Monthly Archives: January 2011

R.I.P. Royal Marshall

Humor, Media, Multimedia

Long time producer of The Neal Boortz Show, Royal Marshall died this past Saturday at the age of 43.

From Nealz Nuze:

From Neal: There are no words available to express my personal sense of loss at the passing of Royal Marshall. It’s no stretch to say that I loved that man like he was my own brother. Royal had an unmatched sense of humor and a quick mind that made him a natural for radio, and his dedication to his colleagues and friends was only exceeded by his intense dedication to his family. Our program, WSB Radio and the entire Cox family has lost part of its very soul this day. I ask that you keep Royal, his wife Annette and his two precious and much-loved little girls, Amira and Ava, in your prayers.

Update: Funeral arrangements have been set for Royal. The funeral will be 11 a.m. Saturday at Royal’s church, Ray of Hope Christian Church in Decatur. Visitation will be Friday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. at Murray Brothers Funeral Home in Atlanta. Both the funeral and the viewing are open to the public.

Also, for those that have been asking, there is a plan to set up a scholarship trust for his girls as soon as banks reopen. We will keep you posted.

[…]

Marshall was a military kid who, while born in St. Louis, Missouri, lived all over the world. He graduated from the University of Georgia in 1992 with a degree in speech communications.

Since this posting, WSB has reported that the cause of death was a heart attack. It’s my understanding that he died almost instantly.

This is certainly sad news for Boortz listeners like myself. Marshall often disagreed with Neal and the on-air banter back and forth was almost always fun to listen to.

In addition to being a producer to Boortz show, Marshall was also a standup comic. Unfortunately I never had the pleasure of hearing his stand up routine but he certainly added some humor to the talk show.

In honor of Royal Marshall, here is one of his classic bits from The Neal Boortz Show entitled “Boo Got Shot”

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Quote Of The Day

Environment, Quote of the Day

The “Wild Bird” estate off Hwy 1 near Big Sur, CA.

Owings built ”Wild Bird” as a permanent home at Big Sur in 1958. In the early 1960s, he and his wife joined neighbors in organizing to limit development along the scenic highway of California Route 1. This small step into the world of political activism led to Owings further involvement in conversation and preservation campaigns.

“I got mine; the rest of you can go screw yourselves. I don’t want you encroaching on my view.”

Pretty well sums up the preservationist movement, doesn’t it?

H/T: Jim the Realtor

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Gov. Pat Quinn to Decide Fate of the Death Penalty in Illinois

Crime and Punishment, Criminal Justice Reform, Death Penalty, Legal, Theory and Ideas

Both houses of the Illinois legislature passed a bill which would end the death penalty in the state. However, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) has reportedly stated he wants to “reflect” on the issue before deciding whether or not he will sign the bill into law.

(Reuters) – Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said on Wednesday he would “reflect” on the death penalty ban passed by the state legislature before deciding whether to sign it.

“Anyone in Illinois who has an opinion, I’m happy to listen and reflect and I’ll follow my conscience,” Quinn told reporters. If he agrees to the ban, Illinois will be the first state since 2009 to abolish executions.

The Illinois Senate voted for the ban Tuesday afternoon. The House had approved it last week. Quinn said the opinion of the members of the legislature is “very serious indeed.”

Illinois has not executed anyone for more than a decade after former Republican Gov. George Ryan imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in January 2000. This followed a series of revelations that more than a dozen people had been sent to Death Row who were later found to be innocent.

Quinn, a Democrat, has said in the past that he approved of the death penalty for the most heinous crimes, but wanted to continue the moratorium.

I can certainly respect Gov. Quinn’s honesty here. This is an issue that does deserve some reflection but unfortunately for many death penalty advocates, there seems to be a lack of reflection. Admittedly there are pros as well as cons with the death penalty and Gov. Quinn is going to have to weigh these carefully.

Considering that, as mentioned in the article, more than a dozen individuals were wrongfully convicted and put on death row, and considering that former Gov. George Ryan took 167 prisoners off death row and pardoned 4 others (mentioned elsewhere in the article), I would like to think that upon this reflection, Gov. Quinn will determine that the risk of wrongful execution is too great. The question then becomes: “How many innocent individuals am I willing to sacrifice in order to execute those who have truly committed the most heinous of crimes?”

The fact that there are very bad people who do very evil, heinous things (Jared Lee Loughner comes to mind) is the reason why most death penalty supporters support the death penalty.

With this in mind, the article continues:

Lawrence Marshall, a Stanford Law School professor who had represented several freed Illinois Death Row inmates, said the problem with trying to limit the death penalty to “heinous” crimes is that the emotion surrounding those crimes can lead to errors.

“It’s the very kind of passion that triggers the desire for the death penalty in a particular case that does have the potential to be blinding,” said Marshall, who co-founded the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University.

Among Marshall’s clients was Rolando Cruz, who was on Death Row for years for the 1983 murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico, even though another man, Brian Dugan, admitted to the crime. After Cruz was freed, Dugan was convicted and is now on Death Row.

Personally, I think even one wrongful execution is too many and Illinois has demonstrated far too high of an error rate (and these of course are only the errors we know about). Illinois is in no way special in this regard. We have to remember that our criminal justice systems at each level are in fact human systems subject to human error. When the question is a matter of life and death as is the case here, I would urge Gov. Quinn to err on the side of life.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Why Public Sector Unions Are Worse Than Private Sector Unions

Economics, Unions

Kevin Drum, as usual, gets it wrong on public sector unions:

Public sector unions are a lot like that: conservatives don’t like them in the first place, and crippling them would also seriously cut into a major funding source for the Democratic Party. It’s another twofer. And as Surowiecki notes, they’re a ripe target right now.

I left the below comment over there:

I’m as free-market libertarian as they come, but yet I understand the potential benefits of private sector unions. If a union is smart, they position themselves as creating value both for workers and for the employer — i.e. a union can take the place of eseentially an outsourced HR division from the employer. By doing so, the union through collective bargaining can take the responsibility to negotiate individual salaries (obviously this is most important in jobs where individual workers have low differentiation) and work conditions. Collective bargaining has a place.

But there’s a key — in the private sector, there is always a profit/loss number. The employer has a constraint on behavior in that if he cannot generate enough revenue to pay his workers and still make a profit, he must either cut costs or go out of business. Thus, sometimes he has a responsibility to the company to tell the union “No” with regards to a request. A union that understands this and works with an employer (i.e. the exact opposite of UAW behavior) to find solutions that protect the workers and helps the employer stay in business adds value. A union that won’t acknowledge a symbiotic relationship with the employer, or an employer who fails to say “No” when necessary will be punished by the market — and the Big Three & UAW are perfect examples of both.

The problem with public-sector unions is that there is no profit/loss. The unions are in a position of power because “management” (i.e. politicians) are not punished for their failure to say “No”. In fact, the story of politics is promising the moon and figuring out a way to deliver later, whether it be a promise to the voters or a promise to the unions. Coupled with a media that is typically pro-unionization (after all, what reporter wants to be seen as “anti-worker”), and the politician WILL be punished by public opinion for standing up to the union and saying no. All the incentives align not to have a union and politicians form a symbiotic relationship to be both efficient and responsible, the incentives align for the union & politician to push for the most lavish benefits possible, and put the taxpayer on the hook. Then, when the excrement hits the air circulation device, they scream about cuts to pension programs and fall back on their tried-and-true response, raising taxes.

The reason that “the Right” is so against public sector unions may partially be due to an overall anti-union sentiment. However, they’ve got ample reasons to be especially critical of public sector unions, as the natural check on their outrageous demands (i.e. the market) doesn’t exist for government.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Back to First Principles: An Excellent Primer on the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Property

Church and State, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Crime and Punishment, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, Freedom, Freedom of Association, Freedom of the press, History, Human Rights, Individual Rights, Keep and Bear Arms, Know Your Rights, Legal, Liberty, Multimedia, Privacy, Property Rights, Religious Liberty, Strategies For Advancing Liberty, The Bill Of Rights, Theory and Ideas

In beginning the 112th Congress, House members took turns reading the Constitution aloud to a nearly empty chamber. While I in some ways appreciate members at least uttering the words, I believe that the members would have been better served not by merely reciting the words but by studying the philosophical roots of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. This two part video does an excellent job explaining the meaning of the Bill of Rights as the document related to the times it was written as well as how it continues to aid us in the difficult times we currently live.

Part 1 deals with the philosophical foundations that came out of the Age of Enlightenment.

Part 2 explains the reasoning behind each of the ten amendments we call the Bill of Rights

As the narrator went through each of the amendments, I couldn’t help but think of the many instances where these very rights have been violated and continue to be violated by federal, state, and local governments throughout the country. For those of you who want to really know what we are about and the larger liberty/small government movement is all about, these are the very principles we are trying to restore. These are our guiding principles.

If ever you are perplexed by a position that we write about be it our opposition to the war on (some) drugs, opposition to conscription, support for sound money, support for the right to bear arms, opposition to ObamaCare, opposition to the so-called Patriot Act, etc. , you might find it helpful to refer back to these first principles.

I would like to encourage others to share these videos because I would like to see these videos go viral to remind our friends on the Left, the Right, and the middle about why these rights are so important and worth fighting for.

Related: The Philosophy of Life, Liberty, and Property Explained

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/
1 2 3