Words of the Weasel Part 31

"Sexual Assault".  The proper, long established word is rape.  That's a felony in every state that I am aware of.  Rape is forced sexual intercourse.  And, it has been a felony for a couple of thousand years.  Law enforcement should be called in the event of rape.  There are standards of evidence that must be met to secure a rape conviction.
"Sexual Assault" is a new phrase which can mean anything from unwanted touching, to stealing a kiss, up thru rape.  College administrators are judging cases of "sexual assault" and universally finding the man guilty, and expelling him from the college, in kangaroo courts, where the accuser is not required to be present, and where the accused is denied a lawyer,  and denied a chance to confront his accuser.
   By my lights, the entire concept of "sexual assault" should be discarded.  In cases of rape, the accuser should go to law enforcement.  The college should offer transportation to and from the police station. College administrators are incompetent to deal with rape, and mostly too biased to give a fair hearing, even if they were competent.  Rape should always be handled by law enforcement. 

Selling cars with pussy cats

Land Rover is running a TV ad for their Range Rover.  Said ad features a large white pussy cat as a sort of mascot/symbol/hood ornament/whatever.   Used to be, back in the day, cars that couldn't run strong, were called pussy cats. Guess the Range Rover ad team didn't know this. 

Words of the Weasel Part 30

"investigation" or "under investigation"   What cops say when they don't want to answer a reporter's questions.  Work too.  The reporters always back off and drop the subject. 

"Investment"  Hillary speak meaning "spending".

Is it a two man (two person?) race now?

Not really for The Donald.  He has Hillary to trash, Sanders voters to woo, women voters to pacify, his base wanting more red meat speeches, some backstabbing inside his own campaign (Cory Lewandoski and the Republican establishment), and a number of way out campaign promises (get Mexico to pay for the wall, ban Muslim immigration, and others) that will be very hard to make good on.  That seems like a pretty full house of troubles needing dealing with.
   For real amazement, the newsies are reporting that Hillary has been spending millions on TV ads. The Donald is spending zip on TV. The last poll they showed on TV had The Donald pretty much even with Hillary despite the wide difference in TV ad spending.   
   Can The Donald pull it off? Or are we doomed to a Hillary presidency?  

Do you believe in Evil?

I do.  I believe there is evil in the world, and evil people out there doing evil.  Many people do not believe in the existence of evil..  Scratch a multi cultural liberal, and you will find someone who believes that all people are good, and evil doers are simply misinformed.  Or misunderstood. 
   Me, I believe that evil exists, and that it is good to oppose evil.  The most effective opposition comes from the use of firearms.  Certainly in the United States, the availability of firearms deters a lot of crime.  The would be robber has to worry about the storekeeper with a handgun in the cash drawer.  The would be house breaker has to worry about the homeowner with a shotgun.  The would be carjacker has to worry about a piece in the glove compartment.  And even the American police are usually quite polite, partly because they know the citizen they offend might be armed, and might do something about it. 
   And so, I believe in the private ownership of firearms.  And I want my firearms to be as deadly as possible, within certain limits. Once firearms are displayed, I want to win the ensuing gunfight.   The biggest limit is the prohibition on private ownership of machine guns.  This was made law back in Al Capone's time.  It seems reasonable, and the law is still on the books and still enforced. 
  The AR-15 (and lookalikes from SIG Saur and others) has been Army issue since the Viet Nam war.  Most  guys were trained on this rifle in the service.  After they leave the service and go out to buy a deer rifle, they often choose the AR-15 'cause they are familiar with it.  It's enough gun for deer, it doesn't kick much. Ammunition is cheap and widely available.  There are a LOT of them out there, and taking them away from that many owners would be VERY difficult indeed. 
   The current Democratic push for more gun control (more ways to take citizen's guns away) leaves me cold.  Ordinary citizens ought to have a gun around the house, just in case ISIS come calling, or the house breakers turn up. 

What did the founding fathers mean by the word "militia"?

Something different from what we moderns think it means.  In the eighteenth century there were two kinds of armed force.  Regulars,  well drilled, uniformed, paid, and used by the king to suppress his political enemies.  And militia, amateur, not uniformed, little training.  In a standup fight, regulars could beat militia every single time. But, in colonial America, it was the militia that stood to arms in the event of Indian raids, pirate attacks,  French attacks, Spanish attacks, and plain old banditry and cattle rustling.  The militia may not have been as effective as regulars, but in roadless heavily wooded America, the militia were there when they were needed.  Where as it might take a month for a regular force to march up from barracks and engage the enemy.  And, the militia were politically reliable.  You didn't have militia out enforcing the king's taxes, the king's press gangs, arresting smugglers and political enemies.  Being members of the community, the militia wasn't going to oppress their own community like the way regulars were happy to do.
   And so, the founding fathers, setting up a democratic government over a vast territory, decided the militia were the obvious solution to the defense problem.  Militia would not become a Praetorian Guard, making and unmaking presidents and Congresses.  Militia didn't get paid, a great savings on the public purse. And you could have a really big militia, essentially every able bodied man in the country.   Hence the second amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
  The militia principle was effective as late as 1940 when Japanese admiral Yamamoto said " To invade the United States is impossible.  There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."

Finding Neverland 2004

It has a great cast, Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Dustin Hoffman.  It's set in Edwardian London, sets and costumes are superb. Charming London horse drawn cabs, equally charming turn of the century automobiles. The story is that of J.M. Barrie creating Peter Pan as a stage play on the London stage.  Barrie is married, but for the duration of the movie, he neglects his wife, and hangs out with a charming widow and her four boys.  All that said, the movie doesn't click.
   First off, it suffers from the curse of the soundman, probably as bad as it gets.  I could not hear the dialog.  The actors whispered, spoke in thick dialect, and mumbled.  No names were ever mentioned.  I had to check IMDB this morning to learn the widow's stage name.
   And it is slow moving.  Takes forever to get to the point.  Plot is weak.  For instance, we never see how Barrie manages to bring such an unconventional play as Peter Pan to the stage.  Is he independently wealthy and financed it himself?  Is Barrie enormously effective in selling the concept to dubious theater owners and backers, kind of like Peter Jackson in our own time?  something else? We never know.  The nameless widow, comes down with something, and dies in the last reel.  For no good reason I could see.
Too bad.  It could have been cool.