When Jackson was searching the Web for a replacement shotgun stock, supervisor Christie Vazquez -- who admitted in a subsequent deposition to being "very anti-gun" and had quarreled with him before about politics -- noticed what he was doing. Vazquez said she was scared because it was only a few weeks after the Virginia Tech massacre (see CBS News video), so she promptly reported her colleague's Web browsing to Planco's human resources department. Vazquez also informed the HR department that Jackson owned guns and was a member of the National Rifle Association.
You can guess what happened next: according to court documents, the HR representative, Jamie Davis, replied that reporting the visits to Mossberg.com and other sites was "the right thing" to do, and ordered the information technology department to investigate Jackson's Internet activity. After receiving a list of Web sites visited, Davis recommended that Jackson be placed on leave, which the company authorized. Planco disabled Jackson's front door and computer access and arranged for undercover police to be at the building the next morning.
And so on, leading to his being fired. Disgusting in general, but the bigotry of Vasquez
Jackson, who has a legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania, accompanied Vazquez when she was hunting for apartments in dodgy areas of Philadelphia. He gave her a tour of the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he used to work, and took Vazquez to a shooting range and showed her how to use a gun. (She confirmed in a later deposition (PDF) that she enjoyed the outing.)
is just amazing. She should be ashamed, if she has any shame.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
In a comment on my post on Brit policiing(to misuse the word), Wolfwalker said
Deal with the yobs themselves? In Britain? Where it's illegal to own any kind of firearm, and even kitchen knives are required to be dulled so they can't be used as weapons?
Not bloody likely.
It is a problem, but not the big one. There are firearms; not many legally owned, true. But people know that "If the yobs can get them, so can we." And I guarantee the thought of that scares the politicians, without and with badges, more than anything the yobs do.*
And there are always knives, swords, cricket bats, golf clubs... The Brit authorities keep forgetting the truth that 'the mind is the weapon; all else is tools'. If the police cannot or will not do the job, unless Britain has completely lost its collective spine(and THAT is the big problem), a point will come when bad guys start showing up with the marks of a lesson. Or flat disappearing. And then what?
This is where it has the potential to either force changes, or get so monumentally ugly it'll either fix things or go completely to hell. Say a bunch of people in an area have enough and start quietly going out and dealing with the people the cops won't, and when some cops show up and start the usual threatening they do to honest citizens they're told to go to hell: "Since you won't do the job, someone has to, and unless you kill us you can't stop us."** Unfortunately, I lean toward it going to hell; there are enough stupid and stubbon and authoritarian people with badges and political titles to decide that these people need the stomping they won't give the criminals, and from there... And some will be intimidated against acting, or any further action, but the rest? In one of the Matt Helm novels Helm is talking about intimidation and notes that for eight or nine people out of ten, it'll work, either because they're scared or just decide it's not worth it; but one or two out of that ten will pick up a knife or club or gun, or just their hands and the homicidal impulse, and kill you because some people just don't intimidate worth a damn. You take a whole bunch of honest people who hit the breaking point at their kids being beat up and killed and raped and their cars and homes damaged or destroyed and being threatened and beaten and killed and all they work for being stolen and the politicians and police refusing to do the job, and there will be a few- say the Three Percent- who won't just yell at the politicians(without and with badges) who don't listen, and will start acting. And won't stop because they're threatened.
So it's not the question of weapon availability; as demonstrated by the youths of Obama's Chicago, you don't need guns to kill people(and isn't it comforting that the Safe Schools Czar had a big hand in creating that problem?). The questions are
1. Will the people of Britain hit that point and actually act, or has it been trained out of them completely?
2. If they do act, will enough politicians have enough brains and honesty to act as actually needed instead of by the socialist tenets they've been following so long?
*After all, the criminals are the 'disadvantaged' the politicians and brass are brainwashed(or stupid) enough to think need extra breaks and 'compassion'; the honest citizens don't deserve consideration in their view. So the idea of them arming...
**Coppers liked to say that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands, and they thought they knew what they meant. But they were thinking about peaceful times, and men who went around to sort out a neighbor with a club because his dog had crapped once too often on their doorstep. But at times like these, who did the law belong to? If it shouldn't be in the hands of the people, where the hell should it be? People who knew better? Then you got Winder and his pals, and how good was that?
From the comments on Kevin's post here
And let us remember where the term 'vigilante' came from: from people who became tired of law enforcement and government too corrupt or incompetent(or both) to act, so they formed 'Committees of Vigilance' and acted. I've said before, having to dispense justice on the freelance system is not good, but it can occur that going by the rules is worse.
Deal with the yobs themselves? In Britain? Where it's illegal to own any kind of firearm, and even kitchen knives are required to be dulled so they can't be used as weapons?
Not bloody likely.
It is a problem, but not the big one. There are firearms; not many legally owned, true. But people know that "If the yobs can get them, so can we." And I guarantee the thought of that scares the politicians, without and with badges, more than anything the yobs do.*
And there are always knives, swords, cricket bats, golf clubs... The Brit authorities keep forgetting the truth that 'the mind is the weapon; all else is tools'. If the police cannot or will not do the job, unless Britain has completely lost its collective spine(and THAT is the big problem), a point will come when bad guys start showing up with the marks of a lesson. Or flat disappearing. And then what?
This is where it has the potential to either force changes, or get so monumentally ugly it'll either fix things or go completely to hell. Say a bunch of people in an area have enough and start quietly going out and dealing with the people the cops won't, and when some cops show up and start the usual threatening they do to honest citizens they're told to go to hell: "Since you won't do the job, someone has to, and unless you kill us you can't stop us."** Unfortunately, I lean toward it going to hell; there are enough stupid and stubbon and authoritarian people with badges and political titles to decide that these people need the stomping they won't give the criminals, and from there... And some will be intimidated against acting, or any further action, but the rest? In one of the Matt Helm novels Helm is talking about intimidation and notes that for eight or nine people out of ten, it'll work, either because they're scared or just decide it's not worth it; but one or two out of that ten will pick up a knife or club or gun, or just their hands and the homicidal impulse, and kill you because some people just don't intimidate worth a damn. You take a whole bunch of honest people who hit the breaking point at their kids being beat up and killed and raped and their cars and homes damaged or destroyed and being threatened and beaten and killed and all they work for being stolen and the politicians and police refusing to do the job, and there will be a few- say the Three Percent- who won't just yell at the politicians(without and with badges) who don't listen, and will start acting. And won't stop because they're threatened.
So it's not the question of weapon availability; as demonstrated by the youths of Obama's Chicago, you don't need guns to kill people(and isn't it comforting that the Safe Schools Czar had a big hand in creating that problem?). The questions are
1. Will the people of Britain hit that point and actually act, or has it been trained out of them completely?
2. If they do act, will enough politicians have enough brains and honesty to act as actually needed instead of by the socialist tenets they've been following so long?
*After all, the criminals are the 'disadvantaged' the politicians and brass are brainwashed(or stupid) enough to think need extra breaks and 'compassion'; the honest citizens don't deserve consideration in their view. So the idea of them arming...
**Coppers liked to say that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands, and they thought they knew what they meant. But they were thinking about peaceful times, and men who went around to sort out a neighbor with a club because his dog had crapped once too often on their doorstep. But at times like these, who did the law belong to? If it shouldn't be in the hands of the people, where the hell should it be? People who knew better? Then you got Winder and his pals, and how good was that?
From the comments on Kevin's post here
And let us remember where the term 'vigilante' came from: from people who became tired of law enforcement and government too corrupt or incompetent(or both) to act, so they formed 'Committees of Vigilance' and acted. I've said before, having to dispense justice on the freelance system is not good, but it can occur that going by the rules is worse.
ACORN may be out of the census(officially; do you trust it?)
but take a look at some of the other groups still involved:
AARP
A. Phillip Randolph Institute
AFL-CIO
American Federation of Government Employees
AFSCME
American Federation of Teachers
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
Community Action Partnership
Families USA
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Labor Council for the Latin American Advancement
League of Women Voters of the United States
National Black Justice Coalition
National Council of La Raza
National Education Association
Pride at Work
Rainbow Push Coalition
Service Employees International Union
Southern Coalition for Social Justice
United Workers
La Raza is a flat-out racist organization; if I remember correctly the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement wants amnesty for all illegals and an open border; SEIU has shown what a crooked group it is; and any organization with 'social justice' in the name is automatically suspect, as that tends to mean "The government will give you what of your earnings it thinks you need, and distribute the rest to those more needy."
Just wonderful, isn't it?
AARP
A. Phillip Randolph Institute
AFL-CIO
American Federation of Government Employees
AFSCME
American Federation of Teachers
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
Community Action Partnership
Families USA
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Labor Council for the Latin American Advancement
League of Women Voters of the United States
National Black Justice Coalition
National Council of La Raza
National Education Association
Pride at Work
Rainbow Push Coalition
Service Employees International Union
Southern Coalition for Social Justice
United Workers
La Raza is a flat-out racist organization; if I remember correctly the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement wants amnesty for all illegals and an open border; SEIU has shown what a crooked group it is; and any organization with 'social justice' in the name is automatically suspect, as that tends to mean "The government will give you what of your earnings it thinks you need, and distribute the rest to those more needy."
Just wonderful, isn't it?
Last I heard, Mitt Romney still claims his socialized medicine bill
is a good idea.
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).
"But it's socialized medicine! It's better because the government's in charge! Don't you want people taken care of?"
Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.
My husband and I weren't convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn't affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?
The key there is 'Politicians promised', and one of them was Ted Kennedy.
Ten years ago, we had excellent coverage through a more gold-plated plan. But we found that it was no longer worth paying the premiums and scaled back to a more modest policy. Today, we pay about $300 a month for catastrophic care. If we went with the next step up in plans offered to us by IBM, our monthly premium would increase to $800. We simply don't need to pay that kind of money for the amount of health care we actually consume.
Nonetheless, we now owe the state an extra $1,000. Ironically, that's about the extra amount we would pay out-of-pocket under our current plan if both of us actually fell ill in the same year.
So this is a good preview of what the Baucus-Pelosi-Reid-Obama Say It'll Be Good For Us Bill will do; screw us. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance; until they drive the company out of the business, or tax and fine you so bad you have to give it up(with the excuse "That insurance no longer meets our minimum requirements; screw whether you like it").
As I mentioned in the title, last I heard Mitt Romney still defends this abortion as 'a wonderful system to see people have medical care' or some such bullcrap excuse; and may I note that, sure as hell, his support of this mess will be one reason the major media weenies and RHINO morons will push him for the Stupid Party nomination for President.
Romney, I wouldn't vote for you because of your hostility to the 2nd Amendment; this is just another nail in your coffin, far as I'm concerned.
Found at Rodger's place
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).
"But it's socialized medicine! It's better because the government's in charge! Don't you want people taken care of?"
Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.
My husband and I weren't convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn't affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?
The key there is 'Politicians promised', and one of them was Ted Kennedy.
Ten years ago, we had excellent coverage through a more gold-plated plan. But we found that it was no longer worth paying the premiums and scaled back to a more modest policy. Today, we pay about $300 a month for catastrophic care. If we went with the next step up in plans offered to us by IBM, our monthly premium would increase to $800. We simply don't need to pay that kind of money for the amount of health care we actually consume.
Nonetheless, we now owe the state an extra $1,000. Ironically, that's about the extra amount we would pay out-of-pocket under our current plan if both of us actually fell ill in the same year.
So this is a good preview of what the Baucus-Pelosi-Reid-Obama Say It'll Be Good For Us Bill will do; screw us. Yeah, you can keep your private insurance; until they drive the company out of the business, or tax and fine you so bad you have to give it up(with the excuse "That insurance no longer meets our minimum requirements; screw whether you like it").
As I mentioned in the title, last I heard Mitt Romney still defends this abortion as 'a wonderful system to see people have medical care' or some such bullcrap excuse; and may I note that, sure as hell, his support of this mess will be one reason the major media weenies and RHINO morons will push him for the Stupid Party nomination for President.
Romney, I wouldn't vote for you because of your hostility to the 2nd Amendment; this is just another nail in your coffin, far as I'm concerned.
Found at Rodger's place
You shouldn't have to read about the Baucus Lies on a Sunday morning
Really any morning, but it just seems worse to read about these lies and evasions today.
Obamacare advocates in the White House, Congress and the newsroom of the New York Times were elated this week when a Congressional Budget Office statement said the health care reform bill by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would cut the federal deficit by $81 billion annually. Hallelujahs ensued all around, including a Times headline proclaiming "Health care bill gets green light in cost analysis." But two words in the CBO statement -- "Preliminary Analysis" -- demonstrate that such celebrations were not only premature, but fundamentally misleading.
Yeah, you can feel that smoky air blowing up your kilt.
CBO had to qualify its observations because it was not allowed to score the actual text of the Baucus bill but rather had to rely on a legislative summary provided by Senate committee staff. So not only were CBO's analysts forced to look at language that put the bill in the best possible light, they were also denied the concrete details and precise legal wording that quite possibly could change their conclusions entirely. Such "close enough for government work" analyses suffice for Baucus and the Times, but for everybody else, by labeling its assessment as preliminary, CBO was clearly waving yellow caution flags.
Yellow flags hell, it's shooting off red flares.
Reading further, other yellow flags were present in the CBO analysis. As The Examiner's Susan Ferrechio reported Friday, enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices.
Dump a bunch of costs on the states and claim it's 'savings'. Tax the ass of anyone who has what will be classed as 'high-end' insurance. You need a hip joint? A new knee? Add the taxes to the cost and you may be on a cane or in a wheelchair because you can't afford it. Or they'll- like Canada- have you on a waiting list for months, or years, which will give you time to scrape money together to pay the extra taxes.
There is another reason why the CBO's preliminary analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, though this one wasn't mentioned in the report. Whatever the content of the Baucus bill once it is voted out of the finance committee, it will disappear into a legislative black hole as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their key aides do what they did on the economic stimulus package back in February -- huddle together behind closed doors to write the final bill, which will then be presented as a fait accompli in the form of a conference report.
And Democrats with doubts will be threatened with "You'll weakenthe Partythe President!" and Republicans who say 'no' will be threatened in every way possible to ignore the people- y'know, the voters?- back home and cave in. And don't bother trying to read it, it's too long and you can trust us...
Socialized Medicine with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama stamp; their best chance to make our medical care so expensive and inefficient it'll make the NHS look good.
Obamacare advocates in the White House, Congress and the newsroom of the New York Times were elated this week when a Congressional Budget Office statement said the health care reform bill by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would cut the federal deficit by $81 billion annually. Hallelujahs ensued all around, including a Times headline proclaiming "Health care bill gets green light in cost analysis." But two words in the CBO statement -- "Preliminary Analysis" -- demonstrate that such celebrations were not only premature, but fundamentally misleading.
Yeah, you can feel that smoky air blowing up your kilt.
CBO had to qualify its observations because it was not allowed to score the actual text of the Baucus bill but rather had to rely on a legislative summary provided by Senate committee staff. So not only were CBO's analysts forced to look at language that put the bill in the best possible light, they were also denied the concrete details and precise legal wording that quite possibly could change their conclusions entirely. Such "close enough for government work" analyses suffice for Baucus and the Times, but for everybody else, by labeling its assessment as preliminary, CBO was clearly waving yellow caution flags.
Yellow flags hell, it's shooting off red flares.
Reading further, other yellow flags were present in the CBO analysis. As The Examiner's Susan Ferrechio reported Friday, enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices.
Dump a bunch of costs on the states and claim it's 'savings'. Tax the ass of anyone who has what will be classed as 'high-end' insurance. You need a hip joint? A new knee? Add the taxes to the cost and you may be on a cane or in a wheelchair because you can't afford it. Or they'll- like Canada- have you on a waiting list for months, or years, which will give you time to scrape money together to pay the extra taxes.
There is another reason why the CBO's preliminary analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, though this one wasn't mentioned in the report. Whatever the content of the Baucus bill once it is voted out of the finance committee, it will disappear into a legislative black hole as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and their key aides do what they did on the economic stimulus package back in February -- huddle together behind closed doors to write the final bill, which will then be presented as a fait accompli in the form of a conference report.
And Democrats with doubts will be threatened with "You'll weaken
Socialized Medicine with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama stamp; their best chance to make our medical care so expensive and inefficient it'll make the NHS look good.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Two occasions to note
One: On October 9, 1967, vile murdering piece of communist garbage Che bit the big one in Bolivia. Thus ridding the world of this disgusting excuse for a man, and giving lots of idiots a 'hero' to plaster on their shirts and masturbate over.
Two: The President of the Czech Republic is causing the EUnuchs to crap their pants. And scream and piss and moan that he won't turn his country over to them.
In faraway Brussels furious diplomats were calling for his impeachment and even his country’s expulsion from the European Union because of his obstinate refusal to sign the Lisbon treaty. Klaus, now the only European leader holding out against ratifying the document, made it clear he did not give a damn.
As I recall the Czechs make S&B ammo; I think I'll buy some just to support this.
Two: The President of the Czech Republic is causing the EUnuchs to crap their pants. And scream and piss and moan that he won't turn his country over to them.
In faraway Brussels furious diplomats were calling for his impeachment and even his country’s expulsion from the European Union because of his obstinate refusal to sign the Lisbon treaty. Klaus, now the only European leader holding out against ratifying the document, made it clear he did not give a damn.
As I recall the Czechs make S&B ammo; I think I'll buy some just to support this.
It may have been unwritten, but part of the LE job description
has always been "You may well have to put your ass on the line to save or help someone; if you haven't considered that, you'd better before you take the job."
Except now in formerly great Britain.
The public have ' unrealistic expectations' that police will put themselves in danger to protect ordinary people, according to new safety guidelines for officers.
The Health and Safety Executive caused outrage by declaring that officers confronted with dangerous situations-while fighting crime or trying to guard the public 'may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable risk'.
Its guidance published yesterday firmly plays down the need for officers to show bravery in the course of their duty if they make a 'personal choice' not to.
It states: 'There is often an unrealistic public expectation that officers and staff will put themselves at risk to protect the public.'
The document concedes that 'very occasionally in extreme cases', police may be justified in putting themselves in jeopardy - in which case they may be let off without being prosecuted under health and safety laws.
The report - which has the backing of senior police chiefs - prompted anger and astonishment last night.
To quote somebody: "Jayzus! You think MAYBE??!?"
We've got problems in LE over here(Lord, do we!) but this isn't one of them: it's the rare exception where somebody calls for help and the cops won't show up because 'it might be dangerous'. And when somebody does do such a thing(seems I've heard of a case or two in the past, but can't remember any particulars), the outrage lands on them like a truckload of bricks. And rightly so. Wearing the badge is like wearing the uniform of the armed forces; you damned well know when you take it up that when the time comes part of the job is putting your ass on the line.
Combine that with the first part of Kevin's post:
REPORTS of the law-abiding being serially neglected by the police when their property comes under attack are proliferating. Every day brings new stories about people who have been let down by constabularies that always seem to have higher priorities than protecting the public.
It appears that far from being an occasional aberration, such neglect is the norm in many parts of the country.
Too many forces have fallen under the command of politically correct top brass who think officers should be at best neutral when they intervene in altercations between harassed householders and gangs of thugs.
The latest examples are all too typical. In Lincolnshire, Ted Nottingham has felt compelled to advertise a reward for the capture of yobs who have vandalised his car more than 40 times and have now wrecked his neighbour’s vehicle.
In Stourbridge, disabled widow Brenda Hill has been forced to put up notices in her car, begging vandals to stop smashing it up after five attacks in the past year.
You know, trying to be an effective cop in Britain has to be like being an honest cop in New Orleans: so damned frustating at times you wonder why they don't say "To hell with it" and walk. The bad ones just sluff along playing the game; the good ones break their heads trying to actually be a Police Officer. And you know the good ones are thinking the same thing we are when we read the above: "If we cannot or will not do the job, sooner or later people will start dealing with the yobs themselves. And when we show up to arrest them for it, the war starts."
Except now in formerly great Britain.
The public have ' unrealistic expectations' that police will put themselves in danger to protect ordinary people, according to new safety guidelines for officers.
The Health and Safety Executive caused outrage by declaring that officers confronted with dangerous situations-while fighting crime or trying to guard the public 'may choose not to put themselves at unreasonable risk'.
Its guidance published yesterday firmly plays down the need for officers to show bravery in the course of their duty if they make a 'personal choice' not to.
It states: 'There is often an unrealistic public expectation that officers and staff will put themselves at risk to protect the public.'
The document concedes that 'very occasionally in extreme cases', police may be justified in putting themselves in jeopardy - in which case they may be let off without being prosecuted under health and safety laws.
The report - which has the backing of senior police chiefs - prompted anger and astonishment last night.
To quote somebody: "Jayzus! You think MAYBE??!?"
We've got problems in LE over here(Lord, do we!) but this isn't one of them: it's the rare exception where somebody calls for help and the cops won't show up because 'it might be dangerous'. And when somebody does do such a thing(seems I've heard of a case or two in the past, but can't remember any particulars), the outrage lands on them like a truckload of bricks. And rightly so. Wearing the badge is like wearing the uniform of the armed forces; you damned well know when you take it up that when the time comes part of the job is putting your ass on the line.
Combine that with the first part of Kevin's post:
REPORTS of the law-abiding being serially neglected by the police when their property comes under attack are proliferating. Every day brings new stories about people who have been let down by constabularies that always seem to have higher priorities than protecting the public.
It appears that far from being an occasional aberration, such neglect is the norm in many parts of the country.
Too many forces have fallen under the command of politically correct top brass who think officers should be at best neutral when they intervene in altercations between harassed householders and gangs of thugs.
The latest examples are all too typical. In Lincolnshire, Ted Nottingham has felt compelled to advertise a reward for the capture of yobs who have vandalised his car more than 40 times and have now wrecked his neighbour’s vehicle.
In Stourbridge, disabled widow Brenda Hill has been forced to put up notices in her car, begging vandals to stop smashing it up after five attacks in the past year.
You know, trying to be an effective cop in Britain has to be like being an honest cop in New Orleans: so damned frustating at times you wonder why they don't say "To hell with it" and walk. The bad ones just sluff along playing the game; the good ones break their heads trying to actually be a Police Officer. And you know the good ones are thinking the same thing we are when we read the above: "If we cannot or will not do the job, sooner or later people will start dealing with the yobs themselves. And when we show up to arrest them for it, the war starts."
Obama wins again!
“President Obama is honored to accept the NASCAR award for Rookie Of The Year. As a close personal friend of Ricky Bobby, the president is well aware of the embedded American values of competition and wholesome recreation that NASCAR represents. Additionally, President Obama shares many of the same tastes as the fans of the sport and has even sipped on a PBR once when the local convenience store was out of his usual imported brand. Over the years, NASCAR has shown the ability to change with the nation and the president recognizes what a singular honor this award is. In fact, one of NASCAR’s greatest influences on the president can be summed up in the following; go fast, turn left.”
Fan reaction has been mixed. One man from Charlotte stated, “Well hell, if they’ll let that queer Jeff Gordon race a car, I guess it don’t make no nevermind that they give rookie of the year to some colored guy who don’t even drive him own self around.” Another NASCAR fan disagreed, saying that she thought that the president probably doesn’t even realize that NASCAR isn’t a community organization. “Maybe if NASCAR hired a few hookers and some undocumented day laborers, it might be better, but I don’t think the president understands what NASCAR is all about.”.
Fan reaction has been mixed. One man from Charlotte stated, “Well hell, if they’ll let that queer Jeff Gordon race a car, I guess it don’t make no nevermind that they give rookie of the year to some colored guy who don’t even drive him own self around.” Another NASCAR fan disagreed, saying that she thought that the president probably doesn’t even realize that NASCAR isn’t a community organization. “Maybe if NASCAR hired a few hookers and some undocumented day laborers, it might be better, but I don’t think the president understands what NASCAR is all about.”.
Further reason why a lot of people in Congress should be fired.
Preferably after- or at least followed by- tar and feathers.
So they didn’t end the reduction from our military retired pay to pay for our own disability, they didn’t end the reduction in widows’ benefits (that their husbands earned for them) and they didn’t fix eligibility for Reserve soldiers who served in the war against terror. But they did fix the thing they inflicted on service members last week. What kind of childish bullshit are they trying to pull on us?
So they didn’t end the reduction from our military retired pay to pay for our own disability, they didn’t end the reduction in widows’ benefits (that their husbands earned for them) and they didn’t fix eligibility for Reserve soldiers who served in the war against terror. But they did fix the thing they inflicted on service members last week. What kind of childish bullshit are they trying to pull on us?
I guess governing is harder than making campaign promises.
Friday, October 09, 2009
If you have a strong stomach, and remove the breakables
from reach, read this: interview with a guy who went undercover to investigate NAMBLA. Who also speaks on the child molester Polanski and the clowns who make excuses for him.
By the way, the people who say "Polanski never did it again!"? Bullshit; among other things, he started sleeping with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15, and the bastard had a reputation before that of messing with young girls.
By the way, the people who say "Polanski never did it again!"? Bullshit; among other things, he started sleeping with Nastassja Kinski when she was 15, and the bastard had a reputation before that of messing with young girls.
Quote of the day
Referring to the wonderful document known as The Constitution,
Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.
David Mamet, Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal
Note to self: when setting both italics and a link, make sure the damned link actually links
Ok, no idea why but the link keeps not working; here's the address:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
He buys a lot of the "Bush stole the election!"-type crap, otherwise a good piece. There are some pictures on the sidebar that make this possibly NSFW
Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.
David Mamet, Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal
Note to self: when setting both italics and a link, make sure the damned link actually links
Ok, no idea why but the link keeps not working; here's the address:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/
He buys a lot of the "Bush stole the election!"-type crap, otherwise a good piece. There are some pictures on the sidebar that make this possibly NSFW
As of this time the .22 pistol post has 14 replies,
and it breaks down as
Walther P11, 1
S&W 22A, 1
Sig Mosquito, 1.5(Would be 2,except Conant sort of damns his with faint praise)
Beretta Neo, 1
Various model Ruger, 7
The big gripe with the Rugers is takedown/reassembly, otherwise their owners generally love them. Decent price, solidly made and accurate. Which has been my experience.
Of all these, I've fired the Ruger MkII and 22/45(early version), Mosquito and Neo. The Mosquito I wrote about friend's problems with here; it was fairly accurate, and comfortable in the hand, but I've heard of too many problems to be comfortable recommending them(side note: Tam says she believes it's made by Umarex for Sig; doesn't Umarex also make the Colt .22 version AR15? And doesn't it have a bunch of problems too?).
The Neo looks halfway like a ray gun, and the one I fired was both reliable and accurate; the guy at the range who let me fire it loved it and had two: his and the new one he was sighting in for his wife.
On the Walther I've read of a bunch of problems with slides cracking; anybody know more? (I think I read somewhere that Umarex makes the slides; if I'm remembering right, damn) The other side is, a lot of people have them and love them.
So that's what came in, make of it what you will. Ruger has their problems, but they do make some good .22 pistols.
Know what I'd like? Someone to start making the High Standard Sport King again; that's a fine-shooting thing, and solid as a rock.
Walther P11, 1
S&W 22A, 1
Sig Mosquito, 1.5(Would be 2,except Conant sort of damns his with faint praise)
Beretta Neo, 1
Various model Ruger, 7
The big gripe with the Rugers is takedown/reassembly, otherwise their owners generally love them. Decent price, solidly made and accurate. Which has been my experience.
Of all these, I've fired the Ruger MkII and 22/45(early version), Mosquito and Neo. The Mosquito I wrote about friend's problems with here; it was fairly accurate, and comfortable in the hand, but I've heard of too many problems to be comfortable recommending them(side note: Tam says she believes it's made by Umarex for Sig; doesn't Umarex also make the Colt .22 version AR15? And doesn't it have a bunch of problems too?).
The Neo looks halfway like a ray gun, and the one I fired was both reliable and accurate; the guy at the range who let me fire it loved it and had two: his and the new one he was sighting in for his wife.
On the Walther I've read of a bunch of problems with slides cracking; anybody know more? (I think I read somewhere that Umarex makes the slides; if I'm remembering right, damn) The other side is, a lot of people have them and love them.
So that's what came in, make of it what you will. Ruger has their problems, but they do make some good .22 pistols.
Know what I'd like? Someone to start making the High Standard Sport King again; that's a fine-shooting thing, and solid as a rock.
Honduras tells the OAS to kiss their collective ass
In proper diplomatic language, of course.
Yesterday Honduran president Roberto Micheletti had the opportunity to speak to the OAS in public, and speak he did: Honduras President Roberto Micheletti blasted OAS in new round of crisis talks
Yesterday Honduran president Roberto Micheletti had the opportunity to speak to the OAS in public, and speak he did: Honduras President Roberto Micheletti blasted OAS in new round of crisis talks
“First, I wish to express unending thanks for the good will that you are showing . . . but we must speak out about something: the truth. You do not know the whole truth and, at times it appears that you do not want to hear it. Why don’t we begin to investigate what happened before the 28th of June?
What happened was that Zelaya attempted to extend his own term limits, something specifically forbidden by the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya was also plundering the state treasury,
“Today we have the evidence. This is not just talk. Where Mr. Zelaya was feeding his horses with government money, where he paid the man who kept it with the State’s funds; twenty-seven thousand lempiras per month for the keeper and 20 thousand for the horses’ feed. Jewels purchased with government money, charged to the treasury of the Republic. But no one wants to see any of that. I would like you to investigate what has happened with the Treasury of Honduras in the past three months since we have been in charge.Good for Honduras.“We were accused and sentenced in the 20 minutes that the OAS meeting lasted, where it was presumed we had staged a coup d’état. Unfortunately, in this country, some people read our constitution and say it’s a monstrosity; but that monstrosity has kept order, quiet and peace in this country for 29 years under a democratic regime in which nobody had attempted to breach the constitutional order in our country by trying to set up a Constitutional convention.”
Maybe they decided Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize
for his concerns about religion and free speech.
Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.
The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.
...
During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".
Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.
All righty, then.
These revelations are found in Sunstein's new book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, in which he attacks the plague of "rumors" besetting the Obama administration. Rumors must be regulated, according to Sunstein. Suspiciously, Sunstein's definition of "rumors" never seems to favor conservatives. To combat "rumors," Sunstein proposes fines, and even obligatory retractions, in the case of Internet publications.[1]
In his new book, harsh penalties would be meted out for those that "spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president," an occurrence likely to increase if Sunstein continues to assault the very foundations upon which America is built.[2] Sunstein will have to accuse millions of Americans of "spreading rumors." Perhaps Sunstein even dreams of an eventual final solution for rumor perpetrators.
...
The essence of America is freedom for all who seek it. This includes freedom of the press, freedom to speak the truth, freedom to criticize our leaders. If America becomes a land of "freedom for some," it will cease to be America. There is no possible justification for the desecration of liberty, and if an ideology requires the desecration of liberty to succeed, it has no place in America. Freedom of speech, that precious gift men have died to protect, is rubbish to Sunstein, who considers the Constitution to be nothing more than a set of outmoded guidelines:
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name.
Sunstein adds that his proposal is "almost certainly unconstitutional." It is curious that an effort to restrict the freedom of individual Americans to express ideas is "democratic" in Sunstein's lexicon.
Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.
The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.
...
During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".
Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.
All righty, then.
These revelations are found in Sunstein's new book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, in which he attacks the plague of "rumors" besetting the Obama administration. Rumors must be regulated, according to Sunstein. Suspiciously, Sunstein's definition of "rumors" never seems to favor conservatives. To combat "rumors," Sunstein proposes fines, and even obligatory retractions, in the case of Internet publications.[1]
In his new book, harsh penalties would be meted out for those that "spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president," an occurrence likely to increase if Sunstein continues to assault the very foundations upon which America is built.[2] Sunstein will have to accuse millions of Americans of "spreading rumors." Perhaps Sunstein even dreams of an eventual final solution for rumor perpetrators.
...
The essence of America is freedom for all who seek it. This includes freedom of the press, freedom to speak the truth, freedom to criticize our leaders. If America becomes a land of "freedom for some," it will cease to be America. There is no possible justification for the desecration of liberty, and if an ideology requires the desecration of liberty to succeed, it has no place in America. Freedom of speech, that precious gift men have died to protect, is rubbish to Sunstein, who considers the Constitution to be nothing more than a set of outmoded guidelines:
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government... Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name.
Sunstein adds that his proposal is "almost certainly unconstitutional." It is curious that an effort to restrict the freedom of individual Americans to express ideas is "democratic" in Sunstein's lexicon.
More on the Battle of COP Keating
here.
I have to wonder; the bad guys had to know the base was about to be destroyed and abandoned, so did they launch the attack so they could claim "We drove the infidels out"? From the report, they lost a LOT of men and equipment, but past evidence would say they'd care less about that than about the chance to claim a victory.
I have to wonder; the bad guys had to know the base was about to be destroyed and abandoned, so did they launch the attack so they could claim "We drove the infidels out"? From the report, they lost a LOT of men and equipment, but past evidence would say they'd care less about that than about the chance to claim a victory.
I think the Saudis have enough of our money,
thank you very much.
Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
Screw the 'climate pact' bullcrap; I've said before, we build nuclear power plants, develop fusion plants, we do anything that actually produces the power we need and reduces need for oil, the oil ticks once again become the lords of the world's biggest litter box. And they know it.
Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
Screw the 'climate pact' bullcrap; I've said before, we build nuclear power plants, develop fusion plants, we do anything that actually produces the power we need and reduces need for oil, the oil ticks once again become the lords of the world's biggest litter box. And they know it.
Ah, the wonders of socialized medicine...
More than 5,700 patients died or suffered serious harm as a result of staff errors in the NHS over a six-month period, figures showed today.
Figures from the National Patient Safety Agency showed that 459,500 patient safety incidents and near misses occurred in England between last October and March.
This is a 12 per cent increase on the previous six months but the agency, which collects and monitors safety data in the NHS, said that better reporting was fuelling the rise.
Uh, ok.
Martin Fletcher, the agency’s chief executive, added: “More reports do not mean more risks to patients. Indeed, quite the reverse. These data are sound evidence of an improving reporting culture across the NHS. Frontline staff are more likely than ever to raise safety concerns much more openly.”
Ok, if this jump is from 'improved reporting', what are the real numbers?
From another article,
Up to one in 50 patients in hospital is being treated for problems caused by previous NHS care, official figures show today.
A study by the the NHS Information Centre found that patients in England were treated for complications resulting from treatment on 326,000 occasions over a 12-month period — equivalent to two per cent of all hospital admissions.
The figures include cases of botched surgery, excessive bleeding or serious side-effects to medicines or therapies given to help patients.
'One in 50' doesn't sound too bad, but then you get to this:
A spokesman for the NHS Information Centre said: “These figures do not include people with minor complications that could have been dealt with outside hospital. It only deals with serious complications where patients had to be re-admitted to hospital as a consequence of earlier treatment.
So this only counts 'serious complications'. Which could mean the actual number is WAY higher than 'up to 1 in 50'.
Yep, we'd just LOOOOVE having our own National Health Service, wouldn't we?
Figures from the National Patient Safety Agency showed that 459,500 patient safety incidents and near misses occurred in England between last October and March.
This is a 12 per cent increase on the previous six months but the agency, which collects and monitors safety data in the NHS, said that better reporting was fuelling the rise.
Uh, ok.
Martin Fletcher, the agency’s chief executive, added: “More reports do not mean more risks to patients. Indeed, quite the reverse. These data are sound evidence of an improving reporting culture across the NHS. Frontline staff are more likely than ever to raise safety concerns much more openly.”
Ok, if this jump is from 'improved reporting', what are the real numbers?
From another article,
Up to one in 50 patients in hospital is being treated for problems caused by previous NHS care, official figures show today.
A study by the the NHS Information Centre found that patients in England were treated for complications resulting from treatment on 326,000 occasions over a 12-month period — equivalent to two per cent of all hospital admissions.
The figures include cases of botched surgery, excessive bleeding or serious side-effects to medicines or therapies given to help patients.
'One in 50' doesn't sound too bad, but then you get to this:
A spokesman for the NHS Information Centre said: “These figures do not include people with minor complications that could have been dealt with outside hospital. It only deals with serious complications where patients had to be re-admitted to hospital as a consequence of earlier treatment.
So this only counts 'serious complications'. Which could mean the actual number is WAY higher than 'up to 1 in 50'.
Yep, we'd just LOOOOVE having our own National Health Service, wouldn't we?
What matters more to Rep. Pelosi(Corrupt Boob-CA)
than dealing with a corrupt Rep. Charles Rangel(Corrupt Tax-Cheat-NY)?
But even if Pelosi relented and asked Rangel to relinquish his gavel, there would be a political firestorm, as she would be moving to oust a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus from a chairmanship he waited nearly four decades to get.
Screw corruption, screw tax evasion by the clown writing tax laws, "I musn't get the Black Caucus mad at me! That's FAR more important a concern."
But even if Pelosi relented and asked Rangel to relinquish his gavel, there would be a political firestorm, as she would be moving to oust a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus from a chairmanship he waited nearly four decades to get.
Screw corruption, screw tax evasion by the clown writing tax laws, "I musn't get the Black Caucus mad at me! That's FAR more important a concern."
Marek Edelman: someone whose death should have received far more notice
Dr. Marek Edelman, a cardiologist who was the last surviving commander of the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising against the Germans, died Friday in Warsaw, Poland. He was 90.
A friend, Paula Sawicka, said he died "among friends, among his close people," at her home, where he had lived for the past two years.
Dr. Edelman was one of a handful of young leaders who in April 1943 led a force of 220 young Jewish men and women in a hopeless struggle against the Germans.
If a nutcase dictator is happy that you're in office...
"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
--Muammar Qaddafi, 2003
"We'd be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever."
--Muammar Quaddafi, 2009
Gotta agree with Will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)