Thursday: Hili dialogue

January 12, 2023 • 6:45 am

Good morning on Thursday, January 12, 2023, and National Glazed Donut Day, celebrating a lesser species of donut whose worst exemplar is Krispy Kreme: sugar-covered air. (I’ll have a chocolate cake donut with chocolate frosting, please)”

It’s also Curried Chicken Day, National Marzipan Day, National Hot Tea Day, Work Harder Day, Healthy Weight, Healthy Look Day, and International Kiss a Ginger Day (if you have red hair, you’re golden).

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the January 12 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Bad nooz first: Jeff Beck died:

Jeff Beck, the celebrated guitarist who played with the Yardbirds and led the Jeff Beck Group, has died aged 78, his representative has confirmed.

Beck died on Tuesday after “suddenly contracting bacterial meningitis”, the representative confirmed. “His family ask for privacy while they process this tremendous loss,” they added.

Often described as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, Beck – whose fingers and thumbs were famously insured for £7m – was known as a keen innovator. He pioneered jazz-rock, experimented with fuzz and distortion effects and paved the way for heavier subgenres such as psych rock and heavy metal over the course of his career. He was an eight-time Grammy winner, recipient of the Ivor Novello for outstanding contribution to British music and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame both as a solo artist and as a member of the Yardbirds.

Remember the lineup?:

(From the Guardian): The Jeff Beck Group in the late 60s: (L-R) Rod Stewart, Ronnie Wood, Mickey Waller and Jeff Beck. Photograph: Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

. . and their video of “People Get Ready” with Rod Stewart on vocals:

*It’s starting to look as if serial liar George Santos, newly elected as a Republican congressman from New York, won’t be around long. You may remember that he forged a lot of his c.v., which bothers me because as a teacher I hated that kind of stuff, and his false claims to be Jewish were a doubly whammy. Now his own party from his own state are turning against him:

Republican officials on Long Island, including Representative Anthony D’Esposito, called on Wednesday for Representative George Santos to resign, as he faces multiple inquiries into his finances, campaign spending and fabrications on the campaign trail.

Mr. D’Esposito, who represents a district just to the south of Mr. Santos, said at a news conference that his Republican colleague had violated the trust from “not only the voters, but people across America.”

Mr. D’Esposito, who joined the event via video from his office in Washington, said he “will not associate with him in Congress and I will encourage other representatives in the House of Representatives to join me in rejecting him.”

The Nassau County party chairman, Joseph G. Cairo Jr., said that Mr. Santos, a first-term Republican, had lost the confidence of Republicans in his district, saying that Mr. Santos’s campaign was one of “deceit, lies, fabrication.”

“He’s disgraced the House of Representatives, and we do not consider him one of our congresspeople,” Mr. Cairo said. “Today, on behalf of the Nassau County Republican Committee, I am calling for his immediate resignation.”

Like a bad Mennonite, he’ll be shunned by his own tribe until he resigns. And resign he will: I’ll bet $20 against anyone that he won’t see out his two-year term.  Even Republicans can’t tolerate such an obvious fraud.

*I’m surprised the Supreme Court voted against immediate overturning of gun restrictions, but it did. However, the gun restrictions may only be temporary since an appellate court is still weighing them, and then it might go up to the Supremes. As the AP reports, the court did this with respect to a New York law. And remember earlier that the high court voted to allow individuals to carry handguns outside the home without demonstrating a need to do so.  (h/t:Brian)

New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out.

The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect.

The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future.

In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.”

Yeah, the merits of the case will be decided when it’s appealed and then the Supreme Court allows guns everywhere, including schools. The New York law that passed recently said this:

[New York State] required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square.

A district judge declared parts of this law unconstitutional (including the bits about prohibiting guns in theatres, parks, and places that serve booze), and that judge’s decision was put on hold while an appellate court considered the law. Furious gun owners, who want to take their weapons everywhere, demanded that the Supreme Court allow the law to go ahead. For the time being it can still be enforced.  Reader Brian adds this:

As a Canadian with no past gun ownership history, it would be impossible for me to legally buy/possess a handgun. I can buy an approved rifle for hunting if I take a hunter safety course and successfully apply for a hunting license.
*I decided that I’m going to call Joe Biden, whom I like and voted for, “Uncle Joe,” and if you don’t like it you can take a number, get in line, and lift my coattails. But Uncle Joe is in a bit more trouble now, as a few more confidential documents have been found in his places:

Aides to President Joe Biden have discovered at least one additional batch of classified documents in a location separate from the Washington office he used after leaving the Obama administration, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Since November, after the discovery of documents with classified markings in his former office, Biden aides have been searching for any additional classified materials that might be in other locations he used, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details about the ongoing inquiry.

 The White House did not return a request for comment. The Justice Department had no comment.

The initial discovery of classified documents in an office used by Biden after his vice presidency was first reported on Monday by CBS News.

The classification level, number and precise location of the additional documents was not immediately clear. It also was not immediately clear when the additional documents were discovered and if the search for any other classified materials Biden may have from the Obama administration is complete.

Biden aides have been sifting through documents stored at locations beyond his former Washington office to determine if there are any other classified documents that need to be turned over to the National Archives and reviewed by the Justice Department, the person familiar with the matter said.

The search was described as exhaustive, with the goal of getting a full accounting of all classified documents that may have inadvertently been packed in boxes when Biden cleared out of the vice president’s office space in January 2017.

*Reader Gregory sent me a CNN link reporting on a religious fracas about the new Demi Lovato album.

Britain’s advertising regulator has banned a poster promoting Demi Lovato’s most recent album for being “likely to cause serious offence to Christians.”

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched an investigation into the poster, which was seen at multiple sites across London in August, after receiving complaints from four members of the public.

The poster featured an image of the album cover under the headline “HOLY FVCK,” which is also the name of the album. The image showed Lovato sprawled across a large cushioned crucifix in a leather bondage-style outfit.

Under the UK’s code for non-broadcast advertising, ads must be prepared with a “sense of responsibility” and must not contain anything likely to cause serious or widespread offense.

According to the report published by the ASA Wednesday, the complainants “challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence,” while some also suggested it was “irresponsibly placed” where children could see it.

Blasphemy and obscenity on the same poster! Who could live with that? Actually, they don’t show the poster in the article, so I had to do some digging to find it.  Here it is—is that a “u” or a “v”. And does it matter. I do wonder whether the ASA objected more to the blasphemy or to the “fvck”.

*Department of Wretched Excess: The Scotsman reports that Aberdeen University has given a trigger warning for reading Peter Pan, and a lot of other stuff, too (h/t: Athayde):

Aberdeen University has included the enchanting tale by Scots author J.M. Barrie in a list of titles that may leave undergraduates needing help, if they are unable to cope with the content.

Other books which students may feel upsetting include ‘The Railway Children’ by Edith Nesbit and ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe’ by C.S. Lewis.

Even Hollywood heart-throb George Clooney has not escaped the censors, with a warning in place for his Middle East political thriller ‘Syriana’.

. . .Uncovered through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, Aberdeen University has begun issuing ‘trigger warnings’ for Peter Pan’s dramatic adventures in Neverland, suggesting the content could be “emotionally challenging” to students, who should seek help if they feel unable to cope with it.

The university goes no further to explaining the reason for its intervention, other than to say Barrie’s book contains “odd perspectives on gender, but no objectionable material”.

WHAT?  “Odd perspectives on gender”? What are those? And the other reasons given for trigger warnings:

In the controversial list, which also contains ‘The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black Black Oil’ by John McGrath, the course tutor adds: “If you feel it is in your best interests to avoid participating in discussion of a particular topic, you may do so at your discretion and without judgement.”

Further warnings have been issued for the course ‘Anglo-American Children’s Literature’ including titles such as ‘Treasure Island’ by Robert Louis Stevenson and the much-loved tale ‘The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe’ by C.S. Lewis.

In another university course, a warning is issued for ‘Syriana’, starring Clooney, for “themes and images of religious radicalisation, terrorism, torture, violence, drug- taking, alcoholism, hunting, warfare and the death of a child”.

Man, when they start issuing trigger warnings for Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia, you know the world has gone cattywampus.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili brings up a view I’ll have to discuss with her during my next visit:

A: Do cats have free will?
Hili: As opposed to humans, definitely yes.
In Polish:
Ja: Czy koty mają wolną wolę?
Hili: W odróżnieniu od ludzi, zdecydowanie tak.


A photo taken by reader Ginger K. at a local supermarket. “I weep for science education,” she adds. Who knew that water was hydrating, much less “organic”?

From Earth Pictures via Bruce; cat eats lipstick:

From the FB page America’s Cultural Decline into Idiocy (well worth following):

And this happens to be true. Here’s the original ad from USA Today:

A good tweet from God on Mastodon:

A heartbreaking tweet from Masih:

From Malcom: faux political conversation:

From Barry, we learn again that nobody likes the Jews:

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a girl murdered on arrival; she was seven years old:

Tweets from Professor Cobb. At least these birds don’t do drugs:

That black cat is nefarious!

International terms for “mosquito”. It ends with Italy:

51 thoughts on “Thursday: Hili dialogue

  1. “Jeff Beck died”

    …. you know what – instead of getting depressed… right away…, I’ll listen to Jeff Beck’s recordings – Blow by Blow is my favorite. My subscription service ought to pull up a ton I haven’t heard, so I hope Jeff Beck would smile upon that…

    [ becomes sad and depressed anyway ]

    1. Oh, Maggie May is fixed in my basic playlist – pretty sure that’s Jeff Beck…

      always wondered if maybe the intro was inspired by the popularity of Julian Bream or Mason Williams’ Classical Gas…

    2. Truth was an album I inherited when my parents no longer had any need for records. I was hooked immediately. I did take longer to get into his fusion stuff but I love it unreservedly now that I am mature enough to appreciate it. When my son texted me the news, I put on his version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, and sat there with a mixture of awe and sadness. He didn’t just play guitars, he pulled human emotion out of them. What nuance, what control…What a legend.

  2. On balance, I think I agree with the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority in banning this poster. The issue is about displaying it on large advertising billboards prominently visible from public places. It seems reasonable that fairly restrictive standards should apply to such advertising.

    That’s a different issue from free expression in society more generally. For example, I’ll totally defend the publication of all sorts of Charlie Hebdo cartoons (including their recent “offend the Ayatollah” competition), but I don’t think they would be appropriate on advertising hoardings.

    1. In the US, under the First Amendment Free Speech clause, there’s an exception applicable to so-called “captive audiences” that permits people in confined spaces, such as the cars and buses used for public transportation, from being exposed to certain types of unwanted speech. See, e.g., Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974).

      That doctrine, however, does NOT apply to public billboards. Otherwise, the first to go would be the billboard campaign by American Atheists — not to mention the “not afraid of going to hell” tv commercials featuring Ron Reagan, Jr., sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

      1. Though simply announcing the existence of atheists and people who are not afraid of hell seems much milder than a poster graphically combining sex, bondage, a crucifix and a cuss word.

        1. Though billboards featuring the graphic depiction of a crucified fella with blood streaming from the nails in his hands and feet, from the crown of thorns on his head, and from the spear wound on his side, above a caption regarding how that fella loves you and died for your sins don’t strike me as much milder than the latter.

          And those billboards are constitutionally protected here, too, under both the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

          Except in confined spaces, people are free to avert their eyes from that which they find offensive.

          1. One day, while living in Wyoming and driving to work, I noticed PETA put up a billboard on I-80 that had a picture of Jesus with the caption “Jesus was a vegetarian.” The next day the billboard consisted of a few fluttering flaps of paper.

            The constitution didn’t protect it from pissed off Wyomingites. Wyoming has always been a MAGA state, even before MAGA was a thing.

            I’ve always wondered if PETA got a refund…

  3. I find the Lovato product borderline obscene, borderline rude and vile, and as such 100% what rock/pop has always been about!

    The religious should be happy it promotes male-female intercourse and be happy, because they are only promoting it.

    1. The religious might also want to consider the Streisand Effect. Perhaps a Christian (?) Rock band could create a tune called “Domo Arigato Demi Lovato” {¶ domo…….domo¶}.

  4. Although we still don’t know much about the confidential documents found in Biden’s office, there are three things that seem clear.

    1. The Republicans have a new bunch of talking points to attack Biden as part of their goal to impeach him.

    2. More Democrats will come out against Biden being re-nominated. The perception, if not the reality, will be that he has lost the moral high ground.

    3. The Department of Justice will be more reluctant to indict Trump for the documents found at Mar-A-Lago.

    1. I think this is a tempest in a teapot. As commentators have pointed out, it is not unusual for Presidents (and presumably Vice Presidents) to retain papers after they leave office. There is nothing nefarious in this. What the latest developments show, though, is the absolute double-standard applied to any misdemeanor by liberals as opposed to that applied to conservatives. Even more, it shows just how badly gone the MSM is, as evidenced by their frenetic attempts to create excuses for Biden, even after blowing up the Trump papers into the worst case of treason since Benedict Arnold.

      1. Well there are significant differences in the two scandals in terms of location, probable intentions, and in how the respective presidents cooperated following the discoveries.
        That said, I can hope that investigations proceed in both as it is more important to preserve the ideal that no one is above the law. Heck, indict them both, and let the chips fall where they may.
        I am fairly baffled at how classified documents are apparently handled. There does not seem to be much actual oversight and that needs to be changed.

      2. There is a single rule of law in the US, to be applied without fear or favor to everyone, presidents and former presidents included. If Joe Biden violated the law regarding the handling of national security documents, and did so with the requisite scienter, he should face the legal consequences.

        That said, there appear to be large and significant distinctions between this situation and the one involving Donald Trump’s spiriting away presidential records to Mar-a-Lago (as Mark Sturtevant adverts in his comment above). From what’s known so far, it’s essentially the difference between a golfer who inadvertently grounds his club in a sand trap and calls a two-stroke penalty on himself and a golfer who intentionally grounds his club, kicks his ball out of the bunker, and then uses a rake to cover his tracks. (And, as we know from public revelations, one of these two men is famous for flouting the rules applicable on the links.)

        1. Handling, storing, and destruction of classified documents is one of the things I know a bit about.
          There are a lot of parallels between those processes and those involved in handling dangerous pathogens, there is even a lot of shared terminology. In both cases, the rules that must be followed are deeply ingrained, and are taken very seriously.
          When a civilian is let into the system, they are always a weak link. The higher their status, the less likely that the civilian will take the rules seriously.

          The difference between a sitting President not taking opsec seriously vs anyone else, is that the President has “Plenary” power over the whole system. Anyone else, be they Vice President, Secretary of State, or a tech on a nuclear submarine, faces specific and draconian penalties for mishandling those documents or the information in them.
          One thing they made sure we understood when we were learning this is that it does not matter if you break the rules by accident, or if you did it with no malice intended. Malice will make the penalties extra draconian, but something as simple as having a classified folder on your desk and stepping out of your office for a moment is a crime. Even if you locked the door. It should have gone back in the safe. That is the rule.
          The pathogen should have been put back into storage and the vent hood and instruments decontaminated before you left the lab.
          One example of that is a worker with very high access took some documents home, to work on them there. The info was not compromised, and she had no intention of letting anyone see it. But they went to jail.
          Little people go to jail for breaking those rules.
          When HRC’s shenanigans were being publicized, those of us familiar with classified handling procedures were aghast. It is very much like she kept Ebola in the veggie drawer of the fridge in the shared kitchen of her co-op.

          When I see evidence of someone mishandling classified documents, the first question I ask is- “Was that person POTUS when they did it?”. If they were, then “plenary” applies. If not, then it is a crime, even if some people are above punishment for such things.

          1. I, too, have experience with the handling, storage, and destruction of classified documents, having obtained a top-secret security clearance, pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), in the course of representing a defense contractor charged with conspiring with an international arms dealer to transship TOW-missile equipped anti-tank helicopters to a third country that lacked the requisite Defense Department end-user certificates. (The client was acquitted.)

            I cannot claim any particular expertise regarding a sitting president’s plenary authority over classified documents. I am reasonably confident, nonetheless, that that plenary authority does not extend to former presidents who are now private citizens. It certainly gives a former president no authority to lie repeatedly to the National Archives and the US Justice Department about his unauthorized possession of presidential records, including national security records; to fail to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena requiring the production of such records; or to having the lawyer ostensibly serving as the custodian of his records execute a false sworn declaration claiming that all responsive documents had been turned over to the federal grand jury pursuant to the subpoena when they had not.

  5. As for George Santos, I’m not 100% convinced that running for and winning a seat in the US House of Representatives is the optimum strategy for going on the lam from pending foreign criminal charges.

    1. I was watching him during the Speaker balloting. He seemed eager to schmooze with other lawmakers and seem like he belonged there. If I was in the House, I don’t know how I would ever trust a word out of his mouth, which hardly makes him a useful colleague.

      1. Oh, he’s useful, all right, because he will vote the party line–which beats the vote of the Democrat who would certainly replace him. Does anybody really think that the GOP will cast out one of their own?

          1. There would have to be an election with odds perhaps slightly favoring a Democrat. And no, he will not resign on his own and will stay unless he gets into legal trouble. It’s all fine for Republicans to call for him to leave but do they really mean it or is just for show?

    2. Unless the strategy is, when physically apprehended, to simply claim that he is not who he is….really what a level of cognitive dissonance for republicans to actively support and promote their fearless leader while feigning outrage at this Santos fellow, who seems to be a paragon of Trumpian behaviors.

      And yes, please make that two chocolate cake donuts with chocolate frosting…a real morning treat for me.

  6. “Man, when they start issuing trigger warnings for Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia, you know the world has gone cattywampus.”

    I, too, have wardrobeaphobia, but I’ve decided to stay in the closet.

    Thanks for “cattywampus”.

    1. Thank you, just beautiful.

      “Where Were You” makes me want stand on a rocky outcrop and contemplate the world.


      1. Yes. His glissandos and portamento are reminiscent of Indian sitar and sarod playing. The sweet, vox humana tone he got out of the guitar is what endears his playing with me.

      1. The first time I recall hearing guitar feedback used on a rock’n’roll record was at the start of the Beatles’ 1964 tune “I Feel Fine.”

        As I recall from reading an interview with John, the lads came across the sound quite by accident.

  7. I agree that George Santos lies are egregious, but are they worse than the Big Lie that is spread by over 100 GOP Representatives? Why is Santos worse than Paul Gosar or Marjorie Taylor-Greene for example?

    1. And what about “Weird Al” Yankovic’s Like a Surgeon? Nothing but SILENCE from the AMA! The horror!

      … Amish Paradise was fine though – they don’t use electricity.

  8. Oops, late again…

    On this day:
    1866 – The Royal Aeronautical Society is formed in London.

    1895 – The National Trust is founded in the United Kingdom.

    1915 – The United States House of Representatives rejects a proposal to require states to give women the right to vote.

    1918 – The Minnie Pit Disaster coal mining accident occurs in Halmer End, Staffordshire, in which 155 men and boys die.

    1932 – Hattie Caraway becomes the first woman elected to the United States Senate.

    1942 – World War II: United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt creates the National War Labor Board.

    2006 – A stampede during the Stoning of the Devil ritual on the last day at the Hajj in Mina, Saudi Arabia, kills at least 362 Muslim pilgrims.

    1729 – Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher, academic, and politician (d. 1797).

    1856 – John Singer Sargent, American painter and academic (d. 1925).

    1876 – Jack London, American novelist and journalist (d. 1916).

    1893 – Hermann Göring, German commander, pilot, and politician, Minister President of Prussia (d. 1946).

    1945 – Maggie Bell, Scottish singer-songwriter.

    1957 – John Lasseter, American animator, director, and producer.

    1961 – Simon Russell Beale, Malaysia-born English actor and historian.

    1964 – Jeff Bezos, American computer scientist and businessman, founded

    Run down the curtain:
    1960 – Nevil Shute, English engineer and author (b. 1899).

    1976 – Agatha Christie, English crime novelist, short story writer, and playwright (b. 1890.

    2003 – Maurice Gibb, Manx-Australian singer-songwriter, guitarist, and producer (b. 1949).

    2022 – Ronnie Spector, American singer (b. 1943).

    1. 2006 – A stampede during the Stoning of the Devil ritual on the last day at the Hajj in Mina, Saudi Arabia, kills at least 362 Muslim pilgrims.

      There was an even deadlier disaster during the same ritual in 2015, killing some 2,400 Muslim pilgrims. William Langewiesche wrote an excellent longform piece about it (and about the Saudi regime’s implication in the disaster) for Vanity Fair.

      You can read that piece here.

  9. As a Canadian with no past gun ownership history, it would be impossible for me to legally buy/possess a handgun. I can buy an approved rifle for hunting if I take a hunter safety course and successfully apply for a hunting license.

    Reader Brian might be misinformed. He doesn’t need a past gun ownership history to legally buy or possess a handgun. He needs a Restricted PAL (Possession and Acquisition License). To get that PAL he needs to complete a firearms safety course (the curricula for which is standardized nationally) and apply for it. Once he has the PAL he is free to buy a handgun. But even then there are hoops to jump through. You also need an ATT (Authorization to Transport) to even take the gun home, which has its own application process and fee. And ATT or not, there are basically no circumstances in which it is permitted for you to carry your gun for self-defense. You can go straight from home to a shooting range, or a gun show, or a gunsmith, and that’s about it.

    To buy a rifle or shotgun you do not need a hunting license or a hunting safety course, nor are those sufficient. You do need those if you want to hunt with your gun, but to buy it you need a PAL (a non-restricted one is fine).

      1. Ah, of course you’re right, I forgot about the new changes to the law!

        When my PAL last came up for renewal I sold my handgun to avoid having to pay the extra for the restricted PAL and a new ATT. As a result, I’ve tuned out most of the discussion on the new handgun laws, as a no-longer-interested observer.

        Reminds me, I want to sell my rifle and shotgun before my PAL expires so that I don’t need to renew it. Shooting was fun for a bit when my step-son was excited about it, but we’ve all moved on now.

        1. I always carry around a loaded snowball. And I’LL GIVE THEM MY SNOWBALL WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD LIVING HANDS!!! I’d probably trade it for a warm coffee or a firm handshake…

  10. You’re right, Brian. It is now impossible for a Canadian to legally buy, sell, trade, or import a handgun. The rules against carrying them around are unchanged.

    We can now all take comfort, as the Government invites us to, that the handguns used to shoot people will all have been smuggled or purchased illegally in the criminal trade and carried by anonymous people who have no licences of any kind whatsoever, just as was the case before the freezing of the legal market. I feel so much safer now that the guys carrying their approved gun cases from the trunks of their cars into the pistol range down the road from us will no longer be selling them legally to meth dealers whenever they need some cash for their kid’s new insulin pump. Thank heaven for progress!

    We all know where the guns used in crimes come from but we’re not allowed to say.

    1. I’m curious how readers define citizens vs. subjects.

      How about: citizens can own firearms, but subjects cannot?

      1. A Canadian citizen is a British subject — says so right on our passports, or used to — because the King is our Head of State. But we aren’t British citizens. We have no right to live there and don’t have to obey any British laws unless we are on British soil or in a British-owned aircraft or vessel. We can’t even get knighted anymore. 🙁

        But I think I get your point. Worth thinking about. In a theoretical sense because Canadian citizens are loyal subjects of the British Crown, the Crown’s Cabinet of Ministers (including the Prime Minister) do the bidding of the Crown. The Crown here is seen as the Canadian State, not the King himself who doesn’t actually order anyone around or even talk to Canadian politicians. But the Crown (not “the people”) really is the authority under which the government collects taxes, the police arrest you, and the Courts send you to prison. If the Crown wants its subjects to be disarmed, the Ministers must seek to make it so. Parliament theoretically sets out the limits of what the Crown can and can’t do but in practice it no longer does. It doesn’t even control the Crown’s raising and spending of taxes, which was one of Parliament’s very early brakes on the power of the King. MPs hope to get into Cabinet someday, not get cast into the wilderness for bucking the Prime Minister.

        The executive Cabinet, though formed from elected MPs and responsible to Parliament, rules by Order-in-Council until its party is defeated in an election, the only place where the concept of “citizens” has any traction.

        Gun control advocates no doubt think this formulation is paranoid nuts but it is likely why we embrace gun control and the United States does not.

  11. The issue is about displaying it on large advertising billboards prominently visible from public places.

    Who but the most blatantly fraudulent of advertising agencies would rent out space on a large advertising hoarding that was not prominently visible from public places? The task you pay the advertising agency to do is to present your idea to large numbers of the public. If they accept your money and then don’t do the task you’ve hired them to do, someone is committing fraud, and it’s not you.
    I frequently find advertising in public spaces to be offensive, intrusive and disturbing. That’s it’s job. I just flag the advertised products as “probably useless, otherwise they wouldn’t need to advertise it”, and don’t even consider buying it.
    See also : – the first addition I make to any browser I use, anywhere.

Leave a Reply