The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer … than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.
OK, a lot of Americans are ranting about Biden’s hypocrisy over taking Airforce 1, then a large cavalcade of Full-sized SUVs to go to Massachusetts in order to deliver a speech in which he declared climate change an emergency. And promised/threatened to use executive action to fight climate change as any sort of legislation on the matter appears extremely unlikely to happen.
To these complaints I’m forced to say, “Chill out, Brothers and Sisters.” Biden, just like all the legitimately elected Presidents, has to take Airforce 1 for trips of this distance and has to travel overland in a large, armored, very heavy and gas-guzzling SUV along with a decent sized convoy of similar vehicle carrying his assign entourage and technicians, assistants, and security personnel. No President gets any real choice in this.
Yes, it’s extremely ironic. No, it isn’t worth ranting over. Nor is it hypocrisy, since he had no say in the matter and those that did really don’t give a fat, flying fuck about anything except their mission objective of not letting the POTUS get killed.
So yeah, for now and possibly for some time, bees are legally fish. And yeah, a lot of people are seriously lampooning the CA Appellate Court’s obvious and rank stupidity is declaring them so. But… all the complaints, insults, and jokes are misplaced. The bumbling idiocy happened way back in 1970.
The California Endangered Species Act was designed to protect “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.” But, in 1970 when the law was actually written the definition of “fish” was written as, “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” While it is patently obvious to anyone who can read for comprehension that “invertebrate” was meant to be limited to marine and aquatic ones, e.g., corals, sponges, and sea urchins, that’s not what was written into law.
Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45 is not so limited.
The important part of the portion of the ruling shown above is Term of Art. And in the legal field those terms have specific, explicit meanings, not implied ones. Purposivism will, far more often than not, fall before Textualism in the Courts.
In this case, the statutory definition of fish states it means a “wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” The statute may have an implicit limitation to marine and aquatic creatures, but the legislators didn’t state that explicitly, meaning no such limitation actually exists.
Frankly, if judicial error happened, it was by the lower court that ruled that bees aren’t per the term of art in play fish. So, if anyone should be lampooned, it should be the Legislature, who wrote a piss-poor law using hasty language and without thought of potential use case scenarios.
Nor, I choose to add, is this the first time the fishiness of a species has come into legal debate. One need only turn to the 1818 Maurice v. Judd case in NYC, where the court ruled that, statutorily speaking, whales were fish.
And that is the fundamental basis of the a cappella agitpop that tries to pass itself off as news in America. The Lamestream Media’s go-to play is to find something, no matter how localized or minute, spin it into something outrageous, and sensationalize it in order to turn it into a widespread “issue” that demands the readers’ or viewers’ attention and reaction. Simply put, it’s how they make their money.
And, when the Lamestream Media is particularly successful, e.g., any negative encounter between a Black and the police, they create an actual nationwide problem that further feeds attention and money to the “news” media’s coffers.
This is a case where punctuation marks are critical, specifically the quotation marks around American. This is because, while they live inside our borders and were probably even born within them, Liberals aren’t American in any way except legalistically.
One can see this by what specifically they are outraged by while being silent upon- and supporting similar but far worse things as long as they are being perpetrated by foreigners, preferably non-White foreigners. It shows that they don’t have issues with the actions, they have issues with America and traditional American values and cultural mores and icons.
That’s the thing; Liberals aren’t exactly hypocrites, they’re just disingenuous about what outrages them. They’re not against homophobia, racism, slavery, etc. They’re against America and Americas, especially White Americans.
The above being the case, Liberals aren’t Americans and should not be considered as our countrymen except in those respects mandated by the Constitution – which we must abide by for good or ill.
It’s a simple comparative study of both the facts of #BlackLivesMatter/#antifa riots and insurrection vs. the singular act of some few Americans storming the Capitol and the result outrage promulgated by the Congressional Democrats and their media.
The findings are equally simple. The nationwide outrage over the assault upon the Capitol is utterly falsely based and manufactured. The Left and their minority sharecroppers are not intrinsically bothered by violence, not even nationwide, extreme violence. They’re only bothered when it’s not Blacks and their “White” enablers committing the violence. And they’re furthered outraged because the assault was caused by the firmly held and not truly unwarranted belief on the part of the Americans involved that the Dems stole the 2020 election in order to install Biden as POTUS.