Let's do Malcolm X's birthday instead of MLK!

Malcolm X, who became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, is a very interesting person to me. He should have told the teacher who said he shouldn't be a lawyer, that he would be the best at whatever Malcolm put his mind to. 

He was.

And he made an impact in the Nation of Islam, enough so that he was probably under more FBI surveillance than MLK ever was. I watched the Netflix series on Malcolm X's assassination and I am even more convinced that his talent was wasted by that event. The FBI feared a charismatic black leader, which is a reason I think that even was allowed to happen. It was also why Fred Hampton met the same fate.

I'm not going to address the FBI and other "Law Enforcement" surveillance of either of these men, but it was extensive. But the threat they both posed as charismatic black leaders is dangerous, but the real threat was that they both were moving toward a rainbow coalition. The fact that oppressed people can be any race, creed, or colour.

Malcolm Little became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz because he made the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. That trip opened his eyes to see that Muslims can be any race. Which was a dangerous event for the Nation of Islam. 

Think if both of these men, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton, had gone on to unify people to work together on the problems of society. They were formidable leaders who would have made Berniemania look like nothing. 

Sadly, both of them were cut down way too early.

Just when you thought it was safe...

 I was going through the French press and saw a headline about "duck bill masks" ("bec de canard") and wanted to find out if the term was slang. You are probably aware that cloth masks are pretty much worthless. That's where FFP comes in, or:

FFP2 is actually classed as a respirator, rather than a mask, meaning they offer better protection. FFP stands for "Filtering Face Piece", with the number corresponding to the level of protection the piece provides, 1 being the lowest level of protection and 3 being the highest.

So, these are a little more than the fashion statement that cloth masks make. I'm not sure how effective they are in real life since the one study used the FFP3 masks, which are the most effective of this type of masks.

 Alas, I am not trained to a level where I can make strong opinions on this issue, but people who are and I respect say that this virus may need to be accepted as a fact of life.

Interesting links:

• https://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/production-de-masques-ffp2-et-d-autotests-enquete-sur-un-retard-francais_2165902.html
  
• https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-face-mask-face-shield-ffp2-n95-kn95-whats-the-difference/a-52291265
  
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7248188/
  

More reasons you need to be concerned about monopolies and oligarchs

 Yet another interesting interview by Russell Brand on why you should be worried about the current situation:

Wanting strong data protection laws isn't "privilige": it's sanity.

The billionaires made money on your information. And it all gets scarier.

Aux Armes, citoyens!

 Imagine my surprise seeing this headline in Le Figaro after listening to gun nuts extol how the US is the beacon of "gun rights" and gun ownership. Here's the link, but you need to:

1. Be a subscriber to Le Figaro and
2. be able to understand French

to be able to read the article.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/face-a-l-insecurite-de-plus-en-plus-de-francais-s-arment-20220109

Yes, the French aren't "victims" to use the Gun Culture paradigm since they can get a firearm for protection. Sure, they have to undergo some form of serious background check before they can get permission to own them, but France is in 24th place for armed citizenry in the world with a ratio of 19.6 guns per 100 inhabitants. Or 12 million weapons in civilian hands in France.

Anyway, it was amusing to see an article like this in a French newspaper since the gun nuts like to claim that the US is somehow "unique" in the ability to own firearms. This article could have come from a US newspaper, which is the source of my amusement. Here are a few excerpts:

"Stop hoplophobia", chanted the activists of the Association for the Restoration of Citizen Carry of Arms (Arpac). Hoplophobia? "The irrational fear felt by some people at the mere mention of a weapon, where a normal person distrusts the one who carries it," they say. On Facebook, their page has more than 45,000 subscribers - three times as many as five years ago - who promote self-defence and the carrying of weapons for "responsible citizens". With a firearm, "you are no longer a victim, but an actor in your own safety", they insist...

Does he see himself shooting a potential burglar? I'm going to take all the necessary measures to prevent that from happening," he says. I'm going to install an armoured door and close the shutters every night. But I can imagine myself taking the gun out of the window and firing it into the air to scare the attacker. What is not possible is to stand by and do nothing...

Marie-Hélène, who lives alone in her house in the heart of a small town in the Hérault region, has the same desire to be safe. During the lockdown, "in the middle of the night, the municipal police rang my doorbell: they had seen a man loitering near my gate", reports this 60-year-old widow.

I think the "uniqueness" is less in the ability to own firearms and more in the irresponsible manner that they are owned in the United States. Or as the police advice mentioned in the article says:

Don't shoot if the man happens to be passing through your garden. You would be in more trouble than the offender.

What are you doing on Social Media? Why are you there?

 I've been wanting to do a post on this topic for a really long time since I find it amusing how most of the right wingers are paranoid about their government, but have no problem with big business-oligarch crowd.

Here's the difference: government is supposed to be under citizen scrutiny. Private entities like businesses aren't--unless the government regulates them.

Russell seems a little slow on the uptake since nothing he is talking about here is secret. In fact, this stuff is all an open secret.

So, if you don't want your activities traced, you might want to get away from social media and big tech.

As Russell points out, the Internet was created by the US Department of Defence (DARPANET).

Sorry, Al Gore and Tim Berners-Lee, you can't take credit for internet.

je suis nouvellement vacciné (Je suis ennuyé vacciné???)

Je suis récemment vacciné et cette chanson m'a traversé ma tête. Changez "Je suis un noyé assassiné" en "je suis nouvellement vacciné" (ou "Je suis ennuyé vacciné") et rendez les autres choses plus appropriées. Par exemple, "un gars qu'en voulait a mon porte-monnaie" devient "un gars qu'en voulait à ma bonne santé".

 I'm newly vaccinated and this song went through my head. Change "I'm a murdered drowning man" to "I'm newly vaccinated" (or "annoyed and vaccinated") and make the other things more appropriate. For example, "a guy who was after my wallet" becomes "a guy who wanted my good health".

Could Carnival over take the Mummers?

 Serious question since the Philadelphia Mummer tradition owes a lot to Carnival. Carnival being:

Carnival is a Western Christian festive season that occurs before the liturgical season of Lent. The main events typically occur during February or early March, during the period historically known as Shrovetide (or Pre-Lent). Carnival typically involves public celebrations, including events such as parades, public street parties and other entertainments, combining some elements of a circus. Elaborate costumes and masks allow people to set aside their everyday individuality and experience a heightened sense of social unity. Participants often indulge in excessive consumption of alcohol, meat, and other foods that will be forgone during upcoming Lent.

This question is something I've been asking myself for a while since I heard the Mummer's Parade in Philadelphia was having economic problems.  Carnival It's a big thing in the Caribbean and is called Mardi Gras in the US:

Carnival celebrations, usually referred to as Mardi Gras ("Fat Tuesday" in French), were first celebrated in the Gulf Coast area, but now occur in many states. Customs originated in the onetime French colonial capitals of Mobile (now in Alabama), New Orleans (Louisiana), and Biloxi (Mississippi), all of which have celebrated for many years with street parades and masked balls.

 So, the two traditions. Carnival and Mummers, have a lot in common. I found this article in Al Dia about another tradition, the San Mateo Carnavalero, linking up with the Mummers

 Up until recently the suggestion that masqueraders of "San Mateo Carnavalero" should  join the long standing and massive parade of the "Mummers" had been nothing more than our suggestion. However recently there was a real rapprochement between multiple local cultural carnivals, all of which had, until then, remained mostly disconnected.

 My opinion, here's a tradition which exists that could join up with other ethnic groups. The Al Dia Article pretty much sums up how I think the Mummers Parade should evolve to become more inclusive. The issue is whether blacks are willing to join their tradition with that from other cultures.

What you miss by being monolingual.

 The US really doesn't have much in the way of a balanced media.

So, it was really refreshing to see this interview with John McWhorter in L'Express: https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/john-mcwhorter-avec-sa-croyance-inebranlable-et-son-peche-originel-le-wokisme-est-une-religion_2165058.html

You can find English versions, but the French one is much more cutting about this movement.

You touch on a crucial point. There is certainly a form of theatricality in the way some blacks claim a place, and that can be traced back to simplistic attitudes already in the early 1960s. But I really think that the black American leadership doesn't think about black people as elected officials: it's not part of the black tradition. I think that Black America thinks of itself through a very troubled history, still in the present, and that this idea that Black people should have a certain place is not an egocentric idea, but rather a fear. It comes from the fact that it can be difficult, as a black person, why you exist in the world. The relationship with Africa, it goes back centuries, it doesn't make sense anymore. We are not Africans. What do we have? It is very difficult to think collectively in such a situation. For me, it's very important that we understand this because indeed, this aspect of black activism can be very irritating. But it comes from a deep insecurity. 

I find it interesting that Prof. McWhorter is a professor of Creole Studies and isn't offering the Western Alternative to Africa: Creole culture. The slaves made their own traditions in the Western Hemisphere.

While the narrative is that blacks "were stolen from Africa", the reality is that they were sold into bondage by other Africans (e.g., Mali Empire and Benin). Slavery has been part of African culture from Ancient times. Blaming white people won't change that.

US black culture is also not monolithic as is seen by examples like Prof. McWhorter.

Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth: Reprise

 I'm sure that people are saying I am a racist because of these posts since they go against what we are told about how race relations SHOULD be in the US.

On the other hand, remember I am a francophone, which has been officially certified by the French government.

I wonder how many of the people calling me a racist listen to Radio France International (RFI)? They might want to since RFI broadcasts in one of the two most commonly spoken languages in Africa: FRENCH! 

TO AFRICA

And the other one is English.

As I said in the previous post:

The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands, with each population generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture. The ethnolinguistic groups include various Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan populations.

So, having a common language is very helpful, even if those langauges happen to be the "imperialistic" ones, Arabic, Portugese, French, or English.

But another thing which is missing (or things that are missing) when I listen to news by and about Africans? Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth...

There's a bit of local difficulty and the powers that be toss blacks a bone.

Unfortunately, like the ethnic groups in Africa, US blacks are not a monolithic identity.

I wonder how long it will take for the blacks to realise that maybe the people making the ctiticism might be their best friends. Although, they are probably smart enough to realise they are being pandered to.

Ann Coulter on Kwanzaa

This "holiday" would probably have blown by me except one e-mail  came with "What Kwanzaa Means to Black Americans—Now & Always" in its contents. I said "Kwanzaa has been built up, but I have yet to meet someone who seriously celebrates it other than my ultra liberal Jewish cousin. Get me somebody who is black who celebrates it! I don't know about "African-Americans", but this set of holidays leaves me dry." in a previous post on the topic.

On the other hand, the one e-mail did make me curious as to if this was a popular holiday.

Or just something being foisted on people as a distraction? (annoyance?)

I think I found one authentic site about a couple of black people in the Lehigh Valley trying to promote the "holiday". The rest were from MSM and business pushing it.

On the right, it was pretty much what Ann Coulter says:

Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity.

I don't think the issue is that people have forgotten anything, the whole story has never been discussed. It's like "Black Lives Matter", which started out as a good thing countering the "stand your groud laws". Now, its become a meaingless slogan to get people to work against their interests.

How can you have a world's series with only one or two countries participating?

There is a plaque commemorating the US High Speed Rail pioneers at Princeton Junction, one of them was my step-father. The US could have rail service like this if the government was willing to foot the bill. But these quotes pretty much sum up why France can leave the US in the dust sitting in a traffic jam.

Rail subsidies are largest in China ($130 billion) and Europe (€73 billion), while the United States has relatively small subsidies for passenger rail with freight not subsidized.

This film is in French, but you can get the point of WHY rail is important, yet the US is ignoring it.

 Cross-subsidies between lines go a long way towards explaining the development of the high-speed rail system in France. Thanks to those subsidies, it has been possible to develop a TGV service even in towns that are located far from LGV lines. TGVs also can run on conventional lines provided the lines are electrified.

 So, the US COULD easily develop high speed rail capable of speed in excess of 357 mph (or 574.8KmPH. TGV holds that record).

The sad thing is that the people chanting Make America Great Again are against a Green New Deal, which should have rebuilding rail infrastructure as an integral aspect.

Sadly, the clip is in French, because a lot of people in the US need to see it.

Move on--Nothing to be seen here...

Nothing like watching Fox News and being told about some péché mortale done by the "Democratic" party. Or the reverse on MSNBC, that is the "Republican" party is bad. Problem is that BOTH parties are pretty much the same thing, which is why they need those "Hot button", "culture wars" issues to differentiate themselves the same way Pepsi does from Coke.

Bad news: it's the big donors who call the shots otherwise Bernie Sanders would be well into his Second Term by now (there's a post simmering on why Sanders would have been more popular than most people think, but the short form is that he represents what was historically a red state and was popular with a focus group of Fox News viewers!).

Big money needs to be removed from US politics as one of the top reforms. Although that gives Tucker Carlson something to act surprised about when a Google consultant works to install an FTC head.

Anyway, the elections are not free and fair on a secret ballot by any stretch of the imagination in the US.

The US needs to start practising what it spend a good portion of the 20th Century telling other countries to do while pretending they were pratising what they were preaching. Here's this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

See also:

• David Sirota and Andrew Perez: Unchecked Corporate Power Is at the Root of America’s Democracy Crisis

This is pretty good too:

Not sure why I am thinking about firearms proof marks

 British and European firearms have been subjected to something called proof testing to ensure they won't blow up on the user from the end of the 15th century. From the Firearms History, Technology and Development blog:

The first type of testing we will study is the Proof Test. The idea behind such a test is to verify the strength of the barrel, breech and firing system of a firearm by deliberately firing an over-pressured cartridge. After this, the firearm is examined to make sure it is still intact and if so, the metal (usually the barrel) is stamped with one or more "proof marks" of the testing agency. The proof marks create indented impressions on the metal surface, so they cannot be accidentally removed. Such a test certifies that the firearm is free from manufacturing defects and will not explode under normal usage conditions. In many countries, proof tests are compulsory; and it is not possible to sell a firearm unless it has been proof-tested by an official testing agency approved by the government.

Some manufacturers in the town of St. Etienne in France started conducting proof tests around the 15th century, when firearms manufacturing started in that area. However, France didn't enact a law to make the test mandatory until the 1900s and hence, it was left to each French manufacturer to decide what the test standards should be or even whether to perform a test or not. In other areas, such as London and Birmingham in England and Liege in Belgium, even before testing became compulsory, most manufacturers used to do private tests in their own factories or in a trade testing house.

Compulsory testing laws were passed in most countries mainly due to the backing of the gunmaker guilds of those countries. By enacting such laws, the guilds sought to prevent the manufacture of firearms and stifle competition from non-guild members, even though they claimed that such laws were designed to protect members of the public. The first such compulsory law was passed due to the lobbying efforts of the London Gunmakers Company (a guild composed of firearm manufacturers around London). The initial bylaws passed by the London Gunmakers Company charter of 1637 marked the first introduction of proof tests in England, but didn't specify an official standard of testing.

https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2011/01/testing-firearms-proof-test.html

Proof tests were instrumental in protecting the end-user from weapon failures and compulsory enforcement of these laws helped reduce firearm-related accidents around the world. This is why they are still mandatory in many countries.

 

I remember discussing this matter with my Torts teacher in law school and he mentioned something about product liability, which has been something I filed away in my brain. I associated these tests primarily with British firearms, but they seem to be much more common. The point is that firearms have an inherent lethality which adds to their attractiveness. They cause serious injury or death when used properly.

On the other hand, it is their lethality and dangerous nature which leads to their being regulated in pretty much all civilised nations. And having been regulated for a very long time.

Kwanzaa, Odunde, and what's that other one. Oh, yeah, Juneteenth

The problem with people who have slave ancestors is that they have no real idea of where they came from short of getting their DNA sequenced: and I'm sure the results would be shocking. That's because the places the slave ships originated were ports where the slaves were brought from the interior for trans-shipment. I'm a Euro-Mutt according to my DNA so pretty much everywhere in Europe, except the Iberian peninsula can be considered my "roots".  In fact, I can't really name a country for a good part of my continental ancestors: only my maternal grandmother's ancestors came from countries (France and Germany). The rest of maternal grandparents were from before the US became independent, so it would be something like Holy Roman Empire or Hanseatic League for the ones who weren't British.

Now, the problem with Africa is that there are lots of different cultures and most blacks who came as slaves came from the West of Africa. So, what to do: create a holiday based on what you believe might be your traditions.

Kwanzaa comes from Swahili, which is an East African language. Swahili is a combination of Bantu, Arabic, and Portugese. These people are too infatuated with Julius Nyerere to realise that Swahili is pretty much a creation of the Arabic Slave trade...

Odunde is probably the better choice if you gotta choose since it is based upon the Yoruba traditions. [1] Yorubas may be one of the largest ethnic groups in Africa, but.

The ethnic groups of Africa number in the thousands, with each population generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture. The ethnolinguistic groups include various Afroasiatic, Khoisan, Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan populations.

That's about like me saying I feel most European when I identify as Kosovan (not to denigrate Kosovars, but that was what came to mind. And I don't particularly feel Kosovan. For that matter, I don't feel particularly German or Eastern European either). I'm a Euro-mutt, but some traditions I have a connection to leave me cold, but since I'm pretty much everything from East of the Iberian Peninsula to West of sort of a line through the Scandanavia, Baltic States, and Poland down to Turkey: I've got a lot of Latitude.,..

But when you don't feel a heritage: go for it.

Then comes JUNETEENTH which is pretty much an obscure event that received a huge build up in 2020 to become forgotten again. While having to do with former American Slaves, it would probably be a good candidate for a holiday. The unfortunate thing is that it only deals with a small population of slaves in Galveston, TX who were told not only had the Civil War ended, but they had supposedly been free for a few years. But celebrating like is like celebrating the end of World War II on the date the Last Japanese soldier holing up waiting for the glorious troops to return makes contact with the rest of the world..

Then again, the US does have this habit of making events that happened after the war ended into a big thing, such as the Battle of New Orleans.

The big issue here is that these events are small things even though there is a rich set of traditions for whatever you want to call this heritage.[2] Kwanzaa has been built up, but I have yet to meet someone who seriously celebrates it other than my ultra liberal Jewish cousin. Get me somebody who is black who celebrates it! I don't know about "African-Americans", but this set of holidays leaves me dry.

I'm pretty sure there must be something out there that could form a holiday and unify black people, but these three aren't great candidates. The problem is that like Europeans, Africans are pretty diverse. Actually, they've got us European beat by a lot in the ethnic diversity department. It's just that the colonisers changed the map to make the nations that now make up Africa. It's like me trying to classify my ancestors who came from what is now a diverse set of European countries.[3]

Footnotes:

[1] Toss in we have moved from East Coast Slave Trade to West Coast Slave Trade.

[2] There is a lot of European in the former slave population gene pool, plus not all people of African descent have slave heritage, and so on.

[3] It's slightly easier for me to choose ethnicity since there are a few "centres of gravity", although at least one of them (Rhineland) has been up for grabs for ages. But even British is up for grabs with not only English, but Welsh, Scots, and Cornish...And that's just a start.

It takes two parties to Gerrymander

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that Le Monde would blame the Republicans for the problems in US politics, while not criticising Joe Biden (Le sommet pour la démocratie de Joe Biden a déçu). In fact, France has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the US since both countries have similar problems in their political systems. The problem is that the US's duopoly system is a lot better at hiding the differences by using "hot-button", "Culture wars" issues which are fairly meaningless.

The nice thing is that people in the US are so heavily propagandised and insular that they don't know the difference. Although, one clue is that propaganda is visceral--it works to stir the emotions and short circuit logic. The US is good at propaganda since it has the advertising industry.

Unfortunately, a victim of the mindless, "hot-button" politics is any sense of political compromise as the situation becomes "US" versus "THEM". Bernie Sanders is frightening since Fox News listeners hear him in person and LIKE his policies. Greg Gutfeld lost any cred with me when he went on an ad hominem attack on Sanders.

Sorry, Greg, that shit is the sign of a loser.

Other victims are the media and information in general. I mentioned I was listening to Fox News, in particular Tucker Carlson, but that was because there is no dissent in the other levels of the US media. That's because the media are pretty much monopolised and can control the message worse than any governmental agency.

The problem with US politics is not the Democrats or the Republicans: it's the duopoly system which refuses to let any other party make any progress.

See also:

How the US Propaganda System Works

Domestic violence, Gun Regulation, and yet another reason that "Gun rights" is a fallacious concept.

 One of the many reasons I don't identify with people in the US who like to claim they are "conservative" is that they aren't. There are a lot of issues with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions that a true conservative would have problems with: the primary one being that he took a deadly weapon into that situation. He is quite lucky that his legal problems were the only fallout from his idiocy.

That said we have a lot of fun with constitutional interpretation if we include the “domestic violence clause” (Article IV, Section 4) for a couple of reasons. First off, the trend is to use popular meanings of terms such as “bear arms”. In this case “domestic violence” means something drastically different today from what the founders intended, which is a bunch of people deciding to overthrow the government.

Kyle Rittenhouse's unilateral action of going to Kenosha with an intent of exercising "self-defence" is not the intent of the US Constitution, which makes it clear that only an official band, the militia, are supposed to do that. Please don't comment until after you have read Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) and understood it. Also, look at US Constitution Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, which are the miltia clauses and understand their relationship to other clauses in  the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14, Article II, section ii, and Article III, Section iii. But back to Article IV, Section iv:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This doesn't deal with spouse battering. Instead it is discussing the people who for whatever reason have decided that the US is a tyranny and wish to use violence to overthrow it. The Constitution makes it clear that it was created to:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Unfortunately, most people can't get past the first three words, which is amusing since anyone familiar with the Constitution's drafting and adoption know it was anything but a popularly written document.

Anyway, like calling an unauthorised gathering of armed people a militia, the US Constitution is pretty clear that having a gun for the purpose of "fighting tyrannical government" isn't intended in any way. As the US constitution says in Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You can't make it any clearer than that.

What if Gaige Grosskreutz had killed Kyle Rittenhouse?

Would all the people who are happy that the shooter in this incident managed to be acquitted? Would Grosskreutz have been acquitted had he shot Rittenhouse? Remember that BOTH Grosskreutz brought weapons into a bad situation and made the situation worse.

The question is do you believe that Gaige Grosskreutz should have been able to carry a concealed firearm?  Even more importantly: should he have been carrying in this situation in the first place?

 "Shall Issue" means that as long as there is no disqualfier in the system--the person must receive a permit. 

"May issue" allows the issuing authority latitude in whether or not to issue the permit. 

Now, Grosskreutz must be given a permit under "Shall Issue" since his felony arrest was expunged (technically, we shouldn't even be discussing that arrest since we can be sued). Unless his misdemeanours disqualify him, which quite a few do not in many jurisdictions.  In fact, he did have a permit to carry at one time.

Under "may issue" his arrests can be factored into the decision, even if they didn't ultimately end up as convictions.  

Let's toss in how would you feel had Grosskreutz managed to have killed Rittenhouse? Enforcing the laws on the books is harder than you understand since the laws on the books are intended to be unenforceable.  

BTW, the case which brought the "Florida loophole" to the attention of the Pennsylvania AG happened to be someone who was under indictment for several felonies in Pennsylvania. Not to mention, he managed to get a Montgomery County Permit to Carry during that period that he turned in. Alas, his record was expunged, so I can't say anymore in public.

The issue here is less Kyle Rittenhouse and more the fact that there were firearms at this "peaceful protest". I am pretty sure firearms were carried at other riots as well. The fact that guns in the hands of "private citizens" and riots are a recipe for disaster. Now, I'm going to quote from a previous post.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

Rittenhouse's heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. And what if Grosskreutz had manged to kill Rittenhouse? That's a really important question to ask.

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

 

Would the Conservatives who are praising Kyle Rittenhouse have supported the British who shot during the "Boston Massacre"?

 Fair question--especially given that the British were technically the people charged with preserving the peace at the time. Not to mention it seems that the British and colonists were closer than most people realise at that point in the move towards Independence. See this Boston Magazine article.

On the other hand, the use of deadly force was not a first option in self-defence at the time the founders were alive. That meant that the British soldiers would have had to have done all they could to de-escalate or remove themselves from the situation before deadly force would have remotely been acceptable. When I say that, I mean that deadly force would still be unlawful had there been lesser means to have stopped the threat.

I should add that some other nations require that the police and other security forces use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. I talk about this in Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided.

Let's toss in there was a defence:

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

The outcome was Captain Preston was found not guilty. The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.

See also:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

Defund the Police, Get a Kyle Rittenhouse

 Art. 12. La garantie des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen nécessite une force publique : cette force est donc instituée pour l'avantage de tous, et non pour l'utilité particulière de ceux auxquels elle est confiée.

XII. A public force being necessary to give security to the rights of men and of citizens, that force is instituted for the benefit of the community and not for the particular benefit of the persons to whom it is intrusted.

Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789

What Kyle Rittenhouse did was wrong. That is travelling to another jurisdiction to "preserve the peace". He was lucky that he wasn't shot by the actual militia, or National Guard (US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16), for being on the street with a weapon.[1] On the other hand, I understand why he did what he did.

The Document that I quote above is contemporary to the US Constitution and is equally influential on the Constitutions of other nations beside France and former French Colonies.  There are parallels between the two documents, but the most important piece of the Constitution tends to be neglected. That is the preamble. In other laws, there is a statement of purpose, or why the document was adopted. The US Constitution states it was adopted for the purposes of:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution DID NOT repeal previous sections of the Constitution, which describes the roles of  the militia as:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And while the uneducated like to claim membership in the militia as members of an "unorganised militia", that is the equivalent to saying that being subject to the draft makes one a member of the US Military. In other words, the "unorganised" miltia is a body which can be called into service under the call up provisions of state laws. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

His heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. 

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection
  

Why I don't regret leaving Facebook

 And why I think the Tech Giants should be heavily regulated.

Actually my list is probably as long as the attached photo of Le Monde's coverage of this issue: if not longer. The Tech Giants misadventures are enough to get Radio Fance International to mention it instead of the election results in Burkina Faso!

At least the European Commission has sort of been on the backs of the Tech Giants, but not riding them as hard as the Tech Giants deserve.

Normally, I would be writing in French these days, but this is something that people should be irate about: even if I am using Google's services to complain about them. The question is whether I will be censored? or heard?

While I like the concept of freedom in the marketplace of ideas, there needs to be some moderation. the question is whether that moderation comes from one's self or from an external source. Also, it depends on how evenhanded the moderators are.

Anyway, the moderators in cyberspace tend to be incredibly biased, and not in a good way.

You can see the contents of the picture if you go to: https://www.lemonde.fr/facebook-files/. They may change from what is pictured, but I doubt this issue is going away.

And while I'm at it, this podcast gets to why Big Tech and deregulation of industry is idiotic (Je suis désolé, mais ceci est en français): https://www.lemonde.fr/podcasts/article/2021/10/27/facebook-files-dans-les-rouages-deregles-de-l-entreprise_6100002_5463015.html.