Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Starting off this side of the Atlantic with a fine Union example

of fatherhood.

In Britain,
According to witnesses, the car, containing up to three passengers, hit the three men at around 50mph but did not stop.

Locals said the victims, who were aged between 20 and 31, were part of a group who had gathered to protect local shops used by all sections of the community.

Resident Mohammed Shakiel, a 34-year-old carpenter, said: “We got a call that there had been a car that had been set alight and a group of youths had moved further up the road.

“They put the fire out but there were still yobs on the street - they had no agenda other than simple stealing.”

Mr Shakiel said of the victims, “They lost their lives for other people, doing the job of the police.
That last rang a bell, so I checked: from Robert Peel,
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Mr. Shakiel, they died doing their duty; part of the problem is that your government has forgotten that, among other important things.

So it 'brings her joy'; my first thought I won't post, as I try to keep my use of that language to a minimum.

Back across the ocean and over the mountains,
Forget the cover story of waterboarding-leads-to-courier-leads-to bin Laden (not to deny the effectiveness of waterboarding, but it’s just not applicable in this case.) Sources in the intelligence community tell me that after years of trying and one bureaucratically insane near-miss in Yemen, the US government killed OBL because a Pakistani intelligence officer came forward to collect the approximately $25 million reward from the State Department's Rewards for Justice program.

Holy crap!
Britain’s gun laws are among the most draconian in the world, yet the nation has some of the highest levels of violent crime and burglary in the West, and there is no shortage of gun crime in major cities such as London and Manchester. While criminal gangs are often able to acquire firearms on the black market, ordinary law-abiding British citizens are barred from owning guns for self-defence.

The riots in London, the West Midlands and the North West should prompt a renewed debate in Britain over the right to bear arms by private citizens. The shocking scenes of looting across the country are a reminder that the police cannot always be relied upon to protect homes and businesses during a period of widespread social disorder. The defence of life and property can never be entrusted solely to the state, not least when there is a complete breakdown in law and order. As we have seen this week in Britain, when individuals are barred from defending their own property from mobs of vicious thugs, sheer anarchy and terror reins.
In The Telegraph, no less.
To the comment from youtubejohn:
First, our Constitution does not 'grant' rights; the founders were very specific about that.
Second, yeah, we did get it from you; you might remember that one of the things the founders were fighting for, before it actually came to revolution, was to be recognized as having the same rights of free Englishmen that those in the British Isles were recognized as having.
Last, And if you really believe you inherited the right to defend yourselves from Great Britain, then I wonder how you square that thought against the history of having to defend yourselves AGAINST us in the Revolutionary War?
You might check the history, guy; one of the things that the British government was trying to do was restrict the ownership of arms, in some cases seizing them. That was one of the final straws that led to the Big Dustup. I'd suggest looking up references to Concord and Lexington.

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

So if it's a Democrat in charge of the nasty colonialist warmongering, it's ok...

Ah, Algore, maybe if you get mad enough and curse enough, you can change some minds...
Naw. You just show how unhinged you're becoming. 'Unacceptable to use the word 'climate' '? Really?

There's lots more out there, but I've got stuff to put away.

1 comment:

Sigivald said...

Looking in at the Amanpour non-issue, it sure seems to me that J. Random Blogger glanced at that painting and decided it must be about the Twin Towers, "Because Iran!".

The only reason I "see" the 9/11 attacks in it at all is that he told me to by proposing the connection.

I'm not nearly as convinced as they all seem to be that the painting Is Obviously Of The Twin Towers Because Dude Iranian And Amanpour Hates America. (Which is not literally what they said in the deep-linked comments, but is an adequate distillation nonetheless.)

Certainly a glance at Mrs. Lashai's other catalog on the internet does not suggest she's some sort of Mullah-followin' ideologue Bringing Down The Great Satan With Paint or anything.

I can't find anything like ideological content, in fact.

(Fer instance, there's This.

Why, it's maybe two vertical things with a mess at the top! Is it the Twin Towers being destroyed by Islamic Vengeance?

Nope, it's a damn TREE.

Tempest. Teapot.)