Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:
Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.
Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.
But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.
The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.
But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.
Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.
Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."
That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.
"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"
That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."
Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?
Showing posts with label Catherine Crier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catherine Crier. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Monday, July 25, 2016
10 more warnings that shouldn't be necessary
We start with a little joke (?) submitted by Agent 6. Ed. calls him "Mr Reliable" because when we need a chuckle to dispel the gloom, he's got one! This is a story about a heartbroken lawyer... as if a lawyer would have a heart!
When a father sent his three sons to university, he told them, "I feel it's my duty to provide you with the best possible education. You don't owe me anything for that, but I want to know that you to appreciate it. As a gesture of appreciation, please each put $1000 into my coffin when I die."
And so it happened. His sons became a doctor, a lawyer and a financial planner, each very successful financially. When their father’s time came, and they saw him in his coffin, they remembered his wish.
First to approach the casket was the doctor, who put ten $100 bills onto the chest of the deceased. Then came the financial planner, who also placed $1000 in the folded hands of his dad. Finally, it was the turn of the heartbroken lawyer. He reached into his pocket, took out his cheque-book, wrote a cheque for $3000, put it into his father's coffin, and took the $2000 cash!
Agent 6 goes on to say that the heartbroken lawyer went on to become a successful politician, which is hardly surprising. But the story is really about the trouble with lawyers, which happens to be the theme of The Case Against Lawyers (Broadway Books, New York, 2002), by Catherine Crier, a former lawyer and judge. This highly recommendable book tells how the lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats have turned the law into an instrument of tyranny... and what we as citizens must do about it.
A few days ago, Walt posted "15 warnings that really shouldn't be needed". In Chapter One of her book, headed "We Love Our Rules", Ms Crier gives 10 examples from the Wacky Warning Label contest sponsored by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, as follows.
10. The label on a handheld massager advises "Do not use while sleeping or unconscious."
9. A sign on a public toilet reads "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking.:
8. A can of pepper spray warns users "May irritate eyes."
7. Please heed the warning on a laser printer cartridge: "Do not eat toner."
6. A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns "Not intended for highway use."
5. A label on prescription sleeping pills warns that they "may cause drowsiness."
4. A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns "Do not drive with sunshield in place."
3. Bicycle shin guards warn "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover."
2. A household iron warns "Never iron clothes while they are being worn."
And finally, the author's favourite...
1. The baby stroller label that cautions "Remove child before folding."
Ms Crier asks us to remember that these are all legitimate labels to protect us from ourselves. They're not superfluous "information" (she writes) but responses to lawsuits in which courts have expanded and approved the right to be an idiot. Who's to blame? Lawyers -- the USA has more of them per 100,000 than any nation on earth -- and politicians -- ditto.
When a father sent his three sons to university, he told them, "I feel it's my duty to provide you with the best possible education. You don't owe me anything for that, but I want to know that you to appreciate it. As a gesture of appreciation, please each put $1000 into my coffin when I die."
And so it happened. His sons became a doctor, a lawyer and a financial planner, each very successful financially. When their father’s time came, and they saw him in his coffin, they remembered his wish.
First to approach the casket was the doctor, who put ten $100 bills onto the chest of the deceased. Then came the financial planner, who also placed $1000 in the folded hands of his dad. Finally, it was the turn of the heartbroken lawyer. He reached into his pocket, took out his cheque-book, wrote a cheque for $3000, put it into his father's coffin, and took the $2000 cash!
Agent 6 goes on to say that the heartbroken lawyer went on to become a successful politician, which is hardly surprising. But the story is really about the trouble with lawyers, which happens to be the theme of The Case Against Lawyers (Broadway Books, New York, 2002), by Catherine Crier, a former lawyer and judge. This highly recommendable book tells how the lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats have turned the law into an instrument of tyranny... and what we as citizens must do about it.
A few days ago, Walt posted "15 warnings that really shouldn't be needed". In Chapter One of her book, headed "We Love Our Rules", Ms Crier gives 10 examples from the Wacky Warning Label contest sponsored by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, as follows.
10. The label on a handheld massager advises "Do not use while sleeping or unconscious."
9. A sign on a public toilet reads "Recycled flush water unsafe for drinking.:
8. A can of pepper spray warns users "May irritate eyes."
7. Please heed the warning on a laser printer cartridge: "Do not eat toner."
6. A 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow warns "Not intended for highway use."
5. A label on prescription sleeping pills warns that they "may cause drowsiness."
4. A cardboard car sunshield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns "Do not drive with sunshield in place."
3. Bicycle shin guards warn "Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover."
2. A household iron warns "Never iron clothes while they are being worn."
And finally, the author's favourite...
1. The baby stroller label that cautions "Remove child before folding."
Ms Crier asks us to remember that these are all legitimate labels to protect us from ourselves. They're not superfluous "information" (she writes) but responses to lawsuits in which courts have expanded and approved the right to be an idiot. Who's to blame? Lawyers -- the USA has more of them per 100,000 than any nation on earth -- and politicians -- ditto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)