles today still claim that the United States never was able to defeat
the Seminole Nation only by 'fair means' ultimately in their long wars.

'Treason begins in the heart before it appears in overt acts.'
--Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)

--Nick