Free Republic

Isn’t Kern county relatively conservative in relation to most of California?

Yep. Happening pretty much on top of NAWS, China Lake. An update has been posted to their Facebook page.

Brace yourselves. NBC published a link to an old blog that supposedly belonged to the bomber.
http://definingmystance.blogspot.com/

It includes a “My Blog List”:

Andrew Sullivan
Crooks and Liars
Drudge Report
Free Republic
Huffington Post

Guess which links the media will focus on and which they will ignore.

Don't be so sure. This was Gingrich earlier today:

"Let me just say flatly, I am totally for John McCain, who is a great war hero and a terrific human being, who has worked very hard for veterans. And I’m totally for Paul Ryan, who is the heart of the House Republican Party and probably the most problem-solving leader we’ve had in the Congress on the Republican side in the last 20 years," Gingrich said in an interview with Fox Business Network Wednesday. "So I think somewhat what Trump has done is just very self-destructive."

Exactly - as a freelancer/independent contractor hired for a shoot (and not an employee placed on someone’s payroll) you would retain all copyrights to your work unless stated otherwise in a contract.

The good news is that you automatically own the rights to your designs under U.S. copyright law.

The only exceptions are a) you’re working as an actual employee (not a freelancer) for someone in which case that person or company usually owns the rights or b) you have a contract specifically stating that you’re transferring the rights. Otherwise he only has the implied right to use or print the work as is.

The bad news is that you now have to decide if it is worth damaging your friendship over.

Good luck!

I’ve seen a couple of conflicting mentions about the Coast Guard service. An article on CNN states that the Scott’s brother said he served in the Coast Guard (but then it doesn’t an a direct quote from the brother stating that.) http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-who-was-walter-scott/

The original article that appeared in the local paper about the shooting stated that the officer, Slager, was former Coast Guard but didn’t mention any service history for Scott. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150406/PC16/150409558/1177/north-charleston-police-say-officer-who-fatally-shot-man-pulled-him-over-because-of-brake-light

Either way, the tone of that original article certainly places a different spin on the officer’s actions prior to release of the video.

Reminds me of this:
“His unchangeable sweetness, the absence of all rancour, of all bitterness of feeling so natural to the vanquished, raised him high above the prejudices and hatreds of the day, and exhibited him, to all who came, as a living example of Christian charity. Although he wished everybody to remain faithful to the old traditions of the South in all that appertained to honour, virtue, and hospitality, yet he set himself to work to root up those animosities, those provincial rivalries, which led only to ruin.

To a mother, who brought him her two sons, loudly expressing her hatred of the North, he said, “ Madam, don’t bring up your sons to detest the United States Government. Recollect that we form but one country, now. Abandon all these local animosities, and make your sons Americans.”

Here again is a charming incident, which will well illustrate his goodness : One of his friends, on passing by Lee’s garden-gate, found him conversing with a man poorly clad, to whom he had just given something, and who appeared exceedingly happy at the general’s courteous welcome. Presently the man saluted him and withdrew. “ That is one of our old soldiers in want,” explained Lee. Naturally enough the friend thought he meant some Confederate veteran, when Lee, lowering his voice, added : “ He was not on our side, but that doesn’t signify.”
From The Life and Campaigns of General Lee
by Edward Lee Childe

The Bible provides an unbroken lineage from Adam through Solomon and gives the ages of each.

Not exactly. That would require the definition of begat/begot to strictly mean "the father of" when a more accurate translation of the original would be "an ancestor of."

One of the best illustrations I've read to explain this:

Matthew’s Genealogy
Perhaps the best place to see the use of the word father is in the Genealogy of Jesus given by Matthew in Chapter 1. The following is the important verses from that larger genealogy that spans Abraham to Joseph.

Matthew 1:8 8 Asa begat Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram; Jehoram begat Uzziah

This is in fact not how it happened.

The Old Testament gives a precise account of the Judean Kings. It covers the spiritual highlights of each reign and as an aside gives the details of the family tree. The actual genealogy went like this:

1. Jehoshaphat father of Joram1
2. Joram father of Ahaziah2
3. Ahaziah father of Joash3
4. Joash father of Amaziah4
5. Amaziah father of Uzziah5

Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are three Judean kings missing from Matthew’s account of the same genealogy.

At this point critics of the Bible text often object that the Bible is itself inconsistent. These two lists are not inconsistent. The proper meaning of the word father must be assigned to what Matthew is saying.

The word Matthew is using only means ancestor nothing more. Matthew’s account easily reconciles with Second Kings.

Follow up article: When this shooting made the news in mid-September, many of us wondered if the guy was drunk or high. It looks like he was probably just dazed and confused from the accident itself.

Believe it or not, the title character offered a pro bono defense to a surrogate mom who wants to carry a baby to term in spite of the biological parents’ instance on an abortion in the episode before this one. I have to wonder if a they’ve slipped a more conservative (by Hollywood standards at least) writer onto the staff.

Sorry about that - I hit Private Reply instead of public. In case anyone else is interested...

From the page:
“We will be helping to raise funds in conjunction with the South Dakota Stock Growers Association and our “sister page” Rancher Relief Fund...and we will be accepting donated items and stallion fees for auctions to raise money for those affected. Feel free to contact me, Kara Jo Webster, Jenn Zeller or Tammy Schwartz with any questions or concerns you may have. Our “team” email address is rancherrelief@outlook.com .. no one can battle this alone.. but together we can make a difference.”

Contact info for the SDSGA is:
South Dakota Stockgrowers Association
426 St. Joseph Street
Rapid City, SD 57701
Phone: 605/342-0429
Toll Free: 1-877-529-2333
Fax: 605/342-0463

Executive Director, Silvia Christen
silvia.sdsga@midconetwork.com

If you would like to reach out directly to the ranchers, they have a Facebook page set up: https://www.facebook.com/RanchersRelief

They have alternate contacts on the About page there for possible donations.

Growing up as the child of a herdsman (albeit one in a much milder clime), this situation hits near and dear. If any of you have contacts in the area that might be willing and able to help, please contact the folks at http://helpforsouthdakota.com/. Thanks.

So police can’t go to Starbucks

According to his statement, law enforcement personnel are exempt from the "request":
"Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

"Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

"For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

The police say Zimmerman didn't have a gun but O'Mara contradicts them on national TV. Maybe George doesn't need O'Mara's services in this case. Yeesh.

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, what happened is what happens in a lot of divorce cases. I do a number of divorce cases and in those type of cases, there are much more heightened emotions than most criminal cases. In a case like this, there was a plan in place that Shellie would go back to the house, moved out several weeks before. She was going to go back to the house on Saturday to get all of whatever belongings she wanted and that was accomplished.

But as it turned out, she didn't get everything that she wanted and wanted to get some more. Showed up at the house, George was not aware of it. So when George showed up to see a trailer and truck outside the house, it was concerning to him. There were some conversations between George and her dad. You can see on the video that he was outside. George was just sitting on the bed of the truck waiting for them to finish.

When they finished, he then went in the house, this is on video, and lock the front door and going around to lock the back door, and Shellie tried to get in the front door, not knowing why it was locked. And I think that is why it sort of started. I will tell you that whatever yelling or touching may have happened between Shellie's dad and George is not on videotape. Unfortunately, we wish it was.

But we do know that a friend of George's, Wes, was there and was able to keep it at a minimum, there may have been touching between Wes and the father. But the reality is what happened here, it is a divorce case. These people have been living for 16 months under the spotlight and they're suffering from it. I think the divorce itself is a fallout from the whole case and it is now showing up with people acting inappropriately on all sides.

COOPER: Did Zimmerman have a gun in the car?

O'MARA: He had a gun with him, yes, and he was allowed to absolutely. I know there were reports that said he did not have a gun with him but he did.

COOPER: So when she says in the 911 call that he is sitting in the car with his gun, she was right?

O'MARA: Well, only because she knows he always carries his gun. She never said it was shown, nobody ever said it was shown. Again, remember now that things have calmed down everyone says they want to do nothing more than just go and get divorced?

COOPER: Are you concerned about George Zimmerman, your client. Because I don't know a lot of people who get pulled over by police as often as he seems to. I mean, prior to the trial he had run-ins with the police. There is obviously the Trayvon Martin shooting. He has been pulled over twice for speeding. I have seen videos of, and now this incident. I don't know a lot of people who have so much interaction with the police.

O'MARA: Well, I will tell you in the days before February 26, 2012, I know we talked about George having an arrest in the past. That was thrown out pretty quickly. I think George showed himself as the person he always was, very peaceful, very helpful. He truly was. From the 26 of February forward, for the past 16 months, I'm certain that George is under an enormous amount of stress. I think most people in his situation would be suffering some of that stress. And yes, I think it may show up. I think George does need to understand he is in the media or public scrutiny, and he needs to be very careful. Speeding tickets are not a good thing.

COOPER: Given that he is under stress like that, does it concern you that he is armed?

O'MARA: Well, he acted appropriately. He never took the weapon out. And the only thing he really did was tell the police was on the outside of his shirt. He made sure the gun was not moving anywhere and didn't do anything because Mr. Dean was sort of coming at him. That can be seen in the video.

COOPER: So he had the gun actually on his person, not in the glove box of his car.

O'MARA: That is correct.

COOPER: OK, and that doesn't concern you?

O'MARA: It doesn't that he acted appropriately. Certainly in a divorce situation everybody needs to be careful how they act, particularly in a high stress situation. But even with the unfortunate circumstances of this case, he acted appropriately, and I think the tape will show that.

COOPER: All right, well, I guess, the police are still investigating, are going to be looking more at those tapes. Mark O'Mara, appreciate you being on. Thank you.

O'MARA: Sure thing

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1309/09/acd.01.html

Yeah, I can easily understand why he would collect a majority of the money from the at-fault guy - and even a portion of the victim driver’s payout.

If I read the ruling (http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/5thDistrict/5100037.pdf)* correctly, there were five total victims in the accident - Herrin’s son who died; the victim driver, Duncan; two of Duncan’s sons; and another teen friend.

Herrin somehow ended up with more than $677k while the rest was split between the remaining four (one of whom has had at least two surgeries.) It doesn’t seem fair that a lady who wasn’t at fault and paid the premiums for the extra coverage would be left with such a small portion to cover what I would imagine are some rather hefty expenses. The accident wasn’t her fault yet she was treated almost as if it were.

*Per the ruling, Bramlet (at-fault driver) had a standard policy which paid $100k. Duncan (victim driver) had a policy with added uninsured-underinsured coverage which paid $800k. And Herrin (dead victim’s father) also had uninsured-underinsured coverage which covered his son and paid out $1.6 mil even though the son wasn’t driving or a passenger in a family vehicle. (Though I’ve never heard of such coverage, the way the ruling reads, this was separate from life insurance.)

The court’s line of thought seems to have been:
~The $1.6 mil was Herrin’s alone, no split nor should there have been.
~The $100k was split with the lion’s share going to Herrin whose loss was the greatest, no problem there either.
~The $800k was also split which would have been fair if Herrin hadn’t received such a disproportionate (key word) share of that payout. Herrin collecting such a large portion from the other victim’s policy in effect punished her for his son’s death which was completely outside of her control.

Of an additional $800,000 paid out through other insurance, the Herrin estate got the bulk of it because of Michael Herrin's death, with the remainder of that money distributed to survivors.

I had to do some digging but the article is a little fuzzy on a few details. The at-fault driver only had the bare minimum coverage and his insurance company only contributed $100k. The other victim, Duncan, also had uninsured-underinsured coverage and it was her policy that kicked in the additional $800k. Herrin also had at least one uninsured-underinsured policy which covered his son.

He collected $1.6 mil from his insurance company (perfectly fine since it was his and he paid for it) and a majority of the $100k from the at-fault guy's insurance (again, not a problem since he suffered the greatest loss). The problem was that he was also given a huge portion (over $677k of the $900k total pot) that included a huge amount the other victim's insurance policy.

It is my understanding that the whole purpose of uninsured-underinsured policies is to cover those who aren't insured. Since the at-fault driver's insurance didn't cover expenses for all the victims, it fell to each individual's insurance policies to make up the difference. It seems odd that he would be able to claim a portion of the other victim's policy in the first place.

Sanger's association with eugenics is well documented but please note that that image is a satirical 'shop of this one. It isn't authentic.

There's a bit more to the story.

The farm was originally owned by the Johnson family. When the land was bought by the National Parks Service in 1972, the family was given a 40-year lease. The law stated that the land be classified as "wilderness" when the lease expired which means it was to be afforded the highest level of protection from "intrusive human activity."

The Johnsons sold the farm in 2004 to the Lunny family with full disclosure that the lease would expire in 2012. The Lunnys also signed a special use permit in 2008 which stated that they understood that commercial shellfish operations would only be allowed through November 2012.

The Lunnys decided to roll the dice and see if they could negotiate their way around federal law. Unsurprisingly, they've lost so far. The good news for them though - they do have the ear of a Senator who's willing to go to bat for them so they may win in the long run. It will likely come down to how successful the Senator is at working out a way around the law.

Why is this happening when birth control is widely available and as we know often free of charge - likewise abortions?

The headline states that birth rates dropped and mentions the percentage of births to unmarried women -- but it doesn't say that birth rates are going up for unmarried women. The way it is laid out does sort of imply that though. (They also made a few mistakes when copying the numbers over, i.e. the overall birth rate is per 100,000 but the breakdown by age is per 1,000.)

Anyway, if anyone would like to check out the original CDC report, it shows that the birth rate is not only down overall, but down for unmarried women as well. (From 1,631,749 in 2010 to 1,609,112 in 2011...or 22,637.)

On a side note, page 19 of the report breaks it down by race. Birth rates for unmarried, non-hispanic blacks have dropped from 427,611 to 421,566 - a decline of over 6,000.

Birth control, abortion, economics, education or some combination thereof does seem to be impacting the numbers for every group except Native Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders.