ChrisWeigant.com

Program Note

[ Posted Friday, November 11th, 2011 – 17:51 UTC ]

There will be no Friday Talking Points column today.

Happy Veterans' Day to all, and have yourselves a good weekend.

-- Chris Weigant

 

30 Comments on “Program Note”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Personal Note -

    While I haven't been as visible here this week as normal, I am happy to report I've been making lots of progress on my book proposal, which passed a big milestone this week. Hopefully, within the next month or two, it'll be ready to send off to publishers. I'd like to personally thank everyone here for being so patient with my absences here in the meantime.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Could you give us the inside scoop??

    What's it about?? :D

    Michale....

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    So far, it's about 65 pages long.

    Heh.

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehehehehehehehehe

    Good one... :D

    "That's humor. I recognize that."
    -JT Walsh, GOOD MORNING VIETNAM

    :D

    Michale...

  5. [5] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    65 pages? What is this, A Short History of 21st Century Reality?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    DerFarm,

    65 pages? What is this ...

    This is just getting started.

  7. [7] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    To quote the immortal:

    "OH! Never mind"

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    DerFarm -

    I can absolutely, positively guarantee that any book I write will not have the word "short" in it.

    Heh.

    Seriously, though, my previous book (or "pamphlet" as I like to call it) is short, so I'd encourage you to buy one (you can even find them used for cheap on the internet).

    This one will be a full-on book. But when I say "65 pages" I'm talking about a page I type out, not a book page. Haven't figured the ratio out yet, but it's usually around 2.5 to 3.5 pages per book page, so this is really only around 25 book pages.

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Note: I'm beginning the task of answering all comments, back to last Friday. So if you haven't looked in a while, for the next hour or so comments will be appearing, just to give everyone a heads-up....

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    About the book proposal:

    OK, to be fair to everyone, here's what I'm willing to share. I am indeed attempting to put together a proposal for a serious book (anyone know a literary agent? let me know...).

    But all writers get very paranoid when in this process, because what I am essentially selling is an idea. If anyone else gets the idea to market earlier, than my idea will be worthless. So I cannot come right out and say "this is my idea," sorry.

    As you can tell if you've been reading behind the lines, one chapter of this book will be in the Andrew Jackson era. But that's just one chapter, not the whole book by a long shot.

    For a serious book proposal, I need two chapters and an outline. I've reached the point where I've got one chapter to a draft which is semi-complete. Once I get a few reviews of it, I will work on a second semi-final draft. When I do reach the second draft point, I MAY (note: MAY) decide to make it available privately if anyone is interested in reading it. But that's weeks off...

    In the meantime, I will be working on finishing up the first chapter, which is around one-third done right now. This whole process (researching original sources) has taken a LOT longer than I thought it would -- I thought I could get both chapters largely done in August (when I started). But I am indeed making progress, and I just have to thank everyone here for sticking around while I've only been able to give this blog half my attention, at best.

    I'll keep folks updated on progress in the coming weeks. And I'm serious -- if anyone knows literary agents or publishers, let me know, as I'm going to need this info later.

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    speaking of books:

    http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/occupy-wall-street-library-evicted_b42238

    over 5500 books tossed into dump trucks, and many of them destroyed in the process of evicting the OWS from the park. yes, the folks in the park were warned ahead of time and should have been better prepared, but the mayor had best beware of black cats and mirrors. the destruction of literature is some nasty karma.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    over 5500 books tossed into dump trucks, and many of them destroyed in the process of evicting the OWS from the park. yes, the folks in the park were warned ahead of time and should have been better prepared, but the mayor had best beware of black cats and mirrors. the destruction of literature is some nasty karma.

    Who is more responsible??

    The mayor who must enforce the laws of the land??

    Or the Oowzers who put literature in harms way??

    If there is any justice in the world, the Oowzers should get some of that karma..

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The mayor who must enforce the laws of the land??

    i've seen the video. tear gas and nightsticks used on non-violent protesters is not enforcing the law, it's escalating the conflict. in spite of a few isolated incidents, the vast majority of protesters did nothing to incite the violence that was used against them.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ...and their books.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    the vast majority of protesters did nothing to incite the violence that was used against them.

    You mean, other than breaking the law and resisting arrest???

    Resisting lawful orders and arrest is, by definition, violence.

    The Oowzers brought it on themselves..

    They might be happy to live in their own piss and crap..

    But the owners of the property and the people in the neighborhood and the business owners being screwed over by the Oowzers..

    Don't THEY have any rights???

    The right to swing one's arms ends where someone else's nose begins...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the owners of the property and the people in the neighborhood and the business owners being screwed over by the Oowzers..

    Don't THEY have any rights???

    That wasn't a rhetorical question..

    I would really be interested in the answer...

    Michale....

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Resisting lawful orders and arrest is, by definition, violence.

    umm, no it isn't. it's only violent if you resist violently. it's non-violent if you resist non-violently. just because the mayor gives orders doesn't make them "lawful." the first adjective i would use to describe the operation isn't lawful, it's excessive.

    But the owners of the property and the people in the neighborhood and the business owners being screwed over by the 99 percenters.. Don't THEY have any rights???

    many people over the years have had their neighborhoods change in ways they weren't comfortable with. many of those changes have been unpleasant or unfortunate. i'm sure the general work stoppages in 1968 memphis infringed on the rights of many local residents who hadn't done anything wrong, but many people believed the importance of the cause outweighed whatever harm might befall a few individual residences or businesses. i'm not saying the situations are identical, but there are parallels.

    yes, the residents and business owners have many rights. they have the right to counter-protest, but i haven't seen any. perhaps they're not all quite so opposed to the protesters as you're taking for granted. if they're upset, they have the right to get on the media and talk about it, which i'm sure at least a few have. if other people speaking freely and assembling in public every day is just too oppressive to deal with, they have the right to pack up and move somewhere quieter.

    i'm not being glib about this; there's no perfect solution when one person's right to free speech and public assembly conflict with another's right to have a quiet neighborhood or a successful business. i think a much better tactic would have been to continue what was being done before - search the encampments thoroughly, remove anything dangerous, look for anyone suspicious, try and keep everyone safe. the police should serve and protect the safety of the protesters just as much as the store-owners, and more than the political interests of the mayor.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    just because the mayor gives orders doesn't make them "lawful."

    Until the courts step in and say otherwise...

    Um... Yes it does...

    At least in this case...

    But I'll tell ya what. Link me to the video that your viewing and I'll give my professional unbiased opinion as to the actions of the LEOs..

    Michale...

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Until the courts step in and say otherwise...
    Um... Yes it does...
    At least in this case...

    i seriously disagree with you on this. it's reasonable to say that the legality of the mayor's orders has yet to be determined. it's also reasonable to claim that they're moral, because that's subjective depending on the point of view. but until the dust settles on all the associated lawsuits, your assertion of legality is speculative, not factual.

    But I'll tell ya what. Link me to the video that your viewing and I'll give my professional unbiased opinion as to the actions of the LEOs..

    i can't access youtube from my work computer, but do a thorough search and i'm sure you'll be able to see what i saw. to be clear, i don't blame law enforcement - the mayor put them in the position where they had to use excessive force to accomplish the objective they were given. just because the voters put him in charge doesn't give him the right to create unnecessary conflict without repercussions for himself.

    When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal.

    ~Richard M. Nixon

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    but until the dust settles on all the associated lawsuits, your assertion of legality is speculative, not factual.

    Under our jurisprudence system, the legality is factual until proven to be speculative..

    Think about it.. If things were as you say then any law could be violated because "it's illegal" until such time as it's legality was upheld by the courts..

    In this case, speculation is not required. These are city laws that have been on the books for decades.

    Zucotti Park is private property.. The owners of the property are fully within their rights to ask people who are damaging the property to leave. If the squatters do not leave, the the owners can contact the police and police may use force to remove the squatters, should force become necessary.

    The Oowzers have no more "right" to stay and camp and frak up Zucotti Park than they would have to stay, camp and frak up your front yard.. Or my front yard..

    I am curious... What legal argument do the squatters have that would allow them to stay??

    i can't access youtube from my work computer, but do a thorough search and i'm sure you'll be able to see what i saw

    I just wanted to make sure we were watching the same video.. I have seen several videos of all the police actions w/ regards to the Oowzers.. Speaking as a person with LEO experience, I can say with certainty that, when taken within the context of the events in question, there doesn't seem to be anything that stands out as overly aggressive or undue..

    One must keep in mind that the Oowzers brought this upon themselves. No one forced them to create a shanty town where drugs and crime runs rampant.. No one forced them to fight the cops to remain there..

    If their message can ONLY be sent by creating such filthy, hazardous and life-threatening environments, then maybe they need to examine the validity of their message...

    I'm just sayin'.....

    just because the voters put him in charge doesn't give him the right to create unnecessary conflict without repercussions for himself.

    Those repercussions SHOULD be at the ballot box, as opposed to jailhouse lawyers claiming that the orders are illegal..

    The proper way to protest illegal orders is to follow the orders, then let the courts determine their legality..

    Of course, there are limits and exceptions to this. But what occurred with the squatters in NYC was not even in the same GALAXY as those limits and exceptions...

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Under our jurisprudence system, the legality is factual until proven to be speculative..

    A perfect example of this is CrapCare..

    CrapCare *IS* the law of the land...

    Until the SCOTUS rules that it's unconstitutional..

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CrapCare *IS* the law of the land...

    Until the SCOTUS rules that it's unconstitutional..

    no, if it is found unconstitutional then it was always unconstitutional - we just didn't realize it yet. there are right and wrong sides of history, regardless of which side that turns out to be. the executive actions in kurematsu and u.s. v. nixon were wrong when they happened, even though it took the courts a little time to catch up. plessy v. ferguson was wrong when it was decided, even by the supreme court.

    those who resisted plessy were found to be right, and those who resisted brown v. board of ed were found to be wrong. government action may be found unconstitutional and civil disobedience may be found to be justified after the fact, but that doesn't mean they weren't that way to begin with.

    so when you say mayor bloomberg's orders were legal, or when i say the affordable care act is constitutional, we're not stating facts, we're stating opinions. anyone with a contrary opinion is entitled to act on it, bearing in mind that if they turn out to be wrong there will be consequences.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except, in the here and now, CrapCare IS the law of the land..

    When it is declared unconstitutional, then it will cease to be the law of the land..

    Much as torture was legal under the Bush Administration until the SCOTUS said it wasn't.. Then Bush had Congress make the laws that made it legal again...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Much as torture was legal under the Bush Administration until the SCOTUS said it wasn't.. Then Bush had Congress make the laws that made it legal again...

    torture is not now, never was and never will be legal under the U.S. Constitution.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Nowhere in the Constitution is there any exception expressed or implied, not even for the worst crimes imaginable. I'm not arguing effectiveness or morality here, just the letter of the law. The inability or unwillingness of human beings to enforce that law have wavered and continue to waver, but the law itself is unequivocal. When we tortured, we violated our constitution.

    Was it worth it? I don't know the answer, but that's an entirely different question.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    When we tortured, we violated our constitution.

    That's an opinion unsupported by the facts...

    I could argue that there was nothing cruel or unusual about it, since we are talking terrorists..

    But it is undeniable that there was nothing like "punishment" about the action..

    The goal was to extract actionable intel that would save innocent lives..

    Congress authorized the action in the AUTHORIZATION it gave Bush in the aftermath of 9/11...

    Terrorists aren't covered under the US Constitution, nor by the Geneva Conventions nor any other protection...

    In other words, anything done to terrorists to further the fight against terrorists is justified...

    That's my story and I'm sticking too it....

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I could argue that there was nothing cruel or unusual about it, since we are talking terrorists...
    But it is undeniable that there was nothing like "punishment" about the action... The goal was to extract actionable intel that would save innocent lives.. Congress authorized the action in the AUTHORIZATION it gave Bush in the aftermath of 9/11...

    you could argue that, but you'd be deluding yourself.

    michael vick wasn't cruel because it was dogs? witch burning wasn't unusual because it was witches? no matter what life form one is dealing with, torture is both cruel and unusual. that's self-evident.

    the question of who is responsible is equally irrelevant to the argument of whether torture was constitutionally prohibited. Bush, Cheney, Obama and various sessions of Congress are responsible. diffusion of responsibility doesn't make the action constitutional.

    the "it's not punishment" tack is a bit more feasible, but that would lead you into a different and equally unconstitutional direction, since taking away one's rights who has not been duly tried or punished is a bill of attainder, more specifically a bill of pains and penalties.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
    -U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9

    (again, no exception)

    the other enmeshed argument here is that it was done for a good cause, with purity of intention. this i partly agree with, but it's a different argument than claiming it was somehow not a constitutional violation.

    So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Garak was right about one thing: a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it... Because I can live with it... I can live with it... Computer - erase that entire personal log.
    ~Benjamin Sisko, Deep Space Nine - 'In The Pale Moonlight'

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all... I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again - I would. Garak was right about one thing: a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it... Because I can live with it... I can live with it... Computer - erase that entire personal log.
    ~Benjamin Sisko, Deep Space Nine - 'In The Pale Moonlight'

    Exactly!

    You may be right about it being unconstitutional. I don't know enough about the law and the Constitution to state unequivocally that you are wrong.

    My opinion is that you are wrong, but that's a minor point.

    You get my major point which is..

    At times, especially in the area of CT and saving innocent lives, the ends DO justify the means...

    Whether it's constitutional or not is the question.

    I think it is..

    But, even if it isn't, I can live with that.

    I have no choice...

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    the "it's not punishment" tack is a bit more feasible, but that would lead you into a different and equally unconstitutional direction, since taking away one's rights who has not been duly tried or punished is a bill of attainder, more specifically a bill of pains and penalties.

    Again, this presupposes that we are talking about conventional crime..

    We are not..

    The BEST analogy is a war time scenario where Allied forces are interrogating a captured spy to glean intel that will save Allied lives..

    That's a more apt comparison that we are facing in the here and now...

    One good thing that came from the takedown of Bin Laden... It seems to have eliminated all the cries from the Left of the complete fallacy that "torture doesn't work"... :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Again, this presupposes that we are talking about conventional crime..

    the constitution doesn't presuppose anything, it just is. some clauses do have exceptions for the health and safety of the people. the ones about bills of attainder and cruel and unusual punishment do not have exceptions, not for dogs, witches or even accused terrorists.

    One good thing that came from the takedown of Bin Laden... It seems to have eliminated all the cries from the Left of the complete fallacy that "torture doesn't work"

    many intelligence experts are still of the opinion that the osama raid did not result from enhanced interrogation. a more likely reason why the Left aren't saying as much as before is because the democratic president hasn't stopped it.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    many intelligence experts are still of the opinion that the osama raid did not result from enhanced interrogation

    Their opinion is based on politically motivated wishful thinking, rather than factual evidence.

    I know for a fact that torture was instrumental in the BinLaden takedown..

    a more likely reason why the Left aren't saying as much as before is because the democratic president hasn't stopped it.

    Can't argue with that logic.. :D This indicates to me that the Left (in general) is more concerned about being good Democrats and less concerned that torture is really bad..

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.