- When you want to know how many people are fleeing an area (in this case, San Francisco and Silicon Valley), check out the U-Haul rates.
- With the help of creatively greedy lawyers, some California towns are criminalizing nuisance code violations — and trying to squeeze big bux out of people who don’t have the money.
- Hey, knee-jerking bigots: Sessions is actually right about something for a change. The office of sheriff is from the Anglo-American legal tradition.
- And those who imagine “Anglo-American” was a racist dog whistle had really ought to think about all that they’re attacking.
- John Cleese and Michael Caine are pro-Brexit — and among the minority of artists who are “out of the closet” among not-so-tolerant EU supporters.
- Ron Paul on the many ways mandatory e-verify threatens us all. (Via Wendy McElroy, now back after a long recovery from surgery. Missed that great blogging!)
- “Down, boy.” Damn. It appears that a dog is forbidden to become the next governor of Kansas (even though there’s no law against it).
- How the Internet responded when nobody showed up to read to a lonely library greyhound.
- A gang of Hagrids?
I don’t understand why so many people fail to grasp that E-Verify isn’t a restriction on Evil Brown People, it’s a restriction on *everybody.* In the name of “stopping illegal immigration,” a solid quorum of otherwise presumably intelligent Americans really want to give the central government yay-or-nay power over whether anybody can have a job.
And we don’t even have to visit Ron Paul’s list of “what-ifs” to know this is a bad thing. All we need do is look at all the real-world other ways the government has proven itself terrible at maintaining lists.
After Claire’s educational posts on our American legal system today IMHO she should forever now be known as Professor Claire.
When you want to know how many people are fleeing an area (in this case, San Francisco and Silicon Valley), check out the U-Haul rates.
New York State isn’t that far behind California for people leaving their States!
TEXAS: U-Haul No. 1 Growth State for 2017
Here’s the bottom of the U-Haul Growth State list:
44. New York
45. New Jersey
46. Massachusetts
47. Michigan
48. Pennsylvania
49. Illinois
50. California
Interesting that the bottom 6 states are either Blue States and/or Rust Belt States.
Wonder what the numbers would show if they could count all of the people moving away from tyranny. U-Haul is just one segment of the picture, and I’ll bet there are a good number moving with a pick-up truck, or what they can stuff in a backpack.
And then, I just read where Trump is considering a 25 cent increase in federal tax on gasoline… to fund the boondoggle of road and bridge repairs… That will go over well, I’m sure.
“Professor Claire”
Not on your life …
When I started to read the U-Haul story, my first thought was “Are they expecting the big one?” I was a little surprised to find the reason was economics. The cost of living issue is a big factor in more than a few places. Add to the cost factor, the over crowding, big brother looking over the shoulder, weather etc. and I expect to see this diaspora continue, if not accelerate. The big problem is a dwindling list of places to run too which I think is going to cause conflict. Much as I hate to say it, we may be looking at the beginnings of the dystopia future so may books have been written about.
I agree with Dogs not being Governors, not that they wouldn’t be good ones (in the spirit of Calvin Coolidge) but they are not competent to swear an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States” as required.
I have the same objection to Dogs, robots, and some people , being police officers. No oath, no badge. In my County, they have actually promoted a Dog to “Sergeant” and if one is harmed (of whatever “rank”) , there is an additional penalty for harming a “Police Officer”.
If dogs and cats can be the mayor of a city, I don’t see any reason they couldn’t run for governor… I did a search for cat/dog politicians and was amazed at how many of them there are.
Dog elected mayor in Minnesota town of Cormorant for third term in a row
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dog-mayor-minnesota-cormorant-duke-lassie-a7205801.html
The nine-year-old Great Pyrenees is the top dog in the township
I agree with Dogs not being Governors, not that they wouldn’t be good ones (in the spirit of Calvin Coolidge) but they are not competent to swear an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States” as required.
They can piss on the constitution as well as any human politician ever born. They just can’t lie about it, before or after the event.
LOL, that’s funny Joel and true.
Behind every doggy politician, there is a human with his hand in your pocket. What’s new?
But at least we can call them by their right name – SOB.
I was astounded to learn that there are so many people who don’t understand the historical significance of the office of sheriff. But I suppose I shouldn’t have been.
lairdminor, I’m one of those people who really doesn’t have a firm grasp on the role of the sheriff in law enforcement. And I’m pretty well-read in history…it was never a topic that came up, I guess. So here’s a quick question: if an FBI agent, a State Police officer, a city cop, and a Sheriff’s officer get into a dispute over a point of law, who ranks?
I don’t understand why so many people fail to grasp that E-Verify…
There are LOTS of people who advocate for the government to do things to other people, and who are Utterly Surprised when those things get done to them. Professional politicians, who ought to know better, are the worst of the lot.
See, currently, the folks who applauded President Obama’s actions screaming, “O.M.G. Look what President Trump is doing!”
if an FBI agent, a State Police officer, a city cop, and a Sheriff’s officer get into a dispute over a point of law, who ranks?
To a great extent the answer depends on which level of law, and which state.
In Texas:
The FBI is supposed to mainly enforce federal laws. The FBI Director answers to the President, and eventually to Congress.
State police concentrate on state laws, though they have jurisdiction over local ordinances. Their Director answers to the Governor, and ultimately to the Legislature.
City cops enforce state laws, particularly traffic laws, and local ordinances. The Police Chief answers to the Mayor, and ultimately to the City Council.
Sheriff’s deputies enforce state laws. Counties in Texas have very little authority as far as passing ordinances.
The Sheriff, however, is an elected official. He has to convince the County Court to fund his department, but he is not subordinate to the County Judge or the County Court. Elected sheriffs, unlike appointed police chiefs or directors, are independent, and answer only to the voters. Sheriffs in Texas and similar states, within their counties, can, and often have, told federal, state, or city LEOs to pound sand, and courts have by and large backed them up.
Sometimes that’s a feature, sometimes that’s a bug.
There is an argument that an elected Sheriff is the highest constitutional law enforcement officer in a county.
https://www.tnonline.com/2012/jun/16/sheriff-chief-law-enforcement-officer-county
However I think that depends on county and state.
State by state breakdown;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States