Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Speaking of 'Law Enforcement- Sorry Excuse For',
A father and son are furious after surviving a terrifying experience. They face criminal charges after police responded to their home by mistake.
Murfreesboro officers responded to a 911 emergency call and somehow ended up at the wrong apartment.
Roger and Justin Chilton woke to a pounding on their door at 3 a.m. Sunday. Justin - a decorated military policeman who had just returned from Iraq - answered the door holding his gun.
The officers then arrested Justin and his father.
"They held us at gunpoint, slammed us to the ground, stomped my hands and butted me in the back of the head with a shotgun," said Justin.
The officers charged the Chilton's with resisting arrest and aggravated assault for the incident.
Police did not drop the charges even after learning they responded to the wrong house.
Morons. Wrong place, wrong people, so you charge them. For, I guess, not arriving at the door on their knees to make it easy to knock them to the floor.
Murfreesboro police chief Glenn Chrisman has opened an internal investigation.
Well, isn't that nice? I wonder if it was another "They were following procedures" excuse-type investigation? I say 'was' because this is dated back in February.
Ok, searched and found this:
A police officer and an emergency dispatcher face suspension in Rutherford County after a bizarre mistake and claims of unprofessional conduct.
NewsChannel 5 reporter Nick Beres obtained police video and audio of the incident that all began with a prank 911 call.
The problem is police were dispatched to the wrong address. What happened next has become an embarrassment to the Murfreesboro Police Department.
Well, yeah.
Police arrested Roger Chilton and his son Justin. The arrest came after a frightened Justin, a military police officer who just returned from Iraq, answered the door with a gun.
"I thought someone was breaking into the house. Nobody identified themselves," said Roger.
Because, I guess, you're just supposed to KNOW it's a cop beating on the door.
"We had some issues with the language and the behavior of one of our officers on the scene that night," said police spokesperson Kyle Evans.
Evans said Officer Carl Watts faces suspension for his conduct.
Watts could be heard during an audio recording of the incident yelling at Justin's pregnant girlfriend to get on the floor.
"Roll over on your back," he told her. After she said she was pregnant, she said Watts had no sympathy.
An official complaint quotes the officer as saying, "I don't give a ----. You've already ----- up your life by being a pregnant teenager."
Remember, this all happened after police were sent to the wrong address - a bad dispatcher mistake made worse by Officer Watts' conduct.
So far, so good, right? Except
That's great for the future, but the Chilton's wonder about the past. Both still face criminal prosecution for answering the door and pointing a gun at an officer - some one they originally thought was an intruder.
The district attorney won't drop the resisting arrest and aggravated assault charges, even though police admit they went to the wrong home.
General Whitsell said that mistake alone does not clear the Chilton's of their conduct when the police arrived.
Whitsell should have his ass kicked out of that office. Someone beating on your door in the wee hours, NOT identifying themselves as a cop(I'm assuming that's accurate; since the whole thing was recorded, if he had, I'm sure they'd have trumpeted it) gets treated as an aggressive drunk or an attacker until proven otherwise.
I checked and couldn't find anything on whether or not the charges were finally dropped; hopefully so. But with idiots like Whitsell, I just don't know.
Found through Uncle.
Murfreesboro officers responded to a 911 emergency call and somehow ended up at the wrong apartment.
Roger and Justin Chilton woke to a pounding on their door at 3 a.m. Sunday. Justin - a decorated military policeman who had just returned from Iraq - answered the door holding his gun.
The officers then arrested Justin and his father.
"They held us at gunpoint, slammed us to the ground, stomped my hands and butted me in the back of the head with a shotgun," said Justin.
The officers charged the Chilton's with resisting arrest and aggravated assault for the incident.
Police did not drop the charges even after learning they responded to the wrong house.
Morons. Wrong place, wrong people, so you charge them. For, I guess, not arriving at the door on their knees to make it easy to knock them to the floor.
Murfreesboro police chief Glenn Chrisman has opened an internal investigation.
Well, isn't that nice? I wonder if it was another "They were following procedures" excuse-type investigation? I say 'was' because this is dated back in February.
Ok, searched and found this:
A police officer and an emergency dispatcher face suspension in Rutherford County after a bizarre mistake and claims of unprofessional conduct.
NewsChannel 5 reporter Nick Beres obtained police video and audio of the incident that all began with a prank 911 call.
The problem is police were dispatched to the wrong address. What happened next has become an embarrassment to the Murfreesboro Police Department.
Well, yeah.
Police arrested Roger Chilton and his son Justin. The arrest came after a frightened Justin, a military police officer who just returned from Iraq, answered the door with a gun.
"I thought someone was breaking into the house. Nobody identified themselves," said Roger.
Because, I guess, you're just supposed to KNOW it's a cop beating on the door.
"We had some issues with the language and the behavior of one of our officers on the scene that night," said police spokesperson Kyle Evans.
Evans said Officer Carl Watts faces suspension for his conduct.
Watts could be heard during an audio recording of the incident yelling at Justin's pregnant girlfriend to get on the floor.
"Roll over on your back," he told her. After she said she was pregnant, she said Watts had no sympathy.
An official complaint quotes the officer as saying, "I don't give a ----. You've already ----- up your life by being a pregnant teenager."
Remember, this all happened after police were sent to the wrong address - a bad dispatcher mistake made worse by Officer Watts' conduct.
So far, so good, right? Except
That's great for the future, but the Chilton's wonder about the past. Both still face criminal prosecution for answering the door and pointing a gun at an officer - some one they originally thought was an intruder.
The district attorney won't drop the resisting arrest and aggravated assault charges, even though police admit they went to the wrong home.
General Whitsell said that mistake alone does not clear the Chilton's of their conduct when the police arrived.
Whitsell should have his ass kicked out of that office. Someone beating on your door in the wee hours, NOT identifying themselves as a cop(I'm assuming that's accurate; since the whole thing was recorded, if he had, I'm sure they'd have trumpeted it) gets treated as an aggressive drunk or an attacker until proven otherwise.
I checked and couldn't find anything on whether or not the charges were finally dropped; hopefully so. But with idiots like Whitsell, I just don't know.
Found through Uncle.
The Senate made an apology for slavery the other day,
thus continuing the tradition of useless gestures that make various people feel good. Best of the Web Today had a post on it, including criticizing someone named Carol Swain who insisted that the Republicans should have initiated the apology because it "would have [helped] shed that racist scab on the party."
That crap was appropriately criticized,
The Republican Party came into existence in the 1850s as an antislavery party. It was the first GOP president, Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, ordering slaves in Confederate states freed. Republican Congresses proposed the 13th Amendment, along with the 14th (granting former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the law) and the 15th (giving them the right to vote). Republicans pushed for Reconstruction only to be thwarted by Democrats.
Segregationists remained a core component of the Democratic coalition well into the 20th century. No Democratic president before Harry S. Truman made any significant moves to expand civil rights for blacks; and although President Lyndon B. Johnson was instrumental in pushing the Civil Rights Act through Congress, a greater proportion of Republicans than Democrats supported it.
which lead to her to respond. Among the rest,
Despite a barrage of criticisms, I stand firmly behind my Washington Post comments. It is the Republican Party that has alienated minorities in recent decades by a series of high profile racist incidents. By not taking the leadership role in crafting a national apology when it was in power, the Republican Party missed an important opportunity to help heal America. It also missed an opportunity to reclaim its faded legacy as the party of civil rights and the party of Lincoln.
Uh huh. Let's see, primarily Democrats voted against the Voting Rights Bill, most of the KKK and such boobs were Democrats, it was the Democrat Party that held power in the south during Jim Crow... And it's the current Evil Party that's used minorities, primarily blacks, like counters on a board. I seem to remember some static a while back because a lot of blacks were realizing that, since latinos were becoming a big minority, the Evil Party was making large moves to court them and kind of dumping on blacks. Not like they hadn't for a long time, but it was being openly acknowledged, finally. But the Republican Party(generally known as the Stupid Party for other reasons) should have 'led the charge for an apology to make up for its racist past'.
About what you'd expect from a jackass academic. Anyone who spends this kind of time on an issue 'dear to my heart' that insists people who had nothing to do with it should apologize for something that happened a long time ago... I'm sure she thinks the race warlord poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton & Co. are just wonderful.
That crap was appropriately criticized,
The Republican Party came into existence in the 1850s as an antislavery party. It was the first GOP president, Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, ordering slaves in Confederate states freed. Republican Congresses proposed the 13th Amendment, along with the 14th (granting former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the law) and the 15th (giving them the right to vote). Republicans pushed for Reconstruction only to be thwarted by Democrats.
Segregationists remained a core component of the Democratic coalition well into the 20th century. No Democratic president before Harry S. Truman made any significant moves to expand civil rights for blacks; and although President Lyndon B. Johnson was instrumental in pushing the Civil Rights Act through Congress, a greater proportion of Republicans than Democrats supported it.
which lead to her to respond. Among the rest,
Despite a barrage of criticisms, I stand firmly behind my Washington Post comments. It is the Republican Party that has alienated minorities in recent decades by a series of high profile racist incidents. By not taking the leadership role in crafting a national apology when it was in power, the Republican Party missed an important opportunity to help heal America. It also missed an opportunity to reclaim its faded legacy as the party of civil rights and the party of Lincoln.
Uh huh. Let's see, primarily Democrats voted against the Voting Rights Bill, most of the KKK and such boobs were Democrats, it was the Democrat Party that held power in the south during Jim Crow... And it's the current Evil Party that's used minorities, primarily blacks, like counters on a board. I seem to remember some static a while back because a lot of blacks were realizing that, since latinos were becoming a big minority, the Evil Party was making large moves to court them and kind of dumping on blacks. Not like they hadn't for a long time, but it was being openly acknowledged, finally. But the Republican Party(generally known as the Stupid Party for other reasons) should have 'led the charge for an apology to make up for its racist past'.
About what you'd expect from a jackass academic. Anyone who spends this kind of time on an issue 'dear to my heart' that insists people who had nothing to do with it should apologize for something that happened a long time ago... I'm sure she thinks the race warlord poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton & Co. are just wonderful.
Past results of firearms registration
Joe Huffman had a link to this. I'm going to post a piece of it. It's by Neal Knox, a man who made an enormous pain in the ass of himself to those who don't like commoners owning guns:
In the summer of 1955, I was a young Texas National Guard sergeant on active duty at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. A corporal in my squad was a Belgian-American named Charles DeNaer. An old man as far as most of us were concerned, being well over thirty, Charley commanded a certain amount of our respect, for not only was he older than the rest of us, he had lived in Belgium when the Germans rolled across the low countries by-passing the Maginot Line on their way into France. He had seen war.
One soft Oklahoma afternoon, sitting on a bunk in the half-light of an old wooden barracks, he told me his story.
In Charley's little town in Belgium, there lived an old man, a gunsmith. The old man was friendly with the kids and welcomed them to his shop. He had once been an armorer to the king of Belgium, according to Charley. He told us of the wonderful guns the old man had crafted, using only hand tools. There were double shotguns and fine rifles with beautiful hardwood stocks and gorgeous engraving and inlay work. Charley liked the old man and enjoyed looking at the guns. He often did chores around the shop.
One day the gunsmith sent for Charley. Arriving at the shop, Charley found the old man carefully oiling and wrapping guns in oilcloth and paper. Charley asked what he was doing. The old smith gestured to a piece of paper on the workbench and said that an order had come to him to register all of his guns. He was to list every gun with a description on a piece of paper and then to send the paper to the government. The old man had no intention of complying with the registration law and had summoned Charley to help him bury the guns at a railroad crossing. Charley asked why he didn't simply comply with the order and keep the guns. The old man, with tears in his eyes, replied to the boy, "If I register them, they will be taken away. "
A year or two later, the blitzkrieg rolled across the Low Countries. One day not long after, the war arrived in Charley's town. A squad of German SS troops banged on the door of a house that Charley knew well. The family had twin sons about Charley's age. The twins were his best friends. The officer displayed a paper describing a Luger pistol, a relic of the Great War, and ordered the father to produce it. That old gun had been lost, stolen, or misplaced sometime after it had been registered, the father explained. He did not know where it was.
The officer told the father that he had exactly fifteen minutes to produce the weapon. The family turned their home upside down. No pistol. They returned to the SS officer empty-handed.
The officer gave an order and soldiers herded the family outside while other troops called the entire town out into the square. There on the town square the SS machine-gunned the entire family-father, mother, Charley's two friends, their older brother and a baby sister.
I will never forget the moment. We were sitting on the bunk on a Saturday afternoon and Charley was crying, huge tears rolling down his cheeks, making silver dollar size splotches on the dusty barracks floor. That was my conversion from a casual gun owner to one who was determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening in America.
And, because it speaks of people abusing power, the security theater of the TSA and ignoring of little things like the Constitution that far too many LE people go with, I'm also throwing in this from the Advice Goddess:
There are no restrictions on carrying large sums of cash on flights within the United States, but the TSA allegedly took Bierfeldt to a windowless room and, along with other law enforcement agencies, questioned him for almost half an hour about the money.
An excerpt:
Officer: Why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.
Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.
Officer: Answer that question first, why do you have this money.
Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?
Officer: So you refuse to answer that question?
Bierfeldt: No, sir, I am not refusing.
Officer: Well, you're not answering.
Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.
...
"You're in a locked room with no windows. You've got TSA agent. You've got police officers with loaded guns. They're in your face. A few of them were swearing at me."
But the officers did not follow through on their threats. Near the end of the recording an additional officer enters the situation and realizes the origins of the money.
Officer: So these are campaign contributions for Ron Paul?
Bierfeldt: Yes, sir.
Officer: You're free to go.
... Bierfeldt contends he never refused to answer a question, he only sought to clarify his constitutional rights.
advertisement
"I asked them, 'Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me? Am I required to tell you where I am working? Am I required to tell you how I got the cash? Nothing I've done is suspicious. I'm not breaking any laws. I just want to go to my flight. Please advise me as to my rights.' And they didn't."
We have, unfortunately, come to expect this kind of crap from TSA; that a bunch of other LE officers went along with this, apparently just because they could and wanted an answer(even though it was none of their damn business).
In the summer of 1955, I was a young Texas National Guard sergeant on active duty at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. A corporal in my squad was a Belgian-American named Charles DeNaer. An old man as far as most of us were concerned, being well over thirty, Charley commanded a certain amount of our respect, for not only was he older than the rest of us, he had lived in Belgium when the Germans rolled across the low countries by-passing the Maginot Line on their way into France. He had seen war.
One soft Oklahoma afternoon, sitting on a bunk in the half-light of an old wooden barracks, he told me his story.
In Charley's little town in Belgium, there lived an old man, a gunsmith. The old man was friendly with the kids and welcomed them to his shop. He had once been an armorer to the king of Belgium, according to Charley. He told us of the wonderful guns the old man had crafted, using only hand tools. There were double shotguns and fine rifles with beautiful hardwood stocks and gorgeous engraving and inlay work. Charley liked the old man and enjoyed looking at the guns. He often did chores around the shop.
One day the gunsmith sent for Charley. Arriving at the shop, Charley found the old man carefully oiling and wrapping guns in oilcloth and paper. Charley asked what he was doing. The old smith gestured to a piece of paper on the workbench and said that an order had come to him to register all of his guns. He was to list every gun with a description on a piece of paper and then to send the paper to the government. The old man had no intention of complying with the registration law and had summoned Charley to help him bury the guns at a railroad crossing. Charley asked why he didn't simply comply with the order and keep the guns. The old man, with tears in his eyes, replied to the boy, "If I register them, they will be taken away. "
A year or two later, the blitzkrieg rolled across the Low Countries. One day not long after, the war arrived in Charley's town. A squad of German SS troops banged on the door of a house that Charley knew well. The family had twin sons about Charley's age. The twins were his best friends. The officer displayed a paper describing a Luger pistol, a relic of the Great War, and ordered the father to produce it. That old gun had been lost, stolen, or misplaced sometime after it had been registered, the father explained. He did not know where it was.
The officer told the father that he had exactly fifteen minutes to produce the weapon. The family turned their home upside down. No pistol. They returned to the SS officer empty-handed.
The officer gave an order and soldiers herded the family outside while other troops called the entire town out into the square. There on the town square the SS machine-gunned the entire family-father, mother, Charley's two friends, their older brother and a baby sister.
I will never forget the moment. We were sitting on the bunk on a Saturday afternoon and Charley was crying, huge tears rolling down his cheeks, making silver dollar size splotches on the dusty barracks floor. That was my conversion from a casual gun owner to one who was determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening in America.
And, because it speaks of people abusing power, the security theater of the TSA and ignoring of little things like the Constitution that far too many LE people go with, I'm also throwing in this from the Advice Goddess:
There are no restrictions on carrying large sums of cash on flights within the United States, but the TSA allegedly took Bierfeldt to a windowless room and, along with other law enforcement agencies, questioned him for almost half an hour about the money.
An excerpt:
Officer: Why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.
Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.
Officer: Answer that question first, why do you have this money.
Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?
Officer: So you refuse to answer that question?
Bierfeldt: No, sir, I am not refusing.
Officer: Well, you're not answering.
Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.
...
"You're in a locked room with no windows. You've got TSA agent. You've got police officers with loaded guns. They're in your face. A few of them were swearing at me."
But the officers did not follow through on their threats. Near the end of the recording an additional officer enters the situation and realizes the origins of the money.
Officer: So these are campaign contributions for Ron Paul?
Bierfeldt: Yes, sir.
Officer: You're free to go.
... Bierfeldt contends he never refused to answer a question, he only sought to clarify his constitutional rights.
advertisement
"I asked them, 'Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me? Am I required to tell you where I am working? Am I required to tell you how I got the cash? Nothing I've done is suspicious. I'm not breaking any laws. I just want to go to my flight. Please advise me as to my rights.' And they didn't."
We have, unfortunately, come to expect this kind of crap from TSA; that a bunch of other LE officers went along with this, apparently just because they could and wanted an answer(even though it was none of their damn business).
Apparently the Iranian government is studying the People's Republic of China
for ideas; the PRC murders dissidents and then charges the family for the cartridge, though I don't think they overcharge on this level:
On Saturday, amid the most violent clashes between security forces and protesters, Mr. Alipour was shot in the head as he stood at an intersection in downtown Tehran. He was returning from acting class and a week shy of becoming a groom, his family said.
...
At the crack of dawn, his father began searching at police stations, then hospitals and then the morgue.
Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.
And, just to make it even better,
Mr. Alipour told officials that his entire possessions wouldn't amount to $3,000, arguing they should waive the fee because he is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war. According to relatives, morgue officials finally agreed, but demanded that the family do no funeral or burial in Tehran. Kaveh Alipour's body was quietly transported to the city of Rasht, where there is family.
On Saturday, amid the most violent clashes between security forces and protesters, Mr. Alipour was shot in the head as he stood at an intersection in downtown Tehran. He was returning from acting class and a week shy of becoming a groom, his family said.
...
At the crack of dawn, his father began searching at police stations, then hospitals and then the morgue.
Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.
And, just to make it even better,
Mr. Alipour told officials that his entire possessions wouldn't amount to $3,000, arguing they should waive the fee because he is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war. According to relatives, morgue officials finally agreed, but demanded that the family do no funeral or burial in Tehran. Kaveh Alipour's body was quietly transported to the city of Rasht, where there is family.
Quote of the day, which connects to more ACORN news
From Mikey in comments:
From little ACORNs, mighty hoax do grow.
And the update:
The White House is on a witch hunt against inspectors general who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
And now, taxpayer-subsidized ACORN affiliate Project Vote — where President Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer and learned Leftist intimidation tactics up close and personal — is going after whistleblower Anita MonCrief and an anonymous “John Doe” defendant for posting invaluable documents that reveal the money-shuffling racket.
Obama. ACORN. Project Vote. Corrupt birds of a feather bully together.
The scoop: Project Vote has filed a federal lawsuit against MonCrief for blogging about her experience and knowledge of the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization’s partisan and political activities, including coordination with the Obama campaign. Project Vote seeks compensatory damages and exemplary damages “of at least $5 million” and all costs and attorney’s fees on trumped-up charges of “trademark infringement” and publication of “trade secrets.”
You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that this is a blatant act of retaliation. MonCrief has always been open and honest about her firing from Project Vote. The ObamACORN mob used the credit card incident as a pretext then and they are using it as a pretext now. The real reason they are going after her is because she poses a fundamental threat to ACORN’s criminal racket.
Malkin has the whole complaint, as well as a post from MonCrief's blog.
From little ACORNs, mighty hoax do grow.
And the update:
The White House is on a witch hunt against inspectors general who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
And now, taxpayer-subsidized ACORN affiliate Project Vote — where President Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer and learned Leftist intimidation tactics up close and personal — is going after whistleblower Anita MonCrief and an anonymous “John Doe” defendant for posting invaluable documents that reveal the money-shuffling racket.
Obama. ACORN. Project Vote. Corrupt birds of a feather bully together.
The scoop: Project Vote has filed a federal lawsuit against MonCrief for blogging about her experience and knowledge of the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization’s partisan and political activities, including coordination with the Obama campaign. Project Vote seeks compensatory damages and exemplary damages “of at least $5 million” and all costs and attorney’s fees on trumped-up charges of “trademark infringement” and publication of “trade secrets.”
You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that this is a blatant act of retaliation. MonCrief has always been open and honest about her firing from Project Vote. The ObamACORN mob used the credit card incident as a pretext then and they are using it as a pretext now. The real reason they are going after her is because she poses a fundamental threat to ACORN’s criminal racket.
Malkin has the whole complaint, as well as a post from MonCrief's blog.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The tale of Rafferty is happily ended,
with his now being in the new digs. And reportedly very happy about it. And the other day when I went by to get a Father's Day gift from daughter, I met Rhapsody
and this space-alien-looking thing named Xoco(pronounced Shoko, they said)
Yes, it really is as small as it looks. You'd swear that if it could lay them back right, in a really strong wind, it could fly.
"Where did THAT come from?" when I saw the first one was answered with "They needed us to take them!" So now Itzl has new friends. Which he's a little frazzled at. Who'd had their shots that day, and were dragging a bit. Dropped by today to drop something off, and they were running around playing and chasing one of the cats and generally having fun. My first thought was "You know, that little one runs and plays just like a real dog!", but I didn't say that(yes, sometimes I can keep my mouth shut).
and this space-alien-looking thing named Xoco(pronounced Shoko, they said)
Yes, it really is as small as it looks. You'd swear that if it could lay them back right, in a really strong wind, it could fly."Where did THAT come from?" when I saw the first one was answered with "They needed us to take them!" So now Itzl has new friends. Which he's a little frazzled at. Who'd had their shots that day, and were dragging a bit. Dropped by today to drop something off, and they were running around playing and chasing one of the cats and generally having fun. My first thought was "You know, that little one runs and plays just like a real dog!", but I didn't say that(yes, sometimes I can keep my mouth shut).
ACORN wants to silence critics, and is changing its name
Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) leaders are using the threat of a law suit to silence and intimidate critics, according to current and former members of the liberal activist group.
In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization’s name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.
ACORN executives have also changed their organization’s name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation.
A rose by any other name still smells bad when it's been soaked in sewage. And Community Organizations International, formerly known as ACORN, is still going to be the same group. Vote fraud, Etc., Inc.
In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization’s name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.
ACORN executives have also changed their organization’s name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation.
A rose by any other name still smells bad when it's been soaked in sewage. And Community Organizations International, formerly known as ACORN, is still going to be the same group. Vote fraud, Etc., Inc.
I'm going to have to call Sheriff Michael Jackson a disgrace
to that badge he wears.
The Prince George's County sheriff's office has concluded that deputies did nothing wrong when they charged into the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights during a drug investigation last summer and fatally shot his family's two dogs.
The findings of the internal review "are consistent with what I've felt all along: My deputies did their job to the fullest extent of their abilities," Sheriff Michael Jackson said at a news conference.
Yup. And how much you want to bet, if one of those shots had killed or crippled one of the people in that house, Sheriff Jackson would be trying to blame them for it? And saying the same damn excuses?
"It's outrageous," he said. "Not only is he not admitting any wrongdoing, but he's saying this went down the way it was supposed to and he's actually commending his police officers for what they did."
Because breaking into a house for no good reason and killing dogs is apparently excusable as 'part of the job'.
Members of the SWAT team killed Calvo's black Labrador retrievers after deputies broke down his door and raided his home in search of a drug-filled package that had been addressed to Calvo's wife.
Law enforcement officials have since acknowledged that Calvo and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, were victims of a smuggling scheme that used a FedEx driver to ship drugs. They said the couple knew nothing about the box. County police, who were leading the drug investigation, have said they were unaware it was the mayor's house.
Two things: one, this is a raid that should never have happened. Two, that "We didn't know it was the mayor's house!" is interesting; like if it was, they'd have done it differently for a politician that for some stupid citizen without 'official' standing?
In an interview, Jackson reiterated his explanation that a scream by Calvo's mother-in-law, Georgia Porter, who saw officers in SWAT gear running toward the house, justified the shooting.
Porter "corroborated that she did scream out 'SWAT.' She admitted to that, and [Calvo] admitted to hearing that upstairs in the house," Jackson said. "That threw out the procedure of knocking and announcing, because now [officers were] compromised."
Three: notice how they keep saying 'admitted', like they were admitting guilt for something? Four, yeah, that sure justifies shooting the dogs, doesn't it? "...knocking and announcing..." my ass.
As I recall, at first they denied that the one dog was running away; now?
One dog was shot four times by the front door. Calvo has said his younger dog was running away from officers when it was shot twice, including once in a hind leg. Jackson said deputies thought the dog was running toward another deputy in the home.
Awww, isn't that a convenient excuse?
"I'm sorry for the loss of their family pets," Jackson said. "But this is the unfortunate result of the scourge of drugs in our community. Lost in this whole incident was the criminal element. . . . In the sense that we kept these drugs from reaching our streets, this operation was a success."
Not sorry apparently for an unnecessary raid that could have gotten innocent people killed, not sorry for scaring hell out of everybody but "this operation was a success." Except that they could have knocked on the damned door and acted like peace officers instead of strapping on their ninja gear and getting to shoot someone's dogs.
No, I'm not feeling charitable. I'm sick of LE officials excusing bullcrap actions because "They were following procedure" or "They thought the dogs were a threat" and all the other crap used to prevent the officers involved from facing any real penalty for what they do.
The Prince George's County sheriff's office has concluded that deputies did nothing wrong when they charged into the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights during a drug investigation last summer and fatally shot his family's two dogs.
The findings of the internal review "are consistent with what I've felt all along: My deputies did their job to the fullest extent of their abilities," Sheriff Michael Jackson said at a news conference.
Yup. And how much you want to bet, if one of those shots had killed or crippled one of the people in that house, Sheriff Jackson would be trying to blame them for it? And saying the same damn excuses?
"It's outrageous," he said. "Not only is he not admitting any wrongdoing, but he's saying this went down the way it was supposed to and he's actually commending his police officers for what they did."
Because breaking into a house for no good reason and killing dogs is apparently excusable as 'part of the job'.
Members of the SWAT team killed Calvo's black Labrador retrievers after deputies broke down his door and raided his home in search of a drug-filled package that had been addressed to Calvo's wife.
Law enforcement officials have since acknowledged that Calvo and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, were victims of a smuggling scheme that used a FedEx driver to ship drugs. They said the couple knew nothing about the box. County police, who were leading the drug investigation, have said they were unaware it was the mayor's house.
Two things: one, this is a raid that should never have happened. Two, that "We didn't know it was the mayor's house!" is interesting; like if it was, they'd have done it differently for a politician that for some stupid citizen without 'official' standing?
In an interview, Jackson reiterated his explanation that a scream by Calvo's mother-in-law, Georgia Porter, who saw officers in SWAT gear running toward the house, justified the shooting.
Porter "corroborated that she did scream out 'SWAT.' She admitted to that, and [Calvo] admitted to hearing that upstairs in the house," Jackson said. "That threw out the procedure of knocking and announcing, because now [officers were] compromised."
Three: notice how they keep saying 'admitted', like they were admitting guilt for something? Four, yeah, that sure justifies shooting the dogs, doesn't it? "...knocking and announcing..." my ass.
As I recall, at first they denied that the one dog was running away; now?
One dog was shot four times by the front door. Calvo has said his younger dog was running away from officers when it was shot twice, including once in a hind leg. Jackson said deputies thought the dog was running toward another deputy in the home.
Awww, isn't that a convenient excuse?
"I'm sorry for the loss of their family pets," Jackson said. "But this is the unfortunate result of the scourge of drugs in our community. Lost in this whole incident was the criminal element. . . . In the sense that we kept these drugs from reaching our streets, this operation was a success."
Not sorry apparently for an unnecessary raid that could have gotten innocent people killed, not sorry for scaring hell out of everybody but "this operation was a success." Except that they could have knocked on the damned door and acted like peace officers instead of strapping on their ninja gear and getting to shoot someone's dogs.
No, I'm not feeling charitable. I'm sick of LE officials excusing bullcrap actions because "They were following procedure" or "They thought the dogs were a threat" and all the other crap used to prevent the officers involved from facing any real penalty for what they do.
Must be nice to just 'reject criticism', especially when you're a nanny-state
politician who has to change his pants at the thought of "highly undesirable" handgun use.
The proposed legislation would ban new handgun licences, except for those used in Olympic sports.
Some 1,800 handguns have been licensed in the State since 2004.
Gasp! 1,800 in five years!! The HORROR!!!
Mr Ahern said he was determined to stamp out a practice known as “practical shooting”. His department had monitored with concern “competitions in which people shoot their way through multi-stage target courses based on real life combat scenarios, such as a home invasion or a hostage rescue”.
He said: “This activity is one that seeks to glorify and normalise attitudes to high-powered handguns and promote their use and ownership,” he said. Mr Ahern said “practical shooting” was a “highly undesirable” recent development in Irish shooting sports.
'Glorify and normalise', new scare words for the GFWs in (formerly)Great Britain. And 'highly undesirable' according to who, other than you, you nasty little politician?
The Garda authorities had recommended that it be prohibited, and it was not endorsed by the Firearms Consultative Panel, he said.
Lesson: give government boards and agencies 'approval' powers, and they'll restrict anything they don't like. Or makes them go weewee.
“It’s simply not in the public interest(or "For the CHILDREEENNNN!) to tolerate the development of a subculture predicated on a shooting activity which by the liberal standards of the US is regarded as an extreme shooting activity.”
It is? Really? Outside of the Brady Ban the Guns Group, that is? Of course, they think plinking a can with a .22 is 'extreme', so they're not exactly a good standard-giver, Mr. Ahern.
He said any cursory research on the internet showed that these activities were marketed as being at the “extreme end” of handgun ownership and were “anathema to the tradition of Irish sporting clubs”.
Again, marketed that way by who? I repeat, nasty little nanny-state politician.
And, just as bad, the people noting that Mr. Ahern is scaremongering and exaggerating have this to say:
“I just feel that there should be a mechanism for genuine sporting enthusiasts to have their licences . . . granted under the most stringent and strict conditions.”
Translation: "If we're willing to have your anal probes inserted and ONLY own what you allow and ONLY how much and what kind of ammo you allow and ONLY take it out of a lockbox when you allow, you should be willing to GRANT us a license."
And this crap is what Obama and Schumer and Boxer & Co. would like to force on us.
Thanks to Uncle for the link.
The proposed legislation would ban new handgun licences, except for those used in Olympic sports.
Some 1,800 handguns have been licensed in the State since 2004.
Gasp! 1,800 in five years!! The HORROR!!!
Mr Ahern said he was determined to stamp out a practice known as “practical shooting”. His department had monitored with concern “competitions in which people shoot their way through multi-stage target courses based on real life combat scenarios, such as a home invasion or a hostage rescue”.
He said: “This activity is one that seeks to glorify and normalise attitudes to high-powered handguns and promote their use and ownership,” he said. Mr Ahern said “practical shooting” was a “highly undesirable” recent development in Irish shooting sports.
'Glorify and normalise', new scare words for the GFWs in (formerly)Great Britain. And 'highly undesirable' according to who, other than you, you nasty little politician?
The Garda authorities had recommended that it be prohibited, and it was not endorsed by the Firearms Consultative Panel, he said.
Lesson: give government boards and agencies 'approval' powers, and they'll restrict anything they don't like. Or makes them go weewee.
“It’s simply not in the public interest(or "For the CHILDREEENNNN!) to tolerate the development of a subculture predicated on a shooting activity which by the liberal standards of the US is regarded as an extreme shooting activity.”
It is? Really? Outside of the Brady Ban the Guns Group, that is? Of course, they think plinking a can with a .22 is 'extreme', so they're not exactly a good standard-giver, Mr. Ahern.
He said any cursory research on the internet showed that these activities were marketed as being at the “extreme end” of handgun ownership and were “anathema to the tradition of Irish sporting clubs”.
Again, marketed that way by who? I repeat, nasty little nanny-state politician.
And, just as bad, the people noting that Mr. Ahern is scaremongering and exaggerating have this to say:
“I just feel that there should be a mechanism for genuine sporting enthusiasts to have their licences . . . granted under the most stringent and strict conditions.”
Translation: "If we're willing to have your anal probes inserted and ONLY own what you allow and ONLY how much and what kind of ammo you allow and ONLY take it out of a lockbox when you allow, you should be willing to GRANT us a license."
And this crap is what Obama and Schumer and Boxer & Co. would like to force on us.
Thanks to Uncle for the link.
Damn, it's hot
About 98, and the weather service says humidity's down to about 37%. Makes a big difference; it's hot, but at least you don't poach while outside.
Yesterday I'd seen some tree limbs that had sneakily grown up to/around some lines while I wasn't looking, so today got the ladder and pruning pole and cut them, then through the chipper and into the compost heaps. Which I need to water more.
I think about this weather, or ten-to-twenty degrees hotter, with higher humidity, and wearing armor and all the other gear...
This does not strike me as good. It's basically telling the bad guys that if they have hostages, they're not going to be attacked. Which means time to prepare and make a later attack worse, or time to sneak away.
Here's a new bit from Iran. If true...
“My ears first perked up when word made it through the grapevines over the weekend that Rafsanjani had been meeting with other Ayatollahs and clerics in Qom, and had among them a representative of Iraq’s Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
Why? Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2007 made two very critical statements: that “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian,” and that Islam can exist within a democracy without theological conflict. You will never hear such words slip past the lips of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. Ever.”
No, you won't. He's too busy threatening people with death for daring to do anything except bend over and say "Yes, Imam, may I have another?"
Ace notes The turning point in an uprising comes when many the regime relies upon begin fence-sitting, waiting for a victor to emerge. That is one thing; another is when people in positions of authority start deciding "I cannot carry out these orders." We may have both going on, from the sound of things.
Yesterday I'd seen some tree limbs that had sneakily grown up to/around some lines while I wasn't looking, so today got the ladder and pruning pole and cut them, then through the chipper and into the compost heaps. Which I need to water more.
I think about this weather, or ten-to-twenty degrees hotter, with higher humidity, and wearing armor and all the other gear...
This does not strike me as good. It's basically telling the bad guys that if they have hostages, they're not going to be attacked. Which means time to prepare and make a later attack worse, or time to sneak away.
Here's a new bit from Iran. If true...
“My ears first perked up when word made it through the grapevines over the weekend that Rafsanjani had been meeting with other Ayatollahs and clerics in Qom, and had among them a representative of Iraq’s Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
Why? Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2007 made two very critical statements: that “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian,” and that Islam can exist within a democracy without theological conflict. You will never hear such words slip past the lips of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. Ever.”
No, you won't. He's too busy threatening people with death for daring to do anything except bend over and say "Yes, Imam, may I have another?"
Ace notes The turning point in an uprising comes when many the regime relies upon begin fence-sitting, waiting for a victor to emerge. That is one thing; another is when people in positions of authority start deciding "I cannot carry out these orders." We may have both going on, from the sound of things.
Comment moderation has been enabled,
because the moron hiding behind Anonymous is getting annoying enough that I don't want to put up with him.
Hey, dumbass, maybe your grandfather really died as you say; but that doesn't buy you any slack to come into somebodys living room and crap on the floor. So screw you; putting up with your bullshit is something I don't have to do.
To those who use 'anonymous' simply because they don't have an ID or something, go ahead and comment; not something that bothers me. I'm using this to screen out the jackass. Or two, as the case may be.
Added: Anonyass dumped four comments in a few minutes, including some flat nasty insulting crap, just after I turned on moderation.
Dummy, I repeat: I don't mind being disagreed with; I do mind insults and bullcrap. You might note that I said I give John McCain the respect he damn well earned for his Navy service, but that doesn't buy him any slack for his political actions. If I'm not going to give him slack for that, why would I give you any for what you claim about a member of your family?
Hey, dumbass, maybe your grandfather really died as you say; but that doesn't buy you any slack to come into somebodys living room and crap on the floor. So screw you; putting up with your bullshit is something I don't have to do.
To those who use 'anonymous' simply because they don't have an ID or something, go ahead and comment; not something that bothers me. I'm using this to screen out the jackass. Or two, as the case may be.
Added: Anonyass dumped four comments in a few minutes, including some flat nasty insulting crap, just after I turned on moderation.
Dummy, I repeat: I don't mind being disagreed with; I do mind insults and bullcrap. You might note that I said I give John McCain the respect he damn well earned for his Navy service, but that doesn't buy him any slack for his political actions. If I'm not going to give him slack for that, why would I give you any for what you claim about a member of your family?
This doesn't look good for the people claiming socialized medicine
is successful in other countries; and they like to point to Canada.
For cancer patients, the study found that the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks, exceeding the benchmark of four weeks.
...
Patients are also facing long delays when they go the emergency department, the WTA said, waiting an average of nine hours to be seen and treated and for patients who needed to be admitted, the average wait time was nearly 24 hours.
That is fairly bloody awful. When someone is diagnosed with cancer, time is critical in most cases; the longer it takes to get you started on therapy, the lower your chance of survival. And an average of nearly a full day to be admitted from the emergency room? Damn.
Like the man says, and people say OUR system is broken?
For cancer patients, the study found that the median wait time for radiation therapy was almost seven weeks, exceeding the benchmark of four weeks.
...
Patients are also facing long delays when they go the emergency department, the WTA said, waiting an average of nine hours to be seen and treated and for patients who needed to be admitted, the average wait time was nearly 24 hours.
That is fairly bloody awful. When someone is diagnosed with cancer, time is critical in most cases; the longer it takes to get you started on therapy, the lower your chance of survival. And an average of nearly a full day to be admitted from the emergency room? Damn.
Like the man says, and people say OUR system is broken?
Confederate Yankee asks what if the Iranians are just trying
to put in a different face of the same tyranny? Good question.
I tend to think that, at least, what they're trying to bring about would ease some of the crap they've lived under, maybe pave the start to a more free society; but I've been wrong before.
I tend to think that, at least, what they're trying to bring about would ease some of the crap they've lived under, maybe pave the start to a more free society; but I've been wrong before.
Murdering girls in the street; this is the Iranian government
that President Obama just can't wait to 'negotiate' with.
It's not pretty; the actions of murdering dictators rarely are.
It's not pretty; the actions of murdering dictators rarely are.
Jimmy Carter just can't stop helping islamist murderers
and dictators, can he?
Former President Jimmy Carter presented Hamas with a written initiative intended to open talks between the Islamist group and the U.S. without Hamas having to accept all conditions previously laid out for dialogue by the American government, top Hamas officials told WND.
Those conditions, expressed twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are Hamas' renouncement of violence, recognition of Israel and agreement to abide by previous PLO commitments. The conditions were adopted by the Mideast Quartet, which consists of the U.S., United Nations, Russia and the European Union.
I tend to believe it, because it sounds just like the kind of crap Jimmy Carter would do.
Two top Hamas sources told WND Carter's initiative bypasses Clinton's conditions and instead asks Hamas to recognize the so-called two-state solution as well as the Arab Peace Initiative.
Al-Masri said Hamas was studying Carter's plan.
"In any response to Carter we will reject the conditions of the Quartet, specifically the recognition of Israel," al-Masri said. ...
Hey, it gives Carter a way in screw with Israel and suck up to terrorists(again), it gives Hamas a way to talk to The One without meeting the conditions 'officially' demanded of them, and it gives The One a way to screw with Israel. Again. Talk about a deal!
Former President Jimmy Carter presented Hamas with a written initiative intended to open talks between the Islamist group and the U.S. without Hamas having to accept all conditions previously laid out for dialogue by the American government, top Hamas officials told WND.
Those conditions, expressed twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are Hamas' renouncement of violence, recognition of Israel and agreement to abide by previous PLO commitments. The conditions were adopted by the Mideast Quartet, which consists of the U.S., United Nations, Russia and the European Union.
I tend to believe it, because it sounds just like the kind of crap Jimmy Carter would do.
Two top Hamas sources told WND Carter's initiative bypasses Clinton's conditions and instead asks Hamas to recognize the so-called two-state solution as well as the Arab Peace Initiative.
Al-Masri said Hamas was studying Carter's plan.
"In any response to Carter we will reject the conditions of the Quartet, specifically the recognition of Israel," al-Masri said. ...
Hey, it gives Carter a way in screw with Israel and suck up to terrorists(again), it gives Hamas a way to talk to The One without meeting the conditions 'officially' demanded of them, and it gives The One a way to screw with Israel. Again. Talk about a deal!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
"In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?" "
NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.
In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.
Read it all. And wonder, as the man says, just where the list came from?
In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.
Read it all. And wonder, as the man says, just where the list came from?
Among the things the nuisance Anony said in a comment
were bitching about 'neocons' and how they 'want us to bomb Iran for Israel'; so apparently I've not only got a troll, he's a nasty little anti-Jew troll.
I also got a comment from someone else posting as Anony who informed me that I was getting paranoid and 'frantically searching all my old posts' for Anony comments to rave about. Apparently not being aware that
A: Blogger has this thing where they notify you of new comments, and
B: I haven't been 'frantic' about much of anything for a long time. Especially in regards to the blog.
Wonderful, isn't it?
I also got a comment from someone else posting as Anony who informed me that I was getting paranoid and 'frantically searching all my old posts' for Anony comments to rave about. Apparently not being aware that
A: Blogger has this thing where they notify you of new comments, and
B: I haven't been 'frantic' about much of anything for a long time. Especially in regards to the blog.
Wonderful, isn't it?
So President Obama finally made a 'strong' statement
that's getting panned by damn near everybody as 'too little, too late'. Wonderful.
Anyway, Obama has a poker-tell that is visible from outer space. Whenever he opens a statement with: “Let me be perfectly clear...” you can be sure that he's about to launch into a black hole of a policy spin that is anything but clear. And in the process Obama will suck up all the oxygen in the room. Obama does not disappoint, his statement on Iran is one of those, on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand rambles (the man is helpless without teleprompter) that ends up saying nothing except that America doesn't want to be a bad guy because we respect Iran and whatever Jew-hating regime they cram into office, yadda-yadda. Blowhard central.
In short, Obama, as with all major policy decisions, is a rank amateur, a former community organizer whose world view remains narrow, parochial and deeply ill informed.
Hey, maybe he's too busy being outraged that Israel won't bow down to The One!
Netanyahu's speech was an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel. For Israeli ears, after years of former prime minister Ehud Olmert's and former foreign minister Tzipi Livni's continuous assaults on Israeli rights, and their strident defenses of capitulation to the Palestinians and the Syrians, Netanyahu's address was a breath of fresh air. But it is hard to see how it could have possibly had any lasting impact on Obama or his advisers.
To be moved by rational argument, a person has to be open to rational discourse. And what we have witnessed over the past week with the Obama administration's reactions to both North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's sham elections is that its foreign policy is not informed by rationality but by the president's morally relative, post-modern ideology. In this anti-intellectual and anti-rational climate, Netanyahu's speech has little chance of making a lasting impact on the White House.
And, just because I like it,
Eyes darting about nervously because the Obama worship in this country has reached Stalin-like proportions and I really don't feel like getting into a smack down with some deranged Obamamaniac.
Karen goes: “This is still America and I'm free to speak to mind.”
I point to the electronic flight board and then gesture to the waiting passengers: “Um, Karen, this flight is to San Francisco. Most of these people are not too normal as it is, y'know.”
Anyway, Obama has a poker-tell that is visible from outer space. Whenever he opens a statement with: “Let me be perfectly clear...” you can be sure that he's about to launch into a black hole of a policy spin that is anything but clear. And in the process Obama will suck up all the oxygen in the room. Obama does not disappoint, his statement on Iran is one of those, on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand rambles (the man is helpless without teleprompter) that ends up saying nothing except that America doesn't want to be a bad guy because we respect Iran and whatever Jew-hating regime they cram into office, yadda-yadda. Blowhard central.
In short, Obama, as with all major policy decisions, is a rank amateur, a former community organizer whose world view remains narrow, parochial and deeply ill informed.
Hey, maybe he's too busy being outraged that Israel won't bow down to The One!
Netanyahu's speech was an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel. For Israeli ears, after years of former prime minister Ehud Olmert's and former foreign minister Tzipi Livni's continuous assaults on Israeli rights, and their strident defenses of capitulation to the Palestinians and the Syrians, Netanyahu's address was a breath of fresh air. But it is hard to see how it could have possibly had any lasting impact on Obama or his advisers.
To be moved by rational argument, a person has to be open to rational discourse. And what we have witnessed over the past week with the Obama administration's reactions to both North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's sham elections is that its foreign policy is not informed by rationality but by the president's morally relative, post-modern ideology. In this anti-intellectual and anti-rational climate, Netanyahu's speech has little chance of making a lasting impact on the White House.
And, just because I like it,
Eyes darting about nervously because the Obama worship in this country has reached Stalin-like proportions and I really don't feel like getting into a smack down with some deranged Obamamaniac.
Karen goes: “This is still America and I'm free to speak to mind.”
I point to the electronic flight board and then gesture to the waiting passengers: “Um, Karen, this flight is to San Francisco. Most of these people are not too normal as it is, y'know.”
Speaking of 'what might happen',
what do you think happens to Hamas- and all the other murdering clowns of the type- if there's a real change in Iran? A lot of money and equipment just might go away, for one thing; for another:
Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday.
They made their allegations as rioting on a scale unseen in Iran for nearly a decade continued in the wake of the elections and the allegations that the results were falsified. The protests have now spread from Teheran to other major cities.
Snip.
“The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."
Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.
On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too."
It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.”
Complete story at The Jerusalem Post.
Things blow up bigtime, just how much 'restraint' are the Iranians going to show to these thugs in their country? And don't you know lots of Hamas and other murdering terrorist dirtbags are crapping bricks at the thought of their Iranian support stopping?One of the things happening in Iran
reminded me of something. One of the standard claims of the gun-banners is "The idea that a bunch of people with guns can stand against the government if it decides to crush them is rediculous. The government has tanks and fighter planes and atomic bombs!", etc. Well, except for what they take from the police and other security forces(Residents of the area described firefights after protesters grabbed weapons from security forces.), they don't have guns; they're making do(Young men were breaking bricks and stones to a size for hurling.)
Chris and others have pointed out the problem government forces face when standing against lots and lots of honest citizens with a legitimate gripe: it's kind of difficult to use artillery and bombers on your own damn cities. Same for a full-out infantry/armor assault; if you succeed, you've destroyed a big part of your own city, killed a bunch of people and, for every bunch who're cowed into obedience, you've created some others who will live for nothing but your downfall.
And that leaves out a very important factor: will your troops and police fire on their own people?
The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”
A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.
...
Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers.
It's one thing to face an outside invader or troublemaker; it's a whole 'nother thing to have orders to beat or kill people in your own hometown. Especially when, you can bet, a lot of the police aren't real fond of what's happened themselves. If the army is sent in, they'll likely do what the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square: bring in units composed of people from other parts of the country, some of whom probably see that protesters as a bunch of troublemakers who need to be stomped. Some will; what about the others?
What about the troops who think of themselves as Iranians(or Persians, not real sure of the mindset on that)? Who want their country to advance? Who might not be real fond of "We must destroy the Jews!" leaders when there are problems to fix at home? Who think nuclear reactors to generate power is a great idea, but don't see a real need for nuclear bombs? Who don't want to kill other Iranians? There's got to be a lot of concern about what happens if they tell the army to squash all dissent, and a bunch of units say "I don't think so." Especially when there are a lot of women in the front lines. I know the official position on women, but that's one thing; lots of police and troops are going to have a hard time killing and crippling women like their mothers and sisters and daughters(who just might be in a line somewhere).
Same thing here, with a big difference: arms. Iranians are breaking up rocks and bricks to throw, the Chinese at Tiananmen were unarmed; we've got guns. If it ever came to that it'd be bloody and nasty beyond belief, which is one reason I doubt it will. We've got real problems, but to all the things troubling the police and army in Iran add "You want us to go into town and arrest anybody who disagrees with you and kill anybody who resists? Do you have any freaking idea what will happen? You want to take units from Michigan and send them to Oklahoma to do it? What makes you think Americans from Michigan will be ok with killing Okies? Or Texans?"
Some would; and some of them would be whacked by other troops("You killed them because they called that fuckin' politician a crook?" Bang.) The oath all troops take is very specific: not to any individual or agency, but to the Constitution. And they get serious lectures about things like illegal orders. Some will simply accept orders and act, but the others?
I'm kind of wandering here, I know. Main point is this: a bunch of mostly unarmed people, with rocks to throw at most, have just about brought Iran to a standstill; if some politicians tried something similar here, do you not think Americans, many armed, couldn't do as well?
Unpleasant subject. That a lot of politicians damned well better consider.
Chris and others have pointed out the problem government forces face when standing against lots and lots of honest citizens with a legitimate gripe: it's kind of difficult to use artillery and bombers on your own damn cities. Same for a full-out infantry/armor assault; if you succeed, you've destroyed a big part of your own city, killed a bunch of people and, for every bunch who're cowed into obedience, you've created some others who will live for nothing but your downfall.
And that leaves out a very important factor: will your troops and police fire on their own people?
The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”
A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.
...
Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers.
It's one thing to face an outside invader or troublemaker; it's a whole 'nother thing to have orders to beat or kill people in your own hometown. Especially when, you can bet, a lot of the police aren't real fond of what's happened themselves. If the army is sent in, they'll likely do what the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square: bring in units composed of people from other parts of the country, some of whom probably see that protesters as a bunch of troublemakers who need to be stomped. Some will; what about the others?
What about the troops who think of themselves as Iranians(or Persians, not real sure of the mindset on that)? Who want their country to advance? Who might not be real fond of "We must destroy the Jews!" leaders when there are problems to fix at home? Who think nuclear reactors to generate power is a great idea, but don't see a real need for nuclear bombs? Who don't want to kill other Iranians? There's got to be a lot of concern about what happens if they tell the army to squash all dissent, and a bunch of units say "I don't think so." Especially when there are a lot of women in the front lines. I know the official position on women, but that's one thing; lots of police and troops are going to have a hard time killing and crippling women like their mothers and sisters and daughters(who just might be in a line somewhere).
Same thing here, with a big difference: arms. Iranians are breaking up rocks and bricks to throw, the Chinese at Tiananmen were unarmed; we've got guns. If it ever came to that it'd be bloody and nasty beyond belief, which is one reason I doubt it will. We've got real problems, but to all the things troubling the police and army in Iran add "You want us to go into town and arrest anybody who disagrees with you and kill anybody who resists? Do you have any freaking idea what will happen? You want to take units from Michigan and send them to Oklahoma to do it? What makes you think Americans from Michigan will be ok with killing Okies? Or Texans?"
Some would; and some of them would be whacked by other troops("You killed them because they called that fuckin' politician a crook?" Bang.) The oath all troops take is very specific: not to any individual or agency, but to the Constitution. And they get serious lectures about things like illegal orders. Some will simply accept orders and act, but the others?
I'm kind of wandering here, I know. Main point is this: a bunch of mostly unarmed people, with rocks to throw at most, have just about brought Iran to a standstill; if some politicians tried something similar here, do you not think Americans, many armed, couldn't do as well?
Unpleasant subject. That a lot of politicians damned well better consider.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Oklahoma Celtic Festival this weekend,
which is where I spent most of the day. After I dragged my fat ass out of bed. I think this is the third year for it, and it's slowly growing. I think part of the problem causing slow growth is this is right in the middle of renaissance fair season for a lot of artists and performers, and they have multi-weekend contracts to perform/display. But it's a nice festival, with quite a few performers. Some of whom reminded me about the saying that 'bagpipes indoors are an offensive weapon'.
I'll post a few pictures later. 'Few' because I left the wrong chip in the camera, which means not many pictures.
Oh, and one of the food vendors is a area bakery, with damn good bread and meat pies.
I'll post a few pictures later. 'Few' because I left the wrong chip in the camera, which means not many pictures.
Oh, and one of the food vendors is a area bakery, with damn good bread and meat pies.
Anony went back to a post a while back on left-wing commie
terrorists, and was appalled that he didn't find 'proper journalism'; that there was bias and emotion and personal opinion.
Hey, dumbass, this is my blog. Which I have described as my soapbox upon which to stand and spout my opinion, spread information and laugh at the monkeys throwing crap. That means, amazingly, that you get opinion, emotion and my bias!
So if you don't approve, very simple solution: go away.
Hey, dumbass, this is my blog. Which I have described as my soapbox upon which to stand and spout my opinion, spread information and laugh at the monkeys throwing crap. That means, amazingly, that you get opinion, emotion and my bias!
So if you don't approve, very simple solution: go away.
Friday, June 19, 2009
One of the places I don't look at often enough is
Closing Velocity, whose second-to-last post points out that President B. Hussein Cartman Obama seems to have realized(or is just scared of the polls; he IS an Evil Party member) that missile defense just might be a good thing after all, but the idiocy still prevails at this time:
Well, someone at Obama's Pentagon got the message, for Hawaii is being fortified with a new deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and the SBX is finally putting to sea:
Mr. Gates told reporters that the U.S. is positioning a sophisticated floating radar array in the ocean around Hawaii to track an incoming missile. The U.S. is also deploying missile-defense weapons to Hawaii that would theoretically be capable of shooting down a North Korean missile, should such an order be given, he said.
"We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile to the west, in the direction of Hawaii," Mr. Gates said.
Gates went on to say that the long range Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska --- slated to be cut by Obama, but-that's-not-important-right-now --- were also ready to engage:
Although Gates did not explicitly say that the U.S. would try to shoot down a test missile aimed in the direction of Hawaii, he noted that interceptor missiles in California and Alaska were ready.
"The ground-based interceptors are clearly in a position to take action," Gates said. "So without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say, I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary to protect American territory."
Perhaps the reality of missile defense is setting in on a few of the adults in Washington. Or more likely, perhaps someone's watching the polls:
A new Gallup Poll finds 51% of Americans saying North Korea currently poses a direct threat to U.S. security. That is the highest percentage seen for eight countries or territories tested in the poll whose political climates or ongoing conflicts present a threat to U.S. interests in the world.
Which, of course, makes this the perfect time to slash missile defense funding --- "Missile Budget Cut Still Stands":
An attempt Tuesday to restore money slashed from the missile defense budget failed to gain traction when an amendment that would have paid for additional interceptors in Alaska was defeated.
You know, it takes a monumental level of stupid to look at the threats from Iran and the Norks, be forced to actually use these systems, and STILL want to chop funding. But that's the HOPE! and CHANGE! we've got.
I had one of those many people named Anonymous comment
on this post that Sarah Palin is (fill in the blank, basically) and a nasty politician, a fake-conservative decoy, etc. I told him he was full of crap. This led to him telling me, among other things,
I think you are your own worst enemy, of the sort who keeps doing the same thing and supporting the same re-tread figures advocated and marketed to you through mass media owned by multi-national corporations, and you cant figure out why you still lose, no matter if its bush or obama in office. they will always be 'one of you' when campaigning and they will always be a dutiful servant of well-paying multi-national corporate interests once they get elected.
Yeah. Right. I supported McCain wholeheartedly because the major media and Stupid Party Brass told me to and totally supported Bush and-
Wait, no I didn't! I think I actually agreed with Kevin that McCain was the least repulsive Democrat in the race! I said nasty things about Bush over the last few years! I even told my kids in 2000 that I had real problems with Bush, but the alternative...
Mr. Anonymous, screw you. I haven't trusted the major media about much of anything since long before I was online, and I've told the Stupid Party numerous times just exactly what I think of them. Here and using their "We need your money" forms to say Hell, no, and explain why. You remind me of the clown who wrote to Lawdog calling him names for being such a suckup to McCain, apparently never bothering to read anything Dog wrote about him.
I'm not a Palin worshipper; I do think she'd make a good President, and I think the type and level of media and celebutard attacks on her speak of just how much they're scared of the idea. She ain't perfect, and I know it; she'd have been a hell of a lot better than either McCain or Obama.
I think you are your own worst enemy, of the sort who keeps doing the same thing and supporting the same re-tread figures advocated and marketed to you through mass media owned by multi-national corporations, and you cant figure out why you still lose, no matter if its bush or obama in office. they will always be 'one of you' when campaigning and they will always be a dutiful servant of well-paying multi-national corporate interests once they get elected.
Yeah. Right. I supported McCain wholeheartedly because the major media and Stupid Party Brass told me to and totally supported Bush and-
Wait, no I didn't! I think I actually agreed with Kevin that McCain was the least repulsive Democrat in the race! I said nasty things about Bush over the last few years! I even told my kids in 2000 that I had real problems with Bush, but the alternative...
Mr. Anonymous, screw you. I haven't trusted the major media about much of anything since long before I was online, and I've told the Stupid Party numerous times just exactly what I think of them. Here and using their "We need your money" forms to say Hell, no, and explain why. You remind me of the clown who wrote to Lawdog calling him names for being such a suckup to McCain, apparently never bothering to read anything Dog wrote about him.
I'm not a Palin worshipper; I do think she'd make a good President, and I think the type and level of media and celebutard attacks on her speak of just how much they're scared of the idea. She ain't perfect, and I know it; she'd have been a hell of a lot better than either McCain or Obama.
ANOTHER Obama appointee who didn't pay taxes,
and got a very nice deal from the IRS. As Insty says, "I don’t even want to hear anyone in this Administration talk about tax increases, when they can’t seem to staff it with people who have actually, you know, paid their taxes on time."
And, let's note, keep getting far nicer treatment from the IRS than plain old Joe or Jane Citizen would.
Jammie Wearing Fool notes this:
Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.
Ok, how the hell rich do you have to be to not file when you've got money- especially that kind of money- coming back? This flat smells.
And, let's note, keep getting far nicer treatment from the IRS than plain old Joe or Jane Citizen would.
Jammie Wearing Fool notes this:
Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.
Ok, how the hell rich do you have to be to not file when you've got money- especially that kind of money- coming back? This flat smells.
Remember President Obama's statement on the murder of Corporal Long?
It may not have actually been a statement from the President:
Which brings us back to C.J. When he contacted the White House for clarification he got a third answer. Not "Sorry, we made an exclusive statement to the AP, check with them" or "we only released that to Arkansas media" - instead, he was told "the President is attempting to call the family of Army Pvt Long".
We've got three different answers now from the White House on the central question "did the President make a statement"? I suspect the correct answer would be a fourth one: "no".
This is the first I've heard of this piece of crap being dug up. A lot of people wondered at the time why it took so damn long for the President to make a statement, and that when he (supposedly) did it was such a piece of garbage; this makes it worse by far. This sounds like some staffer noticed that people were getting really pissed about the matter and made up a 'statement from the President' that he thought would take care of it.
Go over to Mudville and read the whole piece. As Kim used to say, it would be wise to move breakables out of reach first.
Which brings us back to C.J. When he contacted the White House for clarification he got a third answer. Not "Sorry, we made an exclusive statement to the AP, check with them" or "we only released that to Arkansas media" - instead, he was told "the President is attempting to call the family of Army Pvt Long".
We've got three different answers now from the White House on the central question "did the President make a statement"? I suspect the correct answer would be a fourth one: "no".
This is the first I've heard of this piece of crap being dug up. A lot of people wondered at the time why it took so damn long for the President to make a statement, and that when he (supposedly) did it was such a piece of garbage; this makes it worse by far. This sounds like some staffer noticed that people were getting really pissed about the matter and made up a 'statement from the President' that he thought would take care of it.
Go over to Mudville and read the whole piece. As Kim used to say, it would be wise to move breakables out of reach first.
I must occasionally be doing something right
A while back I was at the outdoor range, and when I finished the rifle stuff and moved to the handgun side there was a lady instructing another lady(obvious beginner) in handgun basics. The beginner- who was wearing a PD patch, turned out to have just been hired- had a slightly unusual pistol, and I asked her about it:
"When I joined the department, my husband gave it to me. Didn't ask what I wanted, just gave it to me."
It was a Glock.
Pink.
With matching pink handcuffs.
No, she was not overly thrilled. She was happy he'd given her a pistol, but wished she'd had some input on the matter.
While they were working I moved a few places down and started some draw & fire practice. I'd forgotten that I had the extra-power recoil spring in, and so after the first shot I got a double-feed. I dropped the mag, racked the action, new mag(my spare carry-load mag, forgot to reload it with the practice stuff), rack, bang. Finished that mag, and while I was reloading the older lady doing the teaching came over.
"What department do you work for? Sheriff's office?"
"No, ma'am, just practicing."
"Oh, you compete?"
"No. Just practicing."
"Oh. Well, practice is always good."
While I finished reloading, she went back to her student and, due to the electronic muffs, I heard her say "I'd have sworn he shoots competition." Apparently my clear of the jam went I lot faster and better than I thought it did.
"When I joined the department, my husband gave it to me. Didn't ask what I wanted, just gave it to me."
It was a Glock.
Pink.
With matching pink handcuffs.
No, she was not overly thrilled. She was happy he'd given her a pistol, but wished she'd had some input on the matter.
While they were working I moved a few places down and started some draw & fire practice. I'd forgotten that I had the extra-power recoil spring in, and so after the first shot I got a double-feed. I dropped the mag, racked the action, new mag(my spare carry-load mag, forgot to reload it with the practice stuff), rack, bang. Finished that mag, and while I was reloading the older lady doing the teaching came over.
"What department do you work for? Sheriff's office?"
"No, ma'am, just practicing."
"Oh, you compete?"
"No. Just practicing."
"Oh. Well, practice is always good."
While I finished reloading, she went back to her student and, due to the electronic muffs, I heard her say "I'd have sworn he shoots competition." Apparently my clear of the jam went I lot faster and better than I thought it did.
Some self-defense and teaching advice
"The handgun would not be my choice of weapon if I knew I was Going to a fight....I'd choose a rifle, a shotgun, an RPG or an atomic Bomb instead."
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win."
"Every time I teach a class, I discover I don't know something."
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty."
"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not Loadin, you should be movin', if you're not movin', someone's gonna cut Your head off and put it on a stick."
"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your
flashlight in your back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy...and you're gonna be one of 'em pretty soon."
"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."
"Nothing adds a little class to a sniper course like a babe in a ghilliesuit."
"Shoot what's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous.. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."
"Don't shoot fast, shoot good.
Found at Theo's place
"The two most important rules in a gunfight are: always cheat and always win."
"Every time I teach a class, I discover I don't know something."
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty."
"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not Loadin, you should be movin', if you're not movin', someone's gonna cut Your head off and put it on a stick."
"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your
flashlight in your back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy...and you're gonna be one of 'em pretty soon."
"Do something. It may be wrong, but do something."
"Nothing adds a little class to a sniper course like a babe in a ghilliesuit."
"Shoot what's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous.. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."
"Don't shoot fast, shoot good.
Found at Theo's place
Thursday, June 18, 2009
My day was damn hot and sweaty,
and I need a shower. How was yours?
Friend Oren the gunsmith needed some help getting some things set up in his shop, but what he got was me getting in the way the last two days. Let me set the scene for you: shop building, no a/c, highs upper 90's and enough humidity to remind you of the marshy ground around a pond in the woods. But, despite my contribution, some things were accomplished(in part my threatening his son if he didn't get his butt busy with the mower and weedeater; for some reason he listens to me) in exchange for the effort and sweat.
I must note that things were livened up somewhat by his dog. She lives to have a ball thrown, and has a habit of walking up to you and dropping it- or what's left of it- behind you and standing there with an expectant look. Which can cause some excitement when you step back and either step on the ball or nearly fall over her.
But progress was made, so it was time well spent. Plus he's one of the best friends I've ever had, and I haven't had much chance to spend time with him for a while; worth it for that.
Now, I must move on to the tale of Rafferty the Rescued Puppy
He's the critter my ex rescued from less-than-optimal circumstances. Hard to tell from the pictures, but he's grown a lot. It became obvious that he was going to become bigger than she could keep. But a happy ending ensues; a lady she works with thinks he's The Most Darling Thing Ever. And the feeling is apprently returned, as he starts wiggling and wagging as soon as he sees her, so tomorrow he goes to his new home.
Itzl the long-haired chihuahua will have to get used to not being ambushed anymore,
but I imagine he'll do it quickly. He's become a Dignified Adult(yes, he does tend to act it in capitals) and the pup was about to cause him real annoyance at times.
So tomorrow he and all his toys will exit to a new home(including kids and dogs), which should suit him just fine.
Friend Oren the gunsmith needed some help getting some things set up in his shop, but what he got was me getting in the way the last two days. Let me set the scene for you: shop building, no a/c, highs upper 90's and enough humidity to remind you of the marshy ground around a pond in the woods. But, despite my contribution, some things were accomplished(in part my threatening his son if he didn't get his butt busy with the mower and weedeater; for some reason he listens to me) in exchange for the effort and sweat.
I must note that things were livened up somewhat by his dog. She lives to have a ball thrown, and has a habit of walking up to you and dropping it- or what's left of it- behind you and standing there with an expectant look. Which can cause some excitement when you step back and either step on the ball or nearly fall over her.
But progress was made, so it was time well spent. Plus he's one of the best friends I've ever had, and I haven't had much chance to spend time with him for a while; worth it for that.
Now, I must move on to the tale of Rafferty the Rescued Puppy
He's the critter my ex rescued from less-than-optimal circumstances. Hard to tell from the pictures, but he's grown a lot. It became obvious that he was going to become bigger than she could keep. But a happy ending ensues; a lady she works with thinks he's The Most Darling Thing Ever. And the feeling is apprently returned, as he starts wiggling and wagging as soon as he sees her, so tomorrow he goes to his new home.Itzl the long-haired chihuahua will have to get used to not being ambushed anymore,
but I imagine he'll do it quickly. He's become a Dignified Adult(yes, he does tend to act it in capitals) and the pup was about to cause him real annoyance at times.
So tomorrow he and all his toys will exit to a new home(including kids and dogs), which should suit him just fine.
Steve checks his Facebook account;
disbelief follows:
I got a couple of questionable friend requests recently, purportedly from women. One was from an English blond. In her Facebook photo, she wore a white tube top with nothing underneath. Am I a bad person for suspecting this is actually a fat guy who runs a phone sex business? Probably a grizzled Alexei Sayle lookalike who sends friend requests while lounging around in his living room, wearing only the kind of peculiar underwear European men think is normal.
I got a couple of questionable friend requests recently, purportedly from women. One was from an English blond. In her Facebook photo, she wore a white tube top with nothing underneath. Am I a bad person for suspecting this is actually a fat guy who runs a phone sex business? Probably a grizzled Alexei Sayle lookalike who sends friend requests while lounging around in his living room, wearing only the kind of peculiar underwear European men think is normal.
Maybe it’s Alexei himself. I think times have been a little lean for him since “The Bride.”
The guys who pump out bogus Myspace and Facebook friend requests need to understand something. It has probably been 38 years since I realized that really attractive women rarely talk to me or even acknowledge my existence unless they want my money or, maybe, need me to throw water on them because they’re on fire. So when I get gushy friend requests from scantily clad girls named Brittnee or Suzee, I know immediately that I am being scammed.
White House refuses to answer questions on firing of IG;
Nobody Surprised.
The questions relate to a letter Eisen sent to some senators Tuesday night attributing Walpin's dismissal, in significant part, to Walpin's behavior at a May 20, 2009 board meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps. Eisen wrote that at the meeting, "Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve." After the meeting, Eisen wrote, Walpin lost the confidence of the Corporation Board. The White House conducted a review of the matter, and Walpin was fired. (For a detailed account of Walpin's reaction to the White House charges, see here.)
At Wednesday's meeting, Sen. Grassley's staffers wanted to know more about the White House review. "Unfortunately," Grassley writes in a letter sent late Wednesday afternoon to White House counsel Gregory Craig, "Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter." Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are:
Well hell, guy, if you'd broken a law you'd bragged about having a hand in passing, and done things that are making people very upset, you might be sensitive about answering questions, too. Especially if you're a Chicago machine politician who has never liked answering serious "Why did you do that?" questions. And you're not used to having to think about it because the major media has been so far up your butt they needed air, water and light piped in.
This has potential to be really, seriously interesting.
The questions relate to a letter Eisen sent to some senators Tuesday night attributing Walpin's dismissal, in significant part, to Walpin's behavior at a May 20, 2009 board meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps. Eisen wrote that at the meeting, "Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve." After the meeting, Eisen wrote, Walpin lost the confidence of the Corporation Board. The White House conducted a review of the matter, and Walpin was fired. (For a detailed account of Walpin's reaction to the White House charges, see here.)
At Wednesday's meeting, Sen. Grassley's staffers wanted to know more about the White House review. "Unfortunately," Grassley writes in a letter sent late Wednesday afternoon to White House counsel Gregory Craig, "Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter." Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are:
Well hell, guy, if you'd broken a law you'd bragged about having a hand in passing, and done things that are making people very upset, you might be sensitive about answering questions, too. Especially if you're a Chicago machine politician who has never liked answering serious "Why did you do that?" questions. And you're not used to having to think about it because the major media has been so far up your butt they needed air, water and light piped in.
This has potential to be really, seriously interesting.
Well, crap, I like Olive Garden,
but if they can't even make up their damn mind about that idiot Letterman, maybe they don't need my money.
Olive Garden’s manager of media relations, who asked not to be quoted on the record, confirmed to POLITICO Thursday that the emails were sent by the restaurant chain, and also confirmed that the company would be pulling its remaining television spots on the program for the rest of the year when asked that question.
But in a statement released later in the day, Olive Garden Director of Media Relations Rich Jeffers disputed POLITICO’s report as “erroneous.”
Sounds like they tried to have it both ways; wanted to say "We don't support Letterman and his 'jokes'", but someone decided they'd rather be connected with him than not. So two stories.
Ah well, there are other Italian restaurants in town.
Olive Garden’s manager of media relations, who asked not to be quoted on the record, confirmed to POLITICO Thursday that the emails were sent by the restaurant chain, and also confirmed that the company would be pulling its remaining television spots on the program for the rest of the year when asked that question.
But in a statement released later in the day, Olive Garden Director of Media Relations Rich Jeffers disputed POLITICO’s report as “erroneous.”
Sounds like they tried to have it both ways; wanted to say "We don't support Letterman and his 'jokes'", but someone decided they'd rather be connected with him than not. So two stories.
Ah well, there are other Italian restaurants in town.
Kind of in a hurry, so just some roundup this morning
Like the Justice Department Public Corruption Unit is kind of messy; due to corruption in the unit, violations of law, little things like that:
Two months after prosecutors abandoned the criminal conviction of former senator Ted Stevens, the Justice Department unit that polices public corruption remains in chaos, coping with newly discovered evidence that threatens to undermine other cases while department leaders struggle to reshuffle the ranks.
...
At the same time, document-sharing lapses that provoked the Stevens turnaround are also affecting other bribery prosecutions in the state, prompting authorities to take the extraordinary step of releasing two Alaska lawmakers from prison late last week. A new team of government lawyers and FBI agents is reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, trying to assuage the concerns of judges and fielding complaints from defense attorneys.
...
New members of the prosecution team told the judge that they would finish sharing previously unproduced materials by July 31. Already, defense attorneys for the former Alaska legislators have secured scores of pages of newly disclosed materials from the government on the condition that they keep the documents secret.
John Henry Browne, an attorney for Kohring, said he was expecting a dozen or so documents but instead is sorting through a stack of more than 1,000 pages.
"There are a number of smoking guns in here," Browne said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the Justice Department sometimes dismisses these cases" rather than expose the former prosecutors to cross examination about their alleged failure to share documents.
Translation: "Well, we'll see if the Justice Department wants their prosecutors being put under oath and asking why they violated the law and acted unethically."
Corrupt public officials need to be caught and thrown out of office and jailed; so do prosecutors who violate the law to get a conviction 'no matter what'.
Well, well, there are THREE IG's who've been fired, not just one.
This is interesting. I looked around and perhaps I missed it on another blog, but the Chicago Tribune reports that it isn't just Walpin's firing over which Senator Grassley wants some answers. He's worried about a pattern, as no fewer than three IG's have recently been fired, all while investigating so-called sensitive issues. See Michelle for the latest on Walpin.
That some of these clowns just cannot stop smearing and lying about Sarah Palin is amazing; that kind of actual hatred is scary.
Rep. Barney Frank(Evil Party-MA) is a corrupt politician who's just been bought off again from the sound of it; why are these people surprised?
British cops screwing with lots of people simply to provide a racial balance in official statistics. Considering these people seem to have decided Sir Robert Peel never existed, or should never be mentioned, doesn't surprise me.
I'm now off to be (supposedly) helpful on some things.
Two months after prosecutors abandoned the criminal conviction of former senator Ted Stevens, the Justice Department unit that polices public corruption remains in chaos, coping with newly discovered evidence that threatens to undermine other cases while department leaders struggle to reshuffle the ranks.
...
At the same time, document-sharing lapses that provoked the Stevens turnaround are also affecting other bribery prosecutions in the state, prompting authorities to take the extraordinary step of releasing two Alaska lawmakers from prison late last week. A new team of government lawyers and FBI agents is reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, trying to assuage the concerns of judges and fielding complaints from defense attorneys.
...
New members of the prosecution team told the judge that they would finish sharing previously unproduced materials by July 31. Already, defense attorneys for the former Alaska legislators have secured scores of pages of newly disclosed materials from the government on the condition that they keep the documents secret.
John Henry Browne, an attorney for Kohring, said he was expecting a dozen or so documents but instead is sorting through a stack of more than 1,000 pages.
"There are a number of smoking guns in here," Browne said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the Justice Department sometimes dismisses these cases" rather than expose the former prosecutors to cross examination about their alleged failure to share documents.
Translation: "Well, we'll see if the Justice Department wants their prosecutors being put under oath and asking why they violated the law and acted unethically."
Corrupt public officials need to be caught and thrown out of office and jailed; so do prosecutors who violate the law to get a conviction 'no matter what'.
Well, well, there are THREE IG's who've been fired, not just one.
The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.
Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.
Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk.
That some of these clowns just cannot stop smearing and lying about Sarah Palin is amazing; that kind of actual hatred is scary.
Rep. Barney Frank(Evil Party-MA) is a corrupt politician who's just been bought off again from the sound of it; why are these people surprised?
British cops screwing with lots of people simply to provide a racial balance in official statistics. Considering these people seem to have decided Sir Robert Peel never existed, or should never be mentioned, doesn't surprise me.
I'm now off to be (supposedly) helpful on some things.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
“Who should we believe,
Obama or you?”
Mr. Obama is a politician, and a very astute one. However, his speech revealed that his view is unduly influenced by naïve desire. His perception of Islam and the reality of Islam need to be synchronized. I am a physician and a realist who has lived and experienced the effect of my Arab culture and Islamic religion since childhood.
The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments, commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims -- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists and apologized for torture in Guantanamo, forgetting that Islamic regimes are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant U.S. contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks against America and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful world dominion.
...
Since arriving in the US, I have enjoyed the freedom to educate my Arab brothers and sisters in the Middle East, who yearn for real freedom - and I have seen successes. Mr. Obama calls these very successes into question rather than championing freedom.
As the president embarks on his new task to defend Muslims “against negative stereotypes,” does this mean he will somehow interfere and undermine that message? Or, perhaps it means he may join with the Organization of Islamic Conference, the 57 Muslim countries that work relentlessly to promote a United Nations resolution to suppress voices of dissent against Islam? I am confident we would all come to regret this.
Obama sidesteps the acute state of affairs in the Islamic world with flattery, failing to encourage accountability for rhetoric, practices and the behavior that feed stereotypes. I did not hear an exhortation to the Islamic world to open itself to diversity, to accept women as equal citizens with the same rights and protection under law as men. I did not hear a challenge to the Muslim world to accept other religions and their ability to practice openly within the Islamic world -- where the practice of Christianity, Judaism and other religions could cost an individual his or her life. I did not hear a call to erase for all time, Dhimmi racism -- the Sharia law-based dictate that Christians and Jews are inferior and should be suppressed. Are these “…the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity for human beings”?
A very good piece by Wafa Sultan, well worth reading.
And thanks to The Advice Goddess for pointing it out.
Mr. Obama is a politician, and a very astute one. However, his speech revealed that his view is unduly influenced by naïve desire. His perception of Islam and the reality of Islam need to be synchronized. I am a physician and a realist who has lived and experienced the effect of my Arab culture and Islamic religion since childhood.
The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments, commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims -- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists and apologized for torture in Guantanamo, forgetting that Islamic regimes are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant U.S. contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks against America and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful world dominion.
...
Since arriving in the US, I have enjoyed the freedom to educate my Arab brothers and sisters in the Middle East, who yearn for real freedom - and I have seen successes. Mr. Obama calls these very successes into question rather than championing freedom.
As the president embarks on his new task to defend Muslims “against negative stereotypes,” does this mean he will somehow interfere and undermine that message? Or, perhaps it means he may join with the Organization of Islamic Conference, the 57 Muslim countries that work relentlessly to promote a United Nations resolution to suppress voices of dissent against Islam? I am confident we would all come to regret this.
Obama sidesteps the acute state of affairs in the Islamic world with flattery, failing to encourage accountability for rhetoric, practices and the behavior that feed stereotypes. I did not hear an exhortation to the Islamic world to open itself to diversity, to accept women as equal citizens with the same rights and protection under law as men. I did not hear a challenge to the Muslim world to accept other religions and their ability to practice openly within the Islamic world -- where the practice of Christianity, Judaism and other religions could cost an individual his or her life. I did not hear a call to erase for all time, Dhimmi racism -- the Sharia law-based dictate that Christians and Jews are inferior and should be suppressed. Are these “…the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity for human beings”?
A very good piece by Wafa Sultan, well worth reading.
And thanks to The Advice Goddess for pointing it out.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Lessons from Mumbai
Lead and Gold has a link to a report, short and concise. I'd like to quote one bit:
One of the most important lessons of this attack is the continuing importance of an earlier operational form: the firearms assault. While the counterterrorism world has been focused almost exclusively on explosives, this attack demonstrates that firearms assault, while not as deadly as mass-casualty bombings, can be an effective tactic in creating prolonged chaos in an urban setting.
Put bluntly: in a city full of mostly unarmed people, a small group of terrorists with nothing but some guns, unless law enforcement or security forces are right there and capable, can cause an ungodly mess. Which brings me to something Lawdog wrote a while back:
"But, LawDog, I'm a CCW, not a cop. I'm not going to be responding to bank robberies."
Given that terrorism isn't going away any time soon, I'd not bet the ranch on that, but that's a discussion for another time.
Which is as nice a way as you'll hear of pointing out 'something like Mumbai could happen here. And you might be right there in the middle of it.' A flat-out terrifying thought, ain't it?
One of the things that surprises a lot of (sometimes stupid) critics of CCW is that they'll make some snotty comment about "Got to shoot anybody yet?" and the response is something on the lines of "I devoutly hope I never have to." And, in most self-defense uses of a gun, no shot is fired; bad guy finds out the intended victim is armed and ready to shoot, and decides to exit stage left as fast as possible, or surrenders. But here?
If this happens, and you're there, you've got terrorists who plan on dying; they hope to use their own death to further terrify us. Which means, you get caught in that, it's very simple: you may die if you fight, but you- and maybe a bunch of other people- will die if you don't. And you cannot count on the police. Most cops in the US, I think, will not have a problem with 'shoot the bad guys', but if the bad guys are smart, they'll first shoot any cops they see. Or just strike in an area away from them. And that means, if all goes to hell and you're there, you're it.
In the June issue of Guns, in the Odd Angry Shot column, there's this:
Significant numbers of police officers and other public officials resign or are fired- some, because they realize and admit they are not psychologically equipped to deal with events like this, others because their incompetence or cowardice were spotlighted and magnified by it.
Because
Afterward, scads of citizens complained the police hid and huddled right alongside them, refusing, sometimes profanely, to take action against the shooters.
...
...He saw two gunmen "calmly stroll across the station concouirse shooting both civilians and policement," who, he said were armed but did not return fire- they only took cover and hid.
As I say, I think the average cop in the US is more likely to draw and shoot; if nothing else, they've had far more training for such than the Mumbai police. But if they're not there when it happens, it doesn't matter if the guy with the badge is William Butler Hickock reborn.
I'll tell you flatly, when I seriously run through "What do I do if-?" in my mind, about a restaurant or mall or store, it scares hell out of me. And I really, really hope those plans/thoughts are never needed. But I'd rather think them through and sweat, than consider it happening and me not be ready because "It was just too terrible to think about."
One of the most important lessons of this attack is the continuing importance of an earlier operational form: the firearms assault. While the counterterrorism world has been focused almost exclusively on explosives, this attack demonstrates that firearms assault, while not as deadly as mass-casualty bombings, can be an effective tactic in creating prolonged chaos in an urban setting.
Put bluntly: in a city full of mostly unarmed people, a small group of terrorists with nothing but some guns, unless law enforcement or security forces are right there and capable, can cause an ungodly mess. Which brings me to something Lawdog wrote a while back:
"But, LawDog, I'm a CCW, not a cop. I'm not going to be responding to bank robberies."
Given that terrorism isn't going away any time soon, I'd not bet the ranch on that, but that's a discussion for another time.
Which is as nice a way as you'll hear of pointing out 'something like Mumbai could happen here. And you might be right there in the middle of it.' A flat-out terrifying thought, ain't it?
One of the things that surprises a lot of (sometimes stupid) critics of CCW is that they'll make some snotty comment about "Got to shoot anybody yet?" and the response is something on the lines of "I devoutly hope I never have to." And, in most self-defense uses of a gun, no shot is fired; bad guy finds out the intended victim is armed and ready to shoot, and decides to exit stage left as fast as possible, or surrenders. But here?
If this happens, and you're there, you've got terrorists who plan on dying; they hope to use their own death to further terrify us. Which means, you get caught in that, it's very simple: you may die if you fight, but you- and maybe a bunch of other people- will die if you don't. And you cannot count on the police. Most cops in the US, I think, will not have a problem with 'shoot the bad guys', but if the bad guys are smart, they'll first shoot any cops they see. Or just strike in an area away from them. And that means, if all goes to hell and you're there, you're it.
In the June issue of Guns, in the Odd Angry Shot column, there's this:
Significant numbers of police officers and other public officials resign or are fired- some, because they realize and admit they are not psychologically equipped to deal with events like this, others because their incompetence or cowardice were spotlighted and magnified by it.
Because
Afterward, scads of citizens complained the police hid and huddled right alongside them, refusing, sometimes profanely, to take action against the shooters.
...
...He saw two gunmen "calmly stroll across the station concouirse shooting both civilians and policement," who, he said were armed but did not return fire- they only took cover and hid.
As I say, I think the average cop in the US is more likely to draw and shoot; if nothing else, they've had far more training for such than the Mumbai police. But if they're not there when it happens, it doesn't matter if the guy with the badge is William Butler Hickock reborn.
I'll tell you flatly, when I seriously run through "What do I do if-?" in my mind, about a restaurant or mall or store, it scares hell out of me. And I really, really hope those plans/thoughts are never needed. But I'd rather think them through and sweat, than consider it happening and me not be ready because "It was just too terrible to think about."
Canada's chief censor defends her work
Badly.
Tolerance and open-mindedness are ideals to which Canadians have subscribed, and are part of the quest for equality that has come to define our country all over the world. They are the foundation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, whose promise is to give effect "to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have" without discrimination....
"So we have to censor what you say- especially if you're a conservative or religious or other non-PC type human- to make sure you don't take away someone's opportunity by saying something they don't like."
Isn't it wonderful how tyrants and tyrant-wannabes can justify their tyranny?
Tolerance and open-mindedness are ideals to which Canadians have subscribed, and are part of the quest for equality that has come to define our country all over the world. They are the foundation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, whose promise is to give effect "to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have" without discrimination....
"So we have to censor what you say- especially if you're a conservative or religious or other non-PC type human- to make sure you don't take away someone's opportunity by saying something they don't like."
Isn't it wonderful how tyrants and tyrant-wannabes can justify their tyranny?
"I am an Intern for Congressman Leghorn!"
Four interns sit down in my section and order four Bud Lights.
Me: I’m sorry, fellas, we don’t have Bud Light. We have PBR on draft, though.
Intern #1: (sighs) Fine, four of those.
Me: No problem. I just need to see your ID’s.
Intern #2: You don’t need to see our ID’s. We work for Congressman _______ from ________. (Flashes his red badge)
Me: Sorry, dude, but unless the Distinguished Gentleman from _______ is willing to use his oversight authority to make the $10,000 fine that we’d get slapped with for serving you without ID’s go away, and give me a paying job when I get fired anyway, I’m still going to have to see them.
Intern #1: Wow, “oversight authority.” That’s more knowledge than I’d expect from someone with your job.
Me: And that’s about as much ignorance as I’d expect from someone who agreed to lick envelopes for free.
Me: I’m sorry, fellas, we don’t have Bud Light. We have PBR on draft, though.
Intern #1: (sighs) Fine, four of those.
Me: No problem. I just need to see your ID’s.
Intern #2: You don’t need to see our ID’s. We work for Congressman _______ from ________. (Flashes his red badge)
Me: Sorry, dude, but unless the Distinguished Gentleman from _______ is willing to use his oversight authority to make the $10,000 fine that we’d get slapped with for serving you without ID’s go away, and give me a paying job when I get fired anyway, I’m still going to have to see them.
Intern #1: Wow, “oversight authority.” That’s more knowledge than I’d expect from someone with your job.
Me: And that’s about as much ignorance as I’d expect from someone who agreed to lick envelopes for free.
Robb finds some PSH
of fairly standard type. If you've got the time and stomach(usual 'little penis, violent, nasty, NRA vile people' crap all comes in), you'll find a couple of things in the comments that just about sum it up:
...And while you NRA folks absolutely have the right to your opinions, you're not going to change any minds here with this kind of angry debate. Blogging creates community, and by barreling in with cold statistics and colder attitudes, you are not going to have any kind of positive effect on the readers of this blog.
"How DARE you bring up nasty facts? How dare you not care more about our feelings?" Etc.
So with that I will close comments. Because this has morphed from civil discussion to antagonistic, disrespectful finger pointing... and now we're talking about dick endowment (no pun intended) wtf.
Uh, who brought that up? Wasn't the gun owners.
...And while you NRA folks absolutely have the right to your opinions, you're not going to change any minds here with this kind of angry debate. Blogging creates community, and by barreling in with cold statistics and colder attitudes, you are not going to have any kind of positive effect on the readers of this blog.
"How DARE you bring up nasty facts? How dare you not care more about our feelings?" Etc.
So with that I will close comments. Because this has morphed from civil discussion to antagonistic, disrespectful finger pointing... and now we're talking about dick endowment (no pun intended) wtf.
Uh, who brought that up? Wasn't the gun owners.
Looks like ABC wants to become the Obama Media Whore of Choice
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Which problem, being pointed out, has caused ABC to act all offended and stuff:
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Umm, Mr. Smith? Part of the problem is that 'ABCNEWS alone will select' crap; with you fairly blatantly sucking up to the administration, it's your selecting who and what gets said and asked that's a big part of the damn problem. And getting snotty and offended won't change that.
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Which problem, being pointed out, has caused ABC to act all offended and stuff:
"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."
Umm, Mr. Smith? Part of the problem is that 'ABCNEWS alone will select' crap; with you fairly blatantly sucking up to the administration, it's your selecting who and what gets said and asked that's a big part of the damn problem. And getting snotty and offended won't change that.
Did ANY of the major media have a story on tv about Obama being booed?
Barack Obama isn't used to hearing boos.
For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.
The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority — limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.
I heard part of this speech on radio; "I don't want government-run health care(or single-payer), though it works just fine in other countries", etc. Basically told them "You need to get with my plan, or Disaste Will Strike.", and the other usual crap.
We'll probably hear about this in a major media broadcast the same time they tell us about Chinese students laughing at the Treasury Secretary when he claimed things were just fine.
For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system.
The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority — limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.
I heard part of this speech on radio; "I don't want government-run health care(or single-payer), though it works just fine in other countries", etc. Basically told them "You need to get with my plan, or Disaste Will Strike.", and the other usual crap.
We'll probably hear about this in a major media broadcast the same time they tell us about Chinese students laughing at the Treasury Secretary when he claimed things were just fine.
Insty has taken note of the 'switchblade ban'
expansion that's being pushed right now. He says "Can't these people just butt out?"
Of course not. Their whole purpose is to control, and if they can do it by changing a definition and not having to go through Congress, well, so much the better! Try to avoid people actually hearing about it and getting upset.
I have to wonder, was this an independent idea, or did they get it from the way BATFE has been known to change a definition or rule without needed to go through Congress?
Of course not. Their whole purpose is to control, and if they can do it by changing a definition and not having to go through Congress, well, so much the better! Try to avoid people actually hearing about it and getting upset.
I have to wonder, was this an independent idea, or did they get it from the way BATFE has been known to change a definition or rule without needed to go through Congress?
Apparently the upset is working; Dirtbag Letterman apologizes
again. With, of course, an omission. Here's, to me, a critical part:
...But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended.
So, he supposedly took pains to make sure he was crapping on the older daughter, because that would be ok. Yeah.
You know, if this dirtbag had said something like "I should never have made such a joke about the kids. Period.", something like that, I might believe he actually means it. Instead, he makes it plain that shitting on Gov. Palin's kids is fine, as long as they're at least 18. For which he should have his ass kicked. I'm guessing pressure on advertisers is what led to this 'apology', and he's trying to keep his options open to keep attacking the kids of politicians he doesn't like while still playing "I'm apologizing, so leave me alone now." This is a vile piece of work, and he shouldn't get away with it.
...But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended.
So, he supposedly took pains to make sure he was crapping on the older daughter, because that would be ok. Yeah.
You know, if this dirtbag had said something like "I should never have made such a joke about the kids. Period.", something like that, I might believe he actually means it. Instead, he makes it plain that shitting on Gov. Palin's kids is fine, as long as they're at least 18. For which he should have his ass kicked. I'm guessing pressure on advertisers is what led to this 'apology', and he's trying to keep his options open to keep attacking the kids of politicians he doesn't like while still playing "I'm apologizing, so leave me alone now." This is a vile piece of work, and he shouldn't get away with it.
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, an opinion of the President's speech on Iran
I am struggling against a feeling of utter disgust. I recognize that there are times in diplomacy when one has to hide one's real feelings and to mince one's words about evil. And I realize that it is remotely possible that this is one of those times.
Yet this is a president who mormally loves the bully pulpit. And Obama's statements so far are about as restrained as it is possible for a president to utter without a gun actually being held to his head. One might perhaps understand a statement this mushy if Iran were America's closest political or military ally in the world. But it's not.
Note that even now Obama is not willing to denounce Ahmadinejad. All he is willing to say is "as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements." Obama chooses his words carefully. He doesn't call Ahminejad odious, nor does he call Ahmadinejad's core beliefs odious (after all, sometimes people say loose things that don't express their core beliefs). Nor does he say that Ahmadinejad's statements ARE odious, just that Obama personally "considers" them odious.
Yet this is a president who mormally loves the bully pulpit. And Obama's statements so far are about as restrained as it is possible for a president to utter without a gun actually being held to his head. One might perhaps understand a statement this mushy if Iran were America's closest political or military ally in the world. But it's not.
Note that even now Obama is not willing to denounce Ahmadinejad. All he is willing to say is "as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements." Obama chooses his words carefully. He doesn't call Ahminejad odious, nor does he call Ahmadinejad's core beliefs odious (after all, sometimes people say loose things that don't express their core beliefs). Nor does he say that Ahmadinejad's statements ARE odious, just that Obama personally "considers" them odious.
"Libby Prosecutor Threatens Critic"
is the name of the article, and it pretty much sums it up:
The book deals specifically with the FBI’s failure to stop the master spy in question, Ali Mohamed, who had infiltrated the Bureau, the CIA and the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Of particular interest to me, Lance details how the Ali Mohamed case intersected with the TWA Flight 800 case, a subject that Lance is not afraid to tackle.
More generally, the book documents the role Southern District New York (SDNY) Fitzgerald played in the war on terror, a war that Lance claims Fitzgerald badly mismanaged before September 11, 2001.
I haven't read the book; considering the idiocies that have come out about pre-9/11 actions(and inactions), we know some of these clowns should have been fired for what they did(and did not do). In any case, it seems Patrick Fitzgerald is a bit upset:
Claiming to have been defamed, Fitzgerald sent Harper Collins an 11-page letter in October 2007 demanding that the publisher publicly apologize, withdraw all copies of the book, and refrain from publishing any updated versions.
Needless to say, this was not a friendly admonition. It came with an implicit threat to sue, even if HarperCollins met Fitzgerald’s terms.
HarperCollins took the threat seriously. Fitzgerald has a reputation for playing hardball. He had earned it by prosecuting Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby for misremembering details of a pseudo-crime Fitzgerald knew he did not commit.
I bolded that because I think it's really important; that a prosecutor would do this is disgusting, a violation of his oath. If he'd do this, how else would he use the power of his position? Like, maybe, threatening someone who published something he didn't like?
An equally unsettling development would take place in the days following Fitzgerald’s fourth letter. Ann Sparanese, an anti-censorship advocate and a former member of the governing Council of the American Library Association, posted an item on the blog, Library Juice, criticizing Fitzgerald.
Sparanese noted that Fitzgerald had sent at least one letter on a U.S. Attorney fax machine, that he had already tied up publication of Triple Cross for 18 months while author and publisher were forced to review his charges, and that his effort represents an “example of the chilling effect of censorship.”
An attorney named Cynthia Kouril, who had served in the Southern District of New York that Lance had investigated, immediately responded to Sparanese’s posting.
Kouril warned the blog’s host, Rory Litwin, that “by making a conscious editorial choice to post [Sparanese’s piece], rather than being a passive host, you do take responisbility (sic) for content under the Electronic Comminications (sic) Decency Act.”
'Passive host'? 'Conscious editorial decision'? Oooh, these lawyers don't like any kind of criticism, do they? Even when it's not criticism of themselves?
And an end note:
I have seen this suppression up close. The FBI arrested my TWA 800 writing partner, James Sanders, and his wife Elizabeth for Sanders’ reporting on the Feds’ foul play in the TWA 800 case.
The Federal investigation into the Sanders began days after Sanders’ research into government malfeasance had been featured in a major newspaper article.
In a subsequent civil trial, the judge acknowledged that the FBI’s “aggressive investigation commenced immediately following publication of the newspaper article,” but, the judge continued, “it does not follow that [the Sanders] were punished because they may have drawn blood.”
The name of that judge? Sonia Sotomayor. If things go as planned, Fitzgerald may want to take his case directly to the Supreme Court.
If I remember right, the American Library Association is very big on 'banned books' and so forth, but have refused to condemn Castro & Co. for jailing librarians in Cuba; interesting to see them getting whacked at by the same kind of "Don't talk about us" that Fidel has used on librarians in Cuba for years.
The book deals specifically with the FBI’s failure to stop the master spy in question, Ali Mohamed, who had infiltrated the Bureau, the CIA and the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Of particular interest to me, Lance details how the Ali Mohamed case intersected with the TWA Flight 800 case, a subject that Lance is not afraid to tackle.
More generally, the book documents the role Southern District New York (SDNY) Fitzgerald played in the war on terror, a war that Lance claims Fitzgerald badly mismanaged before September 11, 2001.
I haven't read the book; considering the idiocies that have come out about pre-9/11 actions(and inactions), we know some of these clowns should have been fired for what they did(and did not do). In any case, it seems Patrick Fitzgerald is a bit upset:
Claiming to have been defamed, Fitzgerald sent Harper Collins an 11-page letter in October 2007 demanding that the publisher publicly apologize, withdraw all copies of the book, and refrain from publishing any updated versions.
Needless to say, this was not a friendly admonition. It came with an implicit threat to sue, even if HarperCollins met Fitzgerald’s terms.
HarperCollins took the threat seriously. Fitzgerald has a reputation for playing hardball. He had earned it by prosecuting Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby for misremembering details of a pseudo-crime Fitzgerald knew he did not commit.
I bolded that because I think it's really important; that a prosecutor would do this is disgusting, a violation of his oath. If he'd do this, how else would he use the power of his position? Like, maybe, threatening someone who published something he didn't like?
An equally unsettling development would take place in the days following Fitzgerald’s fourth letter. Ann Sparanese, an anti-censorship advocate and a former member of the governing Council of the American Library Association, posted an item on the blog, Library Juice, criticizing Fitzgerald.
Sparanese noted that Fitzgerald had sent at least one letter on a U.S. Attorney fax machine, that he had already tied up publication of Triple Cross for 18 months while author and publisher were forced to review his charges, and that his effort represents an “example of the chilling effect of censorship.”
An attorney named Cynthia Kouril, who had served in the Southern District of New York that Lance had investigated, immediately responded to Sparanese’s posting.
Kouril warned the blog’s host, Rory Litwin, that “by making a conscious editorial choice to post [Sparanese’s piece], rather than being a passive host, you do take responisbility (sic) for content under the Electronic Comminications (sic) Decency Act.”
'Passive host'? 'Conscious editorial decision'? Oooh, these lawyers don't like any kind of criticism, do they? Even when it's not criticism of themselves?
And an end note:
I have seen this suppression up close. The FBI arrested my TWA 800 writing partner, James Sanders, and his wife Elizabeth for Sanders’ reporting on the Feds’ foul play in the TWA 800 case.
The Federal investigation into the Sanders began days after Sanders’ research into government malfeasance had been featured in a major newspaper article.
In a subsequent civil trial, the judge acknowledged that the FBI’s “aggressive investigation commenced immediately following publication of the newspaper article,” but, the judge continued, “it does not follow that [the Sanders] were punished because they may have drawn blood.”
The name of that judge? Sonia Sotomayor. If things go as planned, Fitzgerald may want to take his case directly to the Supreme Court.
If I remember right, the American Library Association is very big on 'banned books' and so forth, but have refused to condemn Castro & Co. for jailing librarians in Cuba; interesting to see them getting whacked at by the same kind of "Don't talk about us" that Fidel has used on librarians in Cuba for years.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A fine example to us of the combination of hoplophobia
and stupidity:
The first “anti-stab” knife is to go on sale in Britain, designed to work as normal in the kitchen but to be ineffective as a weapon.
The knife has a rounded edge instead of a point and will snag on clothing and skin to make it more difficult to stab someone.
It was invented by industrial designer John Cornock, who was inspired by a documentary in which doctors advocated banning traditional knives.
Of course, if you need a point for something in the kitchen you'll have to use another knife. Unless the socialist hoplophobes decide to ban all 'non-anti-stab' knives, in which case they can take a break from making sure you have a license to watch tv and instead go through your kitchen to make sure you don't have an old knife around.
Mr Cornock, 42, from Swindon, said that the knife will cut vegetables, but will make it almost impossible to stab someone to death and will reduce the risk of accidental injuries.
Unless you really drive it in. Or just cut their throat or do other slicing with it.
He said: “It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.”
Again, unless you drive it in really hard. Which murderers and such undesirable types tend to do. Or just grab it and start cutting(yes, I'm sure somebody is trying to figure out how to force people to only own dull knives).
The knife is expected to sell for around £40-50 and has been tested with “very favourable” results by the Home Office’s Design and Technology Alliance - set up to research products that can deter crime.
So, in the name of a 'safer' knife, they want people to spend $90-100 on something that
A: has no point, which is a useful sort of thing on a knife,
B: can still cut,
C: can, with a few minutes time, receive a bright, shiny new point suitable for puncturing all kinds of things.
You know, seems it would be a lot simpler to, say, capture violent criminals and lock their ass up for a LONG time, than to keep blaming objects for what the criminals do...
The first “anti-stab” knife is to go on sale in Britain, designed to work as normal in the kitchen but to be ineffective as a weapon.
The knife has a rounded edge instead of a point and will snag on clothing and skin to make it more difficult to stab someone.
It was invented by industrial designer John Cornock, who was inspired by a documentary in which doctors advocated banning traditional knives.
Of course, if you need a point for something in the kitchen you'll have to use another knife. Unless the socialist hoplophobes decide to ban all 'non-anti-stab' knives, in which case they can take a break from making sure you have a license to watch tv and instead go through your kitchen to make sure you don't have an old knife around.
Mr Cornock, 42, from Swindon, said that the knife will cut vegetables, but will make it almost impossible to stab someone to death and will reduce the risk of accidental injuries.
Unless you really drive it in. Or just cut their throat or do other slicing with it.
He said: “It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.”
Again, unless you drive it in really hard. Which murderers and such undesirable types tend to do. Or just grab it and start cutting(yes, I'm sure somebody is trying to figure out how to force people to only own dull knives).
The knife is expected to sell for around £40-50 and has been tested with “very favourable” results by the Home Office’s Design and Technology Alliance - set up to research products that can deter crime.
So, in the name of a 'safer' knife, they want people to spend $90-100 on something that
A: has no point, which is a useful sort of thing on a knife,
B: can still cut,
C: can, with a few minutes time, receive a bright, shiny new point suitable for puncturing all kinds of things.
You know, seems it would be a lot simpler to, say, capture violent criminals and lock their ass up for a LONG time, than to keep blaming objects for what the criminals do...
So Obama finally speaks on Iran,
and he's 'deeply troubled'. But not so troubled that he won't talk to Ahmadinnerjacket, still without preconditions.
The Obama administration is determined to press on with efforts to engage the Iranian government, senior officials said Saturday, despite misgivings about irregularities in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…
Just damn wonderful, isn't it?
Michael Totten is keeping a running story going on the mess over there.
Of course, it's possible The One is distracted by what his friends in ACORN are doing in New York:
On Thursday, some 150 protestors -- many of them from the thuggish far-left group ACORN -- turned up outside the Senate chamber and actually assaulted members of the Republican faction.
The demonstrators nearly knocked to the floor Sen. James Alesi (of upstate Monroe County); they also spat in the face of his chief of staff, according to published reports.
Not only was this violence uncalled for, the ACORN crowd shouldn't even have been there in the first place: The Senate lobby is a restricted area, and public protests are explicitly prohibited.
Which means someone gave the order to let them in. Question is, are these clowns under arrest? And if not, why the hell not? This is actual physical assault; even if the Evil Party head of the Senate decided to let them in, that doesn't excuse this crap.(pointed to by the Real King of France)
Or, maybe Pres. B. Hussein Cartman Obama was too busy breaking the law he likes to take credit for and otherwise acting unethically:
Senator Charles Grassley has demanded records from the Obama administration over the dismissal of the Inspector General for Americorps and raises the possibility that Barack Obama broke a law he co-sponsored in the Senate that protects the independence of the IGs. The firing comes as the Obama administration cut a sweetheart deal with a major Obama backer that allows him to receive federal funding as mayor of Sacramento, and fails to repay taxpayers for the money Kevin Johnson admittedly took illegally:
Veep Biden tries to claim 'everybody' was wrong about the effects of the 'stimulus'; is noted as being full of crap.
It started sprinkling about the time I posted on the weather last night; then it thunderstormed during the night. Now they're saying slight chance tonight and damn hot & clear the next few days; which will help the wheat harvest(what there is of it) and broil everyone else. I need to get an icemaker.
The Obama administration is determined to press on with efforts to engage the Iranian government, senior officials said Saturday, despite misgivings about irregularities in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…
Just damn wonderful, isn't it?
Michael Totten is keeping a running story going on the mess over there.
Of course, it's possible The One is distracted by what his friends in ACORN are doing in New York:
On Thursday, some 150 protestors -- many of them from the thuggish far-left group ACORN -- turned up outside the Senate chamber and actually assaulted members of the Republican faction.
The demonstrators nearly knocked to the floor Sen. James Alesi (of upstate Monroe County); they also spat in the face of his chief of staff, according to published reports.
Not only was this violence uncalled for, the ACORN crowd shouldn't even have been there in the first place: The Senate lobby is a restricted area, and public protests are explicitly prohibited.
Which means someone gave the order to let them in. Question is, are these clowns under arrest? And if not, why the hell not? This is actual physical assault; even if the Evil Party head of the Senate decided to let them in, that doesn't excuse this crap.(pointed to by the Real King of France)
Or, maybe Pres. B. Hussein Cartman Obama was too busy breaking the law he likes to take credit for and otherwise acting unethically:
Senator Charles Grassley has demanded records from the Obama administration over the dismissal of the Inspector General for Americorps and raises the possibility that Barack Obama broke a law he co-sponsored in the Senate that protects the independence of the IGs. The firing comes as the Obama administration cut a sweetheart deal with a major Obama backer that allows him to receive federal funding as mayor of Sacramento, and fails to repay taxpayers for the money Kevin Johnson admittedly took illegally:
Veep Biden tries to claim 'everybody' was wrong about the effects of the 'stimulus'; is noted as being full of crap.
It started sprinkling about the time I posted on the weather last night; then it thunderstormed during the night. Now they're saying slight chance tonight and damn hot & clear the next few days; which will help the wheat harvest(what there is of it) and broil everyone else. I need to get an icemaker.
Kosher pigs?
Literally?
(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority media outlets continue to blame Israel for problems caused by wild boars in Samaria, despite Israeli efforts to cull the animals. On Thursday, PA farmers near Ariel complained that “Israeli settlers” had engineered a wild boar attack that destroyed agricultural produce.
The farmers' claims were repeated by the head of the regional PA farmers' union, who accused Israelis living in Ariel and nearby towns of planning the attacks. The union head did not explain how Israelis allegedly trained the pigs to destroy only Arab crops.
Ah, that's how clever those Jews are, you see? Somehow they trained the boar to magically detect "Arab crops,dead ahead! Dammit, Moshe, stop that, those are kosher carrots, you boob!"
Media outlets have also lent credence to the claims, with the PA-based Ma'an news agency stating, “The wild boars are being released by Israeli settlers in order to destroy the plants and crops of Palestinians.”
I didn't know Dan Rather had moved to Samaria?
Israel is unable to cull the boar population in Arab villages in Samaria, as those areas are entirely under PA control.
"See! See! They sent them somehow to our villages! Ah, the cleverness and malice of the JOOOOS!"
These people... They ever do wind up without any nasty Jews to blame for everything, what will they do?
(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority media outlets continue to blame Israel for problems caused by wild boars in Samaria, despite Israeli efforts to cull the animals. On Thursday, PA farmers near Ariel complained that “Israeli settlers” had engineered a wild boar attack that destroyed agricultural produce.
The farmers' claims were repeated by the head of the regional PA farmers' union, who accused Israelis living in Ariel and nearby towns of planning the attacks. The union head did not explain how Israelis allegedly trained the pigs to destroy only Arab crops.
Ah, that's how clever those Jews are, you see? Somehow they trained the boar to magically detect "Arab crops,dead ahead! Dammit, Moshe, stop that, those are kosher carrots, you boob!"
Media outlets have also lent credence to the claims, with the PA-based Ma'an news agency stating, “The wild boars are being released by Israeli settlers in order to destroy the plants and crops of Palestinians.”
I didn't know Dan Rather had moved to Samaria?
Israel is unable to cull the boar population in Arab villages in Samaria, as those areas are entirely under PA control.
"See! See! They sent them somehow to our villages! Ah, the cleverness and malice of the JOOOOS!"
These people... They ever do wind up without any nasty Jews to blame for everything, what will they do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)