Should Senator Grassley run again?

I've said this isn't about Senator Grassley, but about the senior ruling class and the culture of submission to capitalistic gluttony they cultivate.

Continuing to say yes to rehiring our own Congressional delegation is hypocritical and irresponsible in the face of a 10% Congressional approval rating.

Members value their posture over their positions and getting re-elected over integrity.

It's now our civic duty to change the culture in Washington in every single district. We start by dismissing incumbents any way we can.

Don't Talk to Police

It's often thought that the Fifth Amendment is something you invoke to cover guilt. In court, an innocent man will certainly take the stand in his own defense, right? After all, only someone who is guilty would choose not to take the stand. Chances are pretty good that you, too, believe this. But if you have an hour, I believe I'll convince you otherwise -- and possibly give you an eye-opening experience along the way.

If you're innocent of a crime, there is no possible benefit in talking to the police. You may want to be regarded as cooperative and helpful, but in fact, only bad things can come of this choice. If at any point during the course of a long interview (interrogation, actually) it's discovered that you have broken any one of tens of thousands of laws, you've just set yourself up for prosecution and possible conviction -- and most certainly ruined your credibility with any jury. If you are guilty, you will certainly be convicted on statements and admissions you make to police contrary to your rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Understand that police officers are experts who investigate thousands of crimes during their careers and have infinite opportunities to find something in your statements -- in or out of context -- that might sound peculiar to a jury. They are better at this that you are. Not even cops and lawyers can talk themselves out of arrest; all the truly wise ones say nothing at all. In court, cops are expert witnesses and it's always their word against yours.

Traffic cops can stop a thousand drivers every year and have become very good at asking the right probing questions, seemingly innocuous, getting people to admit guilt, getting them to forfeit their rights to privacy and protections from warrantless searches and seizures. When you encounter police, no matter how smart you think you are, no matter if you're a quick study or think good on your feet, you're a 90-pound weakling entering the ring with an olympic boxer; you will get knocked out.

If a cop wants to stop you, he can simply follow you until he or she observes faulty equipment or you violating a traffic law. Not if. When. Nobody is capable of driving perfectly. To avoid being stopped, you would have to make sure a thousand conditions are provably perfect, but the officer only needs one as a valid reason to stop you. Guess who always wins.

When you are stopped, it's pretty tough to sit in your car and be perfectly quiet with a cop at your window asking questions in an urgent or commanding tone -- or even in a very friendly and accommodating way. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "What's the hurry?" "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Do you know the speed limit here?" "Where are you headed?" "Do you have anything illegal in your car I need to know about? You don't mind if I take a quick look, do you?" You may not be compelled to tell him everything he wants to know, so you might exaggerate or say something not entirely true. People inherently want to be accommodating, to tell their story and even tell partial truths (yeah, I was speeding a little). If he or she detects one lie or catches you admitting to driving 1 MPH over the limit, they win. And if you lie, you can be arrested on the spot, which means your car is subject to search and you will be written up for as many violations as they can find.

Even if you’re guilty of some crime, there’s plenty of time to confess, so why rush to give a detailed account to the first officer that wants to interview you and possibly say something that might sound like a lie? Let your attorney help you decide the appropriate time and manner to provide details of your crimes, and possibly be able to negotiate a lighter sentence in exchange for your cooperation -- an opportunity that would otherwise vanish if you speak up right away. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Jackson famously opined in his 1949 decision in Watts v. Indiana that "...any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Regent Law School Professor James Duane teaches this: 1) even perfectly innocent citizens may get themselves into trouble even when the police are trying to do their jobs properly, because police malfeasance is entirely unnecessary for the innocent to convict themselves by mistake; 2) talking to police may bring up erroneous but believable evidence against even innocent witnesses; and 3) individuals convinced of their own innocence may have unknowingly committed a crime which they inadvertently confess to during questioning.

There are three types of police encounters:
Consensual
Investigative detention
Arrest

In a consensual encounter you’re free to go about your business if you choose to. Any questions you answer are considered part of a casual conversation among regular people and not part of an investigation. But things can escalate to the next level rapidly, depending on the information you happen to share with the officer. You do not have to answer police questions.

An investigative detention means you’re not free to go and you may or may not be given a Miranda warning. At this point, there’s no probable cause to arrest you, but there are now circumstances that give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime or are illegally armed and a potential danger to the public or the officer. At this point you can be frisked (Terry v. Ohio) for weapons. In certain circumstances you may be handcuffed and even placed in the back of a police car. They still need your consent to do a thorough search of you and your vehicle, but if they should ask for your permission, you are within your rights to tell them you don’t consent. You still do not have to answer police questions.

Arrest means you’re going to jail in cuffs and you’re most certainly not free to go. Before an officer may legally arrest you, probable cause that you have committed a crime must be established and he or she may now search you and your vehicle, if for no other reason but their safety and that of the impound attendants. They don’t need your consent at this point, but you continue to have the right to not answer any questions.

Three things defense attorneys beg their clients to say -- and nothing else:

1) Am I free to go?
2) I have nothing to say without my lawyer.
3) I do not consent to any searches.

Every defense attorney and every police officer worth their weight can give dozens of examples of how you're at a disadvantage during any police encounter. Never consent to searches and don't answer any questions, but do ask if you're free to go. Do not debate the law, do not be rude and never resist or fail to follow a lawful order (refusing to answer questions does not equate to being uncooperative, so don't fall into that trap). Cops become very good at knowing when to be disarming and when to be commanding. In either case, if they succeed in engaging you in a friendly chat, you are at a serious disadvantage.

If you don't believe that, watch this presentation given by a former defense attorney and a police officer. To law-abiding citizens, this is eye-opening and alarming. To criminals, this knowledge could work like a get-out-of-jail-free card simply by refusing to incriminate themselves.

One video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Part I - Prof. James Duane at Regent Law School, a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Part II - Officer George Bruch, an experienced military investigator and police officer from Virginia Beach, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

My 26-year-old police scanner

This is a quick demonstration of my Realistic PRO-38 10-Channel Direct Entry Programmable Scanner. The activity you hear is traffic from Des Moines PD on Sept. 14, 2013. I bought this radio new 26 years ago from the Radio Shack at Crossroads Mall in Fort Dodge. It still works perfectly.



Manufactured by Uniden and sold exclusively at Radio Shack, the Pro-38 was released on Sept. 22, 1987 and retailed for $139.95. From the catalog:

Ten Channels and 10-Band Coverage
139.95 [NEW FOR 88]
Low as $15 Per Month*
Available Sept. 22, 1987

29-29.7 Mhz 10-Meter Ham
29.7-50 Mhz VHF-Lo Band
50-54 and 144-148 Mhz Ham
136-144 Military Mobile
148-174 Mhz VHF-Hi Band
406-420 Mhz Government
420-450 Mhz Ham Band
450-470 Mhz UHF-Lo Band
470-512 Mhz UHF-Hi ("T")

Realistic Pro-38. High quality and extended coverage at a break-through low price! Features LCD channel display, review key to display frequencies, keyboard-lock switch, audible low-battery indicator. Built-in speaker, 1/8" jack for ear phone. Beltclip. Includes flexible antenna. 7 x 2-5/8 x 1-3/8. Requires 5 "AA" or rechargeable batteries, AC adaptor/charger or DC adaptor #270-1533. 20-139. .........139.95

It didn't come with one, but I found that a common US 12V DC power supply intended for a CCTV security camera is inexpensive and more than adequate. The manual suggests obtaining the Cat. No. 273-1652A adaptor, but they're quadruple the price. The unit will charge 5 NiCad AA cells with the proper dip switch setting inside the battery compartment.

Manual: http://support.radioshack.com/support_electronics/19817.htm
Ad found here: http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/radio_shac_recepteur_a_balayage_scanner_pro_38_catno20.html
Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=Realistic+Pro-38

Cherry Oh-My Pie

8 oz pkg Kraft Philadelphia Cream Cheese
8 oz can Borden Eagle Brand Sweetened Condensed Milk
1/3 C ReaLemon Lemon Juice
1 t. Mccormick Pure Vanilla Extract
6-oz Keebler Ready Crust Graham Cracker Pie Crust
21 oz can Comstock More Fruit Cherry Pie Filling

Beat one 8-oz package softened Philadelphia brand cream cheese until fluffy. Gradually add one can Eagle Brand Sweetened Condensed Milk until combined. Stir in 1/3 cup ReaLemon lemon juice and 1 teaspoon vanilla extract. Pour into a 6-oz prepared graham cracker pie crust. Cover and refrigerate for four hours. Top with a 21-oz can of pre-chilled cherry pie filling.

The letter that won't die.

An "open letter" writer apparently named "Jim" has lifted this, directly or indirectly, from a letter Kent Ashcroft actually wrote to Dr. Laura (ca 2000), which has been passed around and copied -- and sometimes claimed as columnists' own words -- for many years.

The spiel was countered last year by Des Moines radio talk show host Jan Mickelson.

Iowa's Steve King moves to block California law

I'm trying to figure out how Rep. Steve King (R-Ia) rationalizes his position that Congress ought to stop California from setting higher standards for eggs sold in its state -- flying in the face of the idea that states' sovereign rights are to be preserved. It's the strangest thing.

Well, California, acting well within its rights, enacted Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act of 2008, which requires that certain farm animals, such as chickens, have room enough to stand, lie, turn and extend their limbs, that eggs sold in California are produced in this manner. Not all chickens, just hens, and I'm sure there are exemptions. California's not telling other states how treat hens, just to keep your stinking, tear-stained eggs out of California.

The concept is really no different than how the US tells foreign manufacturers how they may not treat their factory workers if they wish to sell their goods in this country. Retailers largely support and pursue these standards because their customers demand it -- that the clothes they wear are not made by slave labor, for instance.

It's a moral issue to many. But apparently not for all Republicans.

Congressman King was behind this proposed measure in the farm bill that would have prevented California from making rules for itself, claiming that state "exceeded its authority and interfered with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce."

I don't see it. Sure, the fed can set minimum food safety and anti-cruelty rules, but it can't tell a state it can't have more stringent rules. Congress can facilitate some uniformity in how interstate business is conducted, but it can't force unwanted products upon a state, particularly those produced to a lower quality standard or that proliferate suffering.

I wouldn't blame anyone for being disappointed that California made it harder to do business there. I know there are retailers in that state that opposed Prop 2 because it might make it more costly to treat farm animals better. It's completely fair and reasonable to hold a differing view. But no one is forcing Iowa producers to sell their eggs in California -- or even to come up to those standards. As always, sell your eggs to any willing buyers; it's free enterprise.

No worries though. King is defeated. The farm bill is dead.

Please learn how to shoot video

One of my biggest disappointments is watching a video I was lured into by a very interesting topic, but then annoyed by serious deficiencies in content, composure and quality. Please seek and accept a few pointers.

Stop zooming! You destroy the context and framing of your shot when you zoom in and out, not to mention drive your audience nuts!

Be smooth! You can't walk your camera around a subject with shaky hands and swift motions without making at least a few people nauseous.

Fix your audio! Cheap, crumby camcorders in the hands of competition shooters are acceptable because they get audo. Bad audio ruins video always. It's too faint, competes with background noise, it's overtaken by a music bed or otherwise muddy or shrill. You'll do better when you treat the internal camcorder microphone as a...that's right, microphone! That usually means the camcorder has to be within a foot or two of the subject in order for it to be effective.

Please by a cheap tripod! 90% of the amateur mistakes you could make will be masked if you drop the camcorder on a stable platform, frame the shot, and leave it alone! A bean bag on a dining room table or fireplace mantle is a good alternative to a tripod.

Did I mention background music? Please don't add it! You could have an amazing, killer video, but the second you choose a music bed, you seriously reduce your potential audience. It's fine in your bedroom or on your iPod headphones, but everyone else isn't crazy about it. I've never heard of most of the groups that put out rubbish, but for reasons unknown the producer of the bicycle video I recently saw thought it necessary to toss in some acid-punk-rap at 150% volume that made my ears bleed! I love bikes. I hated the music! If you want to limit channel subscriptions, then go ahead and keep slapping your favorite acid-punk-rap numbers on your videos. But know people will be clicking the 'X.'

Edit! The cheapest editing suite known to man is Windows Movie Maker. It has the ability to cut out boring scenes. Please use it! One of the most meaningless phrases known to man is, "next what we're gonna do is we're gonna..." Leave that out. Also, "...and I'm gonna pause it here and show you (whatever)...okay we're back with the..." Yeah, that's not exactly instrumental to your story. Delete.

Transitions. No! Just no! Just because your editing suite has a number of cool-seeming transitions doesn't mean you have to experiment with them all. A simple cut is perfect for almost all scene transitions and a basic crossfade will almost always be adequate between topic changes. Blocks, page turns, diamonds, curtains and nearly every other style of wipe is for amateurs trying to be cute. It takes away from the subject matter in a very obnoxious way and should not be used unless you truly understand video story telling and mood crafting.

Buy a mic. Understand audio is 80% of the art of shooting video. This could have been the first bit of advice, but it's so often not a an option for modern, of-the-shelf consumer camcorders that it's barely worth mentioning. But if your camcorder has an external mic input, or your video editing suite permits you to replace the camcorder's audio, then please consider using one of those options. The typical camcorder has the most horrible-sounding audio, so in almost every situation, it's better to find an alternate means of recording audio.

Hold still, for crying out loud! If you have to "run & gun," that is to shoot from the hip or in handheld mode, as opposed to shooting from a tripod or other stable platform, then please tuck your elbows in, find the shot quickly, and finally...hold that shot!

Does any of this help? I hope so. There's so much more to tell about shooting video, but heeding the advice you've just read will dramatically improve your chances of escaping notice by those who are happy with the ominous thumbs-down and the beloved composure hecklers.

Happy YouTubing!

Christian group: Think you might be gay? Stay out of the Boy Scouts!

A group sponsored by the out-of-state National Christian Foundation of Tampa, Florida held a rally in Des Moines Friday in an effort to convince Iowa BSA delegates to vote to deny youth who think they might be gay from joining the religious organization. The ban on openly gay scout leaders will not be affected by the organizational referendum.

Demonstrators for N.C.F. held placards in front of news cameras that read, "NO ON THE RESOLUTION - OnMyHonor.net."

First of all, it's an ugly notion that a personal development group for American youth would ostracize and categorically oust one of its 8-year-old members after admitting to a mentor that he thinks he might be gay. How the hell does that work and how can it be rationalized?

Fortunately Channel 13 was on the ground sniffing out the truth. They inform us that the Boy Scouts of America will be voting next week on whether to maintain the ban and produced an unnamed spokesperson for N.C.F. (possibly Scott Russell), who said, "Unfortunately I don't want my troop turning into a battle ground for the gay agenda. I'd just as soon to keep sex and politics out of boy scouts."

It's absurd that a professional religious activist whose actions scream classic politics says he wants to keep sex and politics out of scouting when sadly he thinks people are stupid enough to accept his bigoted reduction of the issue, that if local scout leaders vote yes, they'll somehow be condoning tent sex parties among little boys.

B.S.A. Mid-Iowa Council spokesperson Bob Hopper was less radical: "We have a set of ethics that we try to hold up to all of our members and we're going to keep focused on that. Um. But it's a real sensitive topic, and-uh, from all the perspectives, and we're going to do the best we can."

Let's hope "ethics" isn't Hopper's code word for anti-gay, that he does in fact support youth development without regard for a child's personal sexual orientation.

The story also cited famed Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout who founded Scouts for Equality, saying simply that "discrimination has no place in scouting." A supporting graphic showed that Wahl's group has the support of 6,821 openly gay Eagle scouts and has obtained 1,815,304 signatures on a petition in support of the policy change.

While the domain ONMYHONOR.NET is registered anonymously, the website states; "Donate to The OnMyHonor.Net Fund!...mail your donation to OnMyHonor.net c/o National Christian Foundation, PO Box 22774, Tampa, FL 33622"

It's more than a little unsettling that a religious fundamentalist mob out of Tampa, Florida adorns the ubiquitous scout uniform, buses radical members to Iowa and pretends to speak for our scouting organizations -- and creates an illusion that sexual deviance is sure to result if we don't go along with their sick, twisted hate agenda.

As we now know, the far greater threat is scout leaders who regard raping little boys at the Jamboree an annual sport.

Digitus Impudicus: is flipping the bird illegal?

I recently read a federal appeals court ruling that says cops can't stop people for merely giving them the finger. That would make Roger Roots, author of Are Cops Constitutional, proud.

The case begins in May of 2006, when a man and his wife were visiting their daughter in Johnsonville, NY and came across a police cruiser running radar. Demonstrating his displeasure, John Swartz flipped-off the cop as the couple drove past.

Piqued by this insulting gesture, officer Richard Insogna took off after the offending motorists. Long story short, he arrested Mr. Swartz for disorderly conduct. While that charge was eventually dropped, there were several court appearances, legal expenses and inconveniences associated with the charges.

Swartz filed suit in district court seeking damages for illegal seizure, a disorderly conduct arrest and an alleged malicious prosecution, but his lawsuit was dismissed on grounds that cops are protected from civil actions based on qualified immunity.

But that's not the end of the story. On appeal, a federal judge wrote...

This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity. Surely no passenger planning some wrongful conduct toward another occupant of an automobile would call attention to himself by giving the finger to a police officer. And if there might be an automobile passenger somewhere who will give the finger to a police officer as an ill-advised signal for help, it is far more consistent with all citizens’ protection against improper police apprehension to leave that highly unlikely signal without a response than to lend judicial approval to the stopping of every vehicle from which a passenger makes that gesture.

The whole decision is here.

The court partly used Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law by Ira Robbins, whose abstract is here.

God and politics

I don't look to religion to measure a candidate’s worthiness. I could get behind someone who proposes, supports and defends public policies that respect the well-being of the people – someone who respects Constitutional principles like freedom and liberty – without regard to their faithful viewpoint.

I trust no government, or candidate for an office thereto, to have a hand in the implementation of policy that would define or regulate my marriage. I believe in giving women and men control over their own reproductive systems, unencumbered by government’s meddling.

As a military man, I defend your right to form private or exclusive organizations that promote various ideologies among its members under the guise of some faith, so long as it doesn't impose restrictions or injury upon those who don’t share their worldview.

I've got my viewpoint. You've got yours. Can we agree that government is not an institution that could appreciate or care about either? I would prefer you help the rest of us keep government out of our way.

It’s very problematic for many thinking people to accept that there’s a prime mover that not only created the world in which we live, but all its inhabitants, and one who also knows us personally, cares about us, and is concerned with the positions in which we have sex, and have our genitals carved.

If the scripture to which you refer is truly divine, then one would hope it would have something more useful and advanced to say than, “Don’t touch dead pigs;” any educated person of the first century could have extolled such wisdom.

Ghost printing

My printer inexplicably generated a paper airline boarding pass bearing my name for a flight I didn't book. I immediately checked my bank account online for any charges that might be related to that purchase, but I found none. I called the police, the airline and my bank to investigate this potential fraud. I had all working feverishly on this most alarming matter.



Long story short: the email address associated with my HP printer's ePrint account is apparently similar to that of another person sharing my name, who evidently inadvertently gave the airline my ePrint email address. United then emailed his boarding pass to the address given, which was then received and processed by my printer, handily, albeit mysteriously, producing a paper boarding pass that landed on the printer receiving tray.

Longer version.

I called United Airlines. After sitting in a queue for nearly 40 minutes and after ascertaining identifying information from me, they confirmed that the person who booked the flight was not me, and that the boarding pass was sent to me by mistake and therefore didn't indicate fraud. They couldn't explain how my printer was involved, which still had me quite concerned.

I called my bank. Not knowing amount or date of a transaction, my bank was not able to immediately find any record of a transaction that might be attributed to the purchase of an airline ticket under my name, fraudulently or otherwise.

I then turned to my printer setup pages. as I discovered there is an "ePrint" feature which sends documents to my printer via email. The email address associated with my ePrint service bears my name. I had forgotten I set this up this account and feature when I installed the printer.

It is now conceivable to me that another person with my name also owns this style printer and the ability to send documents to it. It is plausible that the email address associated with his ePrint service is similar to mine. In fact, on inspection, my ePrint log revealed that an email bearing the subject "Boarding pass for confirmation xxxxxx" was sent from unitedairlines@united.com to my printer around the time the boarding pass began printing.

I have since restricted received ePrint emails to reject all but those addresses I have supplied. There will be no more mysterious boarding passes landing in my receiving tray unless a hacker manages to make that happen.