Hour 1 - 3
Harry Broderick (Andy Griffith) owns the Jettison Scrap and Salvage Company, and is a specialist in reclaiming trash and junk in order to sell that as scrap. His dream is to recover equipment left on the moon during Apollo Program missions. He invites former astronaut Addison "Skip" Carmichael (Joel Higgins) and NASA fuel expert Melanie "Mel" Slozar (Trish Stewart) to assist him in this effort. He builds a spaceship dubbed Vulture completely made of reclaimed salvage and powered by a chemical called monohydrazine. The main body of Vulture is composed of a Texaco gasoline Semi-trailer with cement mixer as the capsule. This is augmented with three shorter rocket boosters placed 120 degrees around the main tank. Estes Rockets made a prototype of a model rocket version of the Vulture. It was never brought to market. Broderick and his ragtag crew complete their mission and go on to further adventures in the subsequent series.
BREAKING NEWS: Robin Hood Cases DISMISSED!!
Attorney Meyer’s motion has now been granted in a 17-page notice of decision from Cheshire “superior” court judge John C Kissinger Jr., which also dismisses the second civil case against us that was filed by “the City” in September, seeking monetary “damages”. The second suit proved what we all knew and the city people had originally denied with their first lawsuit – that ultimately this was about their lost parking revenue.
Ultimately, the Robin Hooders have been completely vindicated. The city people were lying (as is typical of governments) when they claimed Robin Hooders were harassing, intimidating, and threatening their parking enforcement agents. Again, the proof that they were lying is that no Robin Hooder has ever been arrested for “harassment”. Even if Robin Hooders were saying nasty things (no evidence of that was presented in court, and I’ve never seen it happen), the job description of the parking enforcers makes it clear they must put up with “mental and verbal abuse” from members of the public. The city people tried to illegally oppress our right to free speech and to hold government agents accountable for their actions, and the court made the right decision and dismissed their frivolous, aggressive, unconstitutional cases against us.
In the notice of decision, judge Kissinger notes that the free speech rights of the Robin Hooders outweigh all of the claims of “the City”:
The Court agrees with the Respondents that their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution will be violated by permitting the City to move forward on any of the claims in this action or the more recent action or by granting the requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
In the rest of the notice, Kissinger defeats the ridiculous claims of “the City”, rejecting the claim of “tortious interference”, denying their request for an injunction, and dismissing the second suit for damages from “intentional interference with employment contractual relations and negligence”.
Will “the City” appeal the case to the supreme court? Given their past history of blowing taxpayer dollars on frivolous appeals, there is a good chance they will. They don’t know how to handle taking “no” for an answer. Speaking of wasting your tax dollars, we’ll be digging into the financials of this case to see just how much was spent hiring their fancy private attorneys to handle the Robin Hood case.
Literature and legend often reflect their culture. Some themes, like that of rulers imposing coercive power, or of individuals rising up against tyrants, are as relevant today as they were in antiquity. Suzanne Collins drew on Greek mythology's story of the Minotaur and on the legend of Spartacus in ancient Rome as she created the Hunger Games series. Her hero, like the heroes in these stories, does not seek her own power or profit but is standing up against a violent and tyrannical government. "People everywhere yearn for the freedom to pursue their own goals and dreams," says Prof. Amy Sturgis. Even though the themes are ancient, stories like the Hunger Games resonate with readers because the anxieties and fears they portray are real and relevant. "These stories aren't just entertainment," Sturgis says. "They are reflections of who and what we are." Do the themes in these stories resonate with you? Why?
The Real Reason Hawks Are Trying to Kill the Interim Nuclear Agreement with Iran
Why are Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their congressional allies in both American political parties trying to kill an interim nuclear deal with Iran that effectively freezes (and in some instances rolls back) the Iranian nuclear program until a comprehensive deal can be reached to permanently limit the program so that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb? In the lead up to the interim deal, if one wanted to be charitable, one could have assumed that these hawks were acting as the “bad cop,” using the threat of even more economic sanctions to strengthen the Obama administration’s “good cop” hand to exert maximum pressure on Iran to limit its nuclear program. However, after an interim deal has been reached, these same hardliners are likely to push Congress to ratchet up sanctions anyway in a blatant attempt to kill that deal and further negotiations. Of course, President Obama can likely successfully veto their efforts, but unfortunately their motivation for taking this barefaced course can only be attributed to rejecting peace for war with Iran.
In both America and Israel, politicians customarily need to pretend to avoid war, even though intentions are otherwise. For example, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush blamed Saddam Hussein for kicking out international weapons inspectors trying to find what turned out to be nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction”—a hostile act—when the inspectors really exited that country because of the imminent U.S. attack. So the hawks have claimed falsely that the interim agreement rolls back no part of Iran’s nuclear program and have vehemently opposed the deal because it is not tough enough.
First of all, generating enough fissionable material is the toughest step to building a nuclear bomb, and three paths exist to get there: 1) by further enriching uranium already enriched to 20 percent; 2) by using fast centrifuges to enrich 3.5 percent uranium; and 3) to make plutonium using a heavy water nuclear reactor. The interim accord rolls back the first by requiring Iran to eliminate its stockpile of 20 percent uranium one way or another, and it essentially freezes numbers two and three. The second is frozen by prohibiting the installation and operation of new centrifuges and by capping Iran’s stockpile of 3.5 percent uranium. The third is frozen by prohibiting Iran from testing or producing nuclear fuel for the Arak heavy water reactor or making it operational. The agreement also provides for strict international inspections to make sure Iran is complying with this freeze/rollback. Meanwhile, the United States and the international community have kept the core of their economic sanctions—shutting Iran out of the world’s banking system and a ban on the importation of Iranian oil, the country’s life’s blood—until a comprehensive deal can be reached, with only a minor unfreezing of certain Iranian overseas assets until then.
One might ask the hawks blatantly trying to scuttle the interim agreement what alternative they propose. They claim that they instead want a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program—which is permitted by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as long as it is not used to make a bomb—an outcome that has no chance of happening. Meanwhile, during any complex and lengthy negotiation toward such an end state of nirvana, Iran could string the West along while continuing to make more progress toward getting the bomb. At least the interim agreement freezes the Iranian program until negotiations on a more comprehensive agreement can be attempted. Even if those future negotiations eventually fail, it would seem that the interim agreement provides a “pareto improvement.” This is a fancy economic term for making at least one party better off without making the other worse off. In this case, both parties seem better off because Iran gets some slight sanctions relief, and the West gets a verifiable freeze on Iran’s nuclear program while an attempt is made to negotiate severe permanent constraints on Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb.
The hawks—the Israelis, the Saudis, and their congressional allies—however, oppose this pareto improvement for the two negotiating parties, because it’s not a pareto improvement for them. If the goal were to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the interim agreement would seem to offer at least no down side. However, if the real objective is to weaken Iran as power in the Middle East through a military attack by either the United States or Israel, using Iran’s nuclear program as an excuse, the interim agreement—and of course any future comprehensive agreement laying the Iranian nuclear issue to rest for good—is a disaster because it removes the imperative for any military strike.
Behind the façade of the Iran nuclear issue, what the hawks really fear is that a general rapprochement between the U.S. superpower and Iran, made possible by a nuclear deal, could lead to realignment in the Mideast region to the perceived detriment of Israel and Saudi Arabia, each of whose archenemy is Iran. Their reasoning goes that if the United States settles some its differences with Iran and has a better relationship with that country, Iran’s power will grow at their expense. That explains the hawks’ white-hot opposition to a rather benign interim agreement, which could eventually lead to peace, instead of war, with Iran.Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.