http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
---------------------------------------------------
This post has been brought to you by the Point-At-Great-Britain-And-Laugh-Maniacally-Council.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Shooty Goodness
Haven't been to the range for a few weeks, mostly because work started again and I'm in my final semester of college. And I've got to coordinate my schedule with my friend who also has an interest in going to the range.
Since I've blogged last, I bought a new rifle. $1300, very modern, very slick. I'd call it the best rifle on the market, and I know a lot of other people would too. Last week I picked up a variety of magazines for it, 300 rounds of ammo in a variety of brands (Wolf Camo, Wolf Black, and Brown Bear).
It's a well known fact this rifle possesses the WORST iron sights ever included on a rifle. So I was less than sanguine about trying it out today...I knew I had to function test the mags and ammo to decide what to stockpile, but I didn't want to just burn through $100 worth of ammo just blazing away without hitting anything.
Even with the worst irons ever invent, this rifle is still more accurate than I am. A little low and right, just a hair, but from a rest it grouped beautifully at 25 yards. Without a rest it grouped beautifully at 25 yards. Moved it out to 50 yards (a distance I don't usually shoot with my rifles, but which I'm attempting to learn) and it grouped nicely there too.
I can now safely say that I'm confident in stockpiling the absolute cheapest ammunition manufactured, because I know it will function perfectly, and be as accurate as I need it to be.
The magazines were interesting. The cheap magazines functioned perfectly. The worlds-best polymer magazines functioned perfectly. The most expensive magazines didn't lock the bolt back once, and wanted to skew the rounds as I loaded them. Not cool. I trust the magazine, having run it a second time, but I will not buy another.
Also ran 47 rounds of S&B 9mm through my Beretta 92, shooting at 25 yards. Good accuracy from that - which I didn't expect, usually I have trouble hitting the 25 yard target with a pistol. Now I need to function test the Wolf 9mm again. If it continues to give me problems, I have to rotate my entire 9mm stockpile out, replacing it with S&B. Like I needed one more thing to spend my money on...
A fun day was had by all.
Since I've blogged last, I bought a new rifle. $1300, very modern, very slick. I'd call it the best rifle on the market, and I know a lot of other people would too. Last week I picked up a variety of magazines for it, 300 rounds of ammo in a variety of brands (Wolf Camo, Wolf Black, and Brown Bear).
It's a well known fact this rifle possesses the WORST iron sights ever included on a rifle. So I was less than sanguine about trying it out today...I knew I had to function test the mags and ammo to decide what to stockpile, but I didn't want to just burn through $100 worth of ammo just blazing away without hitting anything.
Even with the worst irons ever invent, this rifle is still more accurate than I am. A little low and right, just a hair, but from a rest it grouped beautifully at 25 yards. Without a rest it grouped beautifully at 25 yards. Moved it out to 50 yards (a distance I don't usually shoot with my rifles, but which I'm attempting to learn) and it grouped nicely there too.
I can now safely say that I'm confident in stockpiling the absolute cheapest ammunition manufactured, because I know it will function perfectly, and be as accurate as I need it to be.
The magazines were interesting. The cheap magazines functioned perfectly. The worlds-best polymer magazines functioned perfectly. The most expensive magazines didn't lock the bolt back once, and wanted to skew the rounds as I loaded them. Not cool. I trust the magazine, having run it a second time, but I will not buy another.
Also ran 47 rounds of S&B 9mm through my Beretta 92, shooting at 25 yards. Good accuracy from that - which I didn't expect, usually I have trouble hitting the 25 yard target with a pistol. Now I need to function test the Wolf 9mm again. If it continues to give me problems, I have to rotate my entire 9mm stockpile out, replacing it with S&B. Like I needed one more thing to spend my money on...
A fun day was had by all.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Quotes
"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." - Doug Patton
"He who does not punish evil evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci
I haven't been collecting quotes for this blog in quite a while. I think perhaps it's time to start again.
"He who does not punish evil evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci
I haven't been collecting quotes for this blog in quite a while. I think perhaps it's time to start again.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
This Is How...
This is how the world ends: It takes us by surprise.
The apocalypse is by definition an event, natural or otherwise, so awesome in magnitutde and power that it cannot be escaped, cannot be fought, cannot be averted.
And so we never expect the world to end. Even the most jaded, even the most cynical always hold out hope that this isn't really the end, that somehow we'll make it through.
This is how the world ends: It takes us by surprise.
This is how the world changes: With or without our permission. It moves on whether we want it to or don't, whether we're ready or not. And we have to follow. Whether we run to catch up or are dragged along behind, the world doesn't change without us.
This is how the world changes: With or without our permission.
This is how the world begins again: With the promise of rebirth, of rebuilding, with the sun rising on the day after the world ended, just like it did the day before. This is how the world begins again...
Some notes for a book I'm writing.
The apocalypse is by definition an event, natural or otherwise, so awesome in magnitutde and power that it cannot be escaped, cannot be fought, cannot be averted.
And so we never expect the world to end. Even the most jaded, even the most cynical always hold out hope that this isn't really the end, that somehow we'll make it through.
This is how the world ends: It takes us by surprise.
This is how the world changes: With or without our permission. It moves on whether we want it to or don't, whether we're ready or not. And we have to follow. Whether we run to catch up or are dragged along behind, the world doesn't change without us.
This is how the world changes: With or without our permission.
This is how the world begins again: With the promise of rebirth, of rebuilding, with the sun rising on the day after the world ended, just like it did the day before. This is how the world begins again...
Some notes for a book I'm writing.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
So As I Don't Go Forgetting...End Of The Summer
Theory Of A Deadman - End Of The Summer
Here we are
At the end
Say goodbye
To all of your friends
Here we go
Watching the sun go 'round
Sitting on a rooftop
Making time stop
I never wanna come back down
I never wanna come down
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're moving on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment till then
It's the End Of The Summer
Here we stand
In the middle of an empty street
Tell me where you wanna go
I'll tell you "that's where I wanna be"
Say goodbye to the warm breeze
We could be almost anywhere
I'll miss you
'till the next time
I hope I see you there
I hope I see you back here
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're moving on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment till then,
It's the End Of The Summer
End Of The Summer
Ride's almost over
It's getting colder
Take one last look
Before it passes by
Before it passes you by
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're movin on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment 'till then
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're movin on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment 'till then
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the End Of The Summer
------------------------------------------
Ice cream and gifts.
Summer ended for me the same way it began - walking home, wondering what comes next. I'm not the one leaving, but I feel like I'm boxing part of my life and putting it in the attic.
This summer was so messed up for me. Started off wondering what kind of mistake I'd made, how I was going to make this work. First it became tolerable, then wonderful, the heartbreakingly better, and now...
Now I don't know how I'm gonna deal with things going back to the way they were.
Here we are
At the end
Say goodbye
To all of your friends
Here we go
Watching the sun go 'round
Sitting on a rooftop
Making time stop
I never wanna come back down
I never wanna come down
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're moving on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment till then
It's the End Of The Summer
Here we stand
In the middle of an empty street
Tell me where you wanna go
I'll tell you "that's where I wanna be"
Say goodbye to the warm breeze
We could be almost anywhere
I'll miss you
'till the next time
I hope I see you there
I hope I see you back here
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're moving on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment till then,
It's the End Of The Summer
End Of The Summer
Ride's almost over
It's getting colder
Take one last look
Before it passes by
Before it passes you by
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're movin on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment 'till then
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the end of it all
Those days are gone
It's over now
We're movin on
It's the End Of The Summer
But we'll see it all again
So hold onto this moment 'till then
It's the End Of The Summer
It's the End Of The Summer
------------------------------------------
Ice cream and gifts.
Summer ended for me the same way it began - walking home, wondering what comes next. I'm not the one leaving, but I feel like I'm boxing part of my life and putting it in the attic.
This summer was so messed up for me. Started off wondering what kind of mistake I'd made, how I was going to make this work. First it became tolerable, then wonderful, the heartbreakingly better, and now...
Now I don't know how I'm gonna deal with things going back to the way they were.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Beat People Over The Head With This
Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, gets us into WW1 where 116,516 US soldiers are killed.
FDR, A Democrat, gets us into WW2 where 405,399 US soldiers are killed.
Harry S. Truman, a Democrat. get us into the Korean War where 36,516 US soldiers are killed.
LBJ, a Democrat, gets us into the Vietnam War where 58,209 US soldiers are killed.
George H. W. Bush, a Republican, gets us into the 1st Gulf War where 299 US soldiers are killed.
George W. Bush, a Republican, gets us into the war in Afghanistan where (to date) 573 US soldiers are killed.
George W Bush, a Republican, gets us into the Iraq War where (to date) 4,144 US soldiers are killed.
FDR, A Democrat, gets us into WW2 where 405,399 US soldiers are killed.
Harry S. Truman, a Democrat. get us into the Korean War where 36,516 US soldiers are killed.
LBJ, a Democrat, gets us into the Vietnam War where 58,209 US soldiers are killed.
George H. W. Bush, a Republican, gets us into the 1st Gulf War where 299 US soldiers are killed.
George W. Bush, a Republican, gets us into the war in Afghanistan where (to date) 573 US soldiers are killed.
George W Bush, a Republican, gets us into the Iraq War where (to date) 4,144 US soldiers are killed.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Hilarious
This is not an original piece of work. This has been posted on ARFcom before. I just like posting it again!
Zombies, aliens, robots, terrorists, whatever, everyone sends in a team to investigate the strange goings-on in a remote scientific research facility. Here's a few things to do before going on a mission:
Things to know before joining a scientific specops team.
I refuse to go into the underground research facility, deep-space research facility, deep-sea research facility, radio-blacked out colony, derelict alien ship, or abandoned ghost ship.
If forced into attempting any of the above six missions, I will go AWOL. Prison showers are almost certainly preferable to what awaits.
I will carry more than one gun and carry as many as humanly possible.
In line with above, I will carry more than one mag per gun. I have a belt, and intend to fill it.
If the hallways of the operations area are big enough to allow it, I will bring along a small field artillery piece.
No matter what my CO says, if my job is to plant a nuclear device to destroy the facility/ship, it is not necessary for me to endanger my life by traveling to the center of the structure to plant the bomb, I'm sure the entrance will prove just as effective.
If my job is to disable the AI system that runs the facility/ship, and this requires me to go to the center of the structure, I will just plant a small nuclear device at the entrance. If the blast doesn't get it, the EMP will.
If my body armor proves ineffective against whatever killed everyone in the facility/ship, I will ditch it and use the saved weight to carry more guns.
If the body armor is ineffective and so are the guns, I will ditch both and set a new track record on my way out of the ops area.
I refuse to wear any helmet that restricts my peripheral vision and does not allow me to see something rising up/dropping down right beside me.
I will request a helmet that has a small HUD linked to a camera on the back of my helmet. An additional HUD linked to a upward-pointing top mounted camera would be nice as well.
If going into some top secret facility that has lost radio communication with the outside world, I will make damn sure that I am in possession of a high quality, up to date map that will not be rendered unreadable by contact with liquid.
If I could not obtain a map, and am lost/trapped in the facility, I will not rely on the unstable, homicidal central AI to provide me with escape routes.
If I am inside a facility/ship after the stuff has hit the fan, and find myself without a map, I will head to the nearest computer terminal and consult Yahoo! Maps. The facility was built by a corporation or the government, and they can certainly afford an Internet connection.
If there is a self-destruct mechanism or impenetrable blast doors set on a running timer within the building/ship I am ordered to enter, I will guard the entrances until the timer runs out, then leave. The problem will take care of itself eventually, so there is no need to risk myself.
If mine is not the first team to be sent into the area, I will take a little time off to wonder why.
If the music suddenly gets really creepy, start spinning around with your finger on the trigger. Whoever was guarding your back is probably gone by this point anyway.
Before I go on each mission, I will rent Aliens, Resident Evil, Event Horizon, and other similar movies for pointers. I will defer the costs as "training expenses".
If there is something dripping from the ceiling up ahead, I won't bother to check if it's just water. I will leave the area immediately by the quickest available route.
If I hear odd noises, I will not be foolish enough to investigate it alone. I will take a friend or two with big guns.
If ordered to investigate the noise by my CO, I will take everyone else in the squad with me. By the time we return to where the CO was waiting, the problem will probably have solved itself.
If forced to walk underneath a hole in the ceiling, I will be cautious and investigate it thoroughly with high explosives.
If I hear odd noises coming from the ceiling, I will not lift up a panel and stick my head up to have a look around. I will lift up the panel and shove a grenade up there.
Similarly, if forced to pass a hole/grate in the walls or floor, I will throw a grenade in to make sure its clear now, and set proximity mines to make sure it is clear later.
Unless it is my last chance for survival, I will never go into any type of ventilation shaft. I know that whatever chased me up there will almost certainly be able to move faster than me in an enclosed space.
I will always take some sort of sword with me in addition to a multitude of projectile weapons. That way, when I run out of ammunition, and I will, I won't have to ineffectually slap at an opponent before being killed.
Knowingly entering a facility where illegal genetic research is being preformed would be consigning myself to death by stupidity. Therefore, I wouldn't enter, even if this entailed killing the rest of my team to avoid it.
I would never enter a dark room. I would throw in a handful of grenades and move on, assured that if anything is still alive in there, it isn't happy.
I wont make the mistake of shooting something with my smallest gun first, and then working my way up to larger firearms. I would start with my biggest gun, and if that didn't work, run like hell.
If sent off with only one companion, I would make sure it is someone I could outrun. That way, I can get away while whatever was chasing us chews on him.
If there are women on the team, I will never sleep with them right before a mission. One or the other of us will almost certainly not make it back, and I don't like 50/50 odds.
If a team-member disappears mysteriously for a long period of time and the just as mysteriously reappears, I will shoot them immediately and save myself a lot of trouble.
I will periodically look up. The importance of this can never be overstated.
If in a genetic research lab and there are lots of cages whose steel doors have been torn out, I will think about how much punishment those doors could take. Then I will think about how much punishment my frail human body can take. Then I will start thinking about where those exits were.
No matter how tempted, I will never deactivate the main power in a research facility. I know those doors are magnetically locked and electrified for a reason.
I will never deactivate the main computer in a facility. Even though its automated defenses may be slaughtering the rest of the team, they are still holding back whatever killed the original occupants.
I will stay away from any elevators. Nothing good ever comes from an elevator in these situations.
I will never negotiate with whatever is trying to kill my team. The dialogue will almost certainly be along the lines of "Me hungry, you food".
If one of my team-members gets bitten, cut, sprayed with, or otherwise exposed to a bio-agent, I will kill them immediately. They will only turn on me, and the antidote never works anyway.
The sexiest female will always make it out, mainly because she is surrounded by men who willingly throw themselves in the path of anything that attempts to harm her. I will stay close to that female, and when I am the last male left, I will throw her in the path of whatever is attempting to harm us.
I will make sure that when I finally exit from the ops area, I have conserved a decent amount of ammunition. Something always goes wrong during the escape.
If I find only one survivor from among 500 or so people, I will not trust them. They had to do something to survive the carnage that killed 500 people, and I don't think it was just run really fast.
I will make sure the team will under no circumstances split up. It never helps.
If upon arriving in the ops area I hear a lot of screams from inside or see a lot of obviously mutilated dead bodies, I will leave the ops area and come back later with back up and bigger guns.
I will train to keep my cool under pressure well enough to hit a head sized target at a range of 10 feet.
I will request that any ops team I am a part of be issued body armor with environmental resistance from things like fire, airborne viruses, and acid.
The aforementioned armor will have a reflective mirrored surface, to help with those pesky automated laser defenses.
If I see something in the shadows up ahead that at first glance does not appear human, appears vaguely human, or appears human. I will forgo taking the time for a second look and lob a grenade at it instead. Better safe than sorry.
If multiple survivors are found during the course of the mission, they will be given a gun and told to make themselves useful.
However, if these survivors created or want to study whatever depopulated the facility/ship, they will not be given guns as they cannot be trusted to use them at the crucial moment, due to their conflict of interests.
Between missions I will lobby for legislature to require all secret research facilities to have heavily stocked ammo dumps in easily accessible, well marked locations.
If my team is required to use motion detectors, they better be able to scan 360 degrees, not merely 90.
If the body count is currently over 500, I will politely inform my superiors that an 8 man operations team isn't going to cut it.
If any member of the team is prone to claustrophobia, diver's high, space-mania, or panic attacks, I will deliver a request to the CO that they be left behind, instead of just being given a pep talk.
If any member of the team proves to be a corporate/government spy, I will shoot them before anyone else can react, saving the trouble of taking them prisoner only so they can escape later and sabotage the mission.
I will recommend that any form of transportation we have be parked well away from the trouble spot, that the operator stays in it, and keeps the doors sealed until the team is standing outside and ready to leave.
If we have a spare transport I will recommend that we have a spare pilot as well, to save having to remote control fly the transport in if something happens to the first.
If any member of the team takes a revolver on the mission, I will take it from them, hand them an automatic, and then slap them silly for being so stupid.
I will ensure that all guns have perfectly calibrated laser sights, even if I must pay for them myself, as missing a headshot is inexcusable.
If the team gets out of an ops area and find we are missing a man, I will recommend we leave his ass. He should have kept up in the first place.
If our mission is to shut down a rogue AI, I will not discuss our plans in any room with a visible camera and/or audio pickup.
Screw shoulder-mounted flashlights, I'll carry night vision goggles even if the cost has to come out of my paycheck.
The same goes for little pen-lights. I will carry a 3 foot mag-lite with a halogen bulb. That way, not only do I get a huge flashlight range, it can double as a club in tight situations.
If low on ammunition, I won't hesitate to roll the bodies of my teammates for ammo. They certainly don't need it anymore.
If I learn that the beings we are fighting have acid for blood or that their blood contains some sort of bio-agent, I will make damn sure I am at least 15 feet away from any I shoot.
If my team possesses an APC, but it won't fit into the corridors of the ops area, I'll rectify the situation with explosives instead of going in on foot.
If my opponents use cloaking devices that short out upon contact with water, I will always carry a small super-soaker pistol with me.
If forced to pick a position within a facility to make a last stand, it will not be a room which can easily be breached by going above the ceiling or under the floor.
If I hear a low hissing or moaning directly behind me, I will take off running without thinking. Whatever it is, its first bite of me is going to be ass.
If anyone in the squad has a flamethrower, I will make sure everyone else is trained to instinctively duck whenever he even begins to turn around.
When the team's mission is to plant a bomb I will make sure we have more than one bomb, and more than one person who knows how to plant it.
If going into an area in where research in biological warfare was occurring, I will not remove my gas mask before entering the facility.
If there is a countdown to an explosion or the sealing off of the facility, I will set my watch timer 10 minutes ahead of that to give myself a margin of safety.
If any of the rescued or one of my team members starts to convulse and scream, I'll have the guy with the flamethrower hose them down and then move on. If it is the napalm guy I'll shoot the tank. Whatever made them do it, it wasn't a cramp.
If my team has heavy weaponry, I will not wait until there are only a few people left and we are surrounded to use them. I will use them as early and as often as possible.
Similarly, if I have a large ship in orbit over the planet, and find out that there are no survivors in a heavily infested area, I will call for an orbital bombardment of the hot zone.
If I hear odd noises coming from a grate nearby, I won't stare quizzically at it and shine a weak flashlight beam through the grate, I will immediately empty my current mag into the grate then kick it in and send a grenade into the tunnel.
If we have prisoners, and one of them is talking to me steadily in a calm voice while staring behind me, I will immediately dive to the side and roll to hose whatever was about to attack me. The same response if a team-member looks behind me with an expression of horror.
If I address a query to the guy that should be behind me, and receive no immediate response, I will immediately break into a dead run, dropping grenades along the way.
If I find that rooms marked on my map as dining halls turn out to be full of stasis chambers and odd piping instead, I will immediately leave the ops area and refuse to enter until I get a damn good explanation.
If we manage to ambush the enemy and I hear a high pitched beeping and it starts laughing, I will be smart enough to just start running, instead of searching it for the timer.
I will never walk through water any deeper than I can see down into. I won't walk in the water period if there is electric cabling nearby.
Any transports we bring into the ops area and intend to use to escape will have cameras on the outside to allow us to scan for unwanted guests.
Along the same line, the landing bay/pad we return to will have several large turrets to take care of any stowaways we miss.
I will point out to my superiors that if the corporation/government has enough money to fund an 8 man team, they have enough damn money to buy us a remote controlled robot with cameras that we can send in to scout the area first.
My favored method of advance down a dark corridor will be with a 5 man team, the first man hosing down the corridor in front, the second throwing a grenade, the third hauling a huge cart of ammo and explosives, the fourth throwing a grenade behind us, and the fifth hosing down the corridor behind. Take five steps, repeat.
My favored method of advance down a well-lit corridor is the same but take ten steps and repeat.
If a cat comes flying out of a vent, scaring the **** out of me, I will unload a clip into the vent. Something scared the cat.
I will hold the belief that heavy breathing from the nearby darkness is not to be investigated. It is to be used for target practice.
Warning shots are for wusses. Fire is for effect.
If the other people with me have all disappeared, I won't bother wandering around the immediate area looking for them and yelling their names, peering into dark rooms.
When any member of my squad dies, I will have them hosed down with the flamethrower or plant a proximity mine on them. No use feeding or increasing the numbers of whatever is trying to kill us.
If I die on a mission, it will be because I snapped my neck trying to look everywhere at once.
Zombies, aliens, robots, terrorists, whatever, everyone sends in a team to investigate the strange goings-on in a remote scientific research facility. Here's a few things to do before going on a mission:
Things to know before joining a scientific specops team.
I refuse to go into the underground research facility, deep-space research facility, deep-sea research facility, radio-blacked out colony, derelict alien ship, or abandoned ghost ship.
If forced into attempting any of the above six missions, I will go AWOL. Prison showers are almost certainly preferable to what awaits.
I will carry more than one gun and carry as many as humanly possible.
In line with above, I will carry more than one mag per gun. I have a belt, and intend to fill it.
If the hallways of the operations area are big enough to allow it, I will bring along a small field artillery piece.
No matter what my CO says, if my job is to plant a nuclear device to destroy the facility/ship, it is not necessary for me to endanger my life by traveling to the center of the structure to plant the bomb, I'm sure the entrance will prove just as effective.
If my job is to disable the AI system that runs the facility/ship, and this requires me to go to the center of the structure, I will just plant a small nuclear device at the entrance. If the blast doesn't get it, the EMP will.
If my body armor proves ineffective against whatever killed everyone in the facility/ship, I will ditch it and use the saved weight to carry more guns.
If the body armor is ineffective and so are the guns, I will ditch both and set a new track record on my way out of the ops area.
I refuse to wear any helmet that restricts my peripheral vision and does not allow me to see something rising up/dropping down right beside me.
I will request a helmet that has a small HUD linked to a camera on the back of my helmet. An additional HUD linked to a upward-pointing top mounted camera would be nice as well.
If going into some top secret facility that has lost radio communication with the outside world, I will make damn sure that I am in possession of a high quality, up to date map that will not be rendered unreadable by contact with liquid.
If I could not obtain a map, and am lost/trapped in the facility, I will not rely on the unstable, homicidal central AI to provide me with escape routes.
If I am inside a facility/ship after the stuff has hit the fan, and find myself without a map, I will head to the nearest computer terminal and consult Yahoo! Maps. The facility was built by a corporation or the government, and they can certainly afford an Internet connection.
If there is a self-destruct mechanism or impenetrable blast doors set on a running timer within the building/ship I am ordered to enter, I will guard the entrances until the timer runs out, then leave. The problem will take care of itself eventually, so there is no need to risk myself.
If mine is not the first team to be sent into the area, I will take a little time off to wonder why.
If the music suddenly gets really creepy, start spinning around with your finger on the trigger. Whoever was guarding your back is probably gone by this point anyway.
Before I go on each mission, I will rent Aliens, Resident Evil, Event Horizon, and other similar movies for pointers. I will defer the costs as "training expenses".
If there is something dripping from the ceiling up ahead, I won't bother to check if it's just water. I will leave the area immediately by the quickest available route.
If I hear odd noises, I will not be foolish enough to investigate it alone. I will take a friend or two with big guns.
If ordered to investigate the noise by my CO, I will take everyone else in the squad with me. By the time we return to where the CO was waiting, the problem will probably have solved itself.
If forced to walk underneath a hole in the ceiling, I will be cautious and investigate it thoroughly with high explosives.
If I hear odd noises coming from the ceiling, I will not lift up a panel and stick my head up to have a look around. I will lift up the panel and shove a grenade up there.
Similarly, if forced to pass a hole/grate in the walls or floor, I will throw a grenade in to make sure its clear now, and set proximity mines to make sure it is clear later.
Unless it is my last chance for survival, I will never go into any type of ventilation shaft. I know that whatever chased me up there will almost certainly be able to move faster than me in an enclosed space.
I will always take some sort of sword with me in addition to a multitude of projectile weapons. That way, when I run out of ammunition, and I will, I won't have to ineffectually slap at an opponent before being killed.
Knowingly entering a facility where illegal genetic research is being preformed would be consigning myself to death by stupidity. Therefore, I wouldn't enter, even if this entailed killing the rest of my team to avoid it.
I would never enter a dark room. I would throw in a handful of grenades and move on, assured that if anything is still alive in there, it isn't happy.
I wont make the mistake of shooting something with my smallest gun first, and then working my way up to larger firearms. I would start with my biggest gun, and if that didn't work, run like hell.
If sent off with only one companion, I would make sure it is someone I could outrun. That way, I can get away while whatever was chasing us chews on him.
If there are women on the team, I will never sleep with them right before a mission. One or the other of us will almost certainly not make it back, and I don't like 50/50 odds.
If a team-member disappears mysteriously for a long period of time and the just as mysteriously reappears, I will shoot them immediately and save myself a lot of trouble.
I will periodically look up. The importance of this can never be overstated.
If in a genetic research lab and there are lots of cages whose steel doors have been torn out, I will think about how much punishment those doors could take. Then I will think about how much punishment my frail human body can take. Then I will start thinking about where those exits were.
No matter how tempted, I will never deactivate the main power in a research facility. I know those doors are magnetically locked and electrified for a reason.
I will never deactivate the main computer in a facility. Even though its automated defenses may be slaughtering the rest of the team, they are still holding back whatever killed the original occupants.
I will stay away from any elevators. Nothing good ever comes from an elevator in these situations.
I will never negotiate with whatever is trying to kill my team. The dialogue will almost certainly be along the lines of "Me hungry, you food".
If one of my team-members gets bitten, cut, sprayed with, or otherwise exposed to a bio-agent, I will kill them immediately. They will only turn on me, and the antidote never works anyway.
The sexiest female will always make it out, mainly because she is surrounded by men who willingly throw themselves in the path of anything that attempts to harm her. I will stay close to that female, and when I am the last male left, I will throw her in the path of whatever is attempting to harm us.
I will make sure that when I finally exit from the ops area, I have conserved a decent amount of ammunition. Something always goes wrong during the escape.
If I find only one survivor from among 500 or so people, I will not trust them. They had to do something to survive the carnage that killed 500 people, and I don't think it was just run really fast.
I will make sure the team will under no circumstances split up. It never helps.
If upon arriving in the ops area I hear a lot of screams from inside or see a lot of obviously mutilated dead bodies, I will leave the ops area and come back later with back up and bigger guns.
I will train to keep my cool under pressure well enough to hit a head sized target at a range of 10 feet.
I will request that any ops team I am a part of be issued body armor with environmental resistance from things like fire, airborne viruses, and acid.
The aforementioned armor will have a reflective mirrored surface, to help with those pesky automated laser defenses.
If I see something in the shadows up ahead that at first glance does not appear human, appears vaguely human, or appears human. I will forgo taking the time for a second look and lob a grenade at it instead. Better safe than sorry.
If multiple survivors are found during the course of the mission, they will be given a gun and told to make themselves useful.
However, if these survivors created or want to study whatever depopulated the facility/ship, they will not be given guns as they cannot be trusted to use them at the crucial moment, due to their conflict of interests.
Between missions I will lobby for legislature to require all secret research facilities to have heavily stocked ammo dumps in easily accessible, well marked locations.
If my team is required to use motion detectors, they better be able to scan 360 degrees, not merely 90.
If the body count is currently over 500, I will politely inform my superiors that an 8 man operations team isn't going to cut it.
If any member of the team is prone to claustrophobia, diver's high, space-mania, or panic attacks, I will deliver a request to the CO that they be left behind, instead of just being given a pep talk.
If any member of the team proves to be a corporate/government spy, I will shoot them before anyone else can react, saving the trouble of taking them prisoner only so they can escape later and sabotage the mission.
I will recommend that any form of transportation we have be parked well away from the trouble spot, that the operator stays in it, and keeps the doors sealed until the team is standing outside and ready to leave.
If we have a spare transport I will recommend that we have a spare pilot as well, to save having to remote control fly the transport in if something happens to the first.
If any member of the team takes a revolver on the mission, I will take it from them, hand them an automatic, and then slap them silly for being so stupid.
I will ensure that all guns have perfectly calibrated laser sights, even if I must pay for them myself, as missing a headshot is inexcusable.
If the team gets out of an ops area and find we are missing a man, I will recommend we leave his ass. He should have kept up in the first place.
If our mission is to shut down a rogue AI, I will not discuss our plans in any room with a visible camera and/or audio pickup.
Screw shoulder-mounted flashlights, I'll carry night vision goggles even if the cost has to come out of my paycheck.
The same goes for little pen-lights. I will carry a 3 foot mag-lite with a halogen bulb. That way, not only do I get a huge flashlight range, it can double as a club in tight situations.
If low on ammunition, I won't hesitate to roll the bodies of my teammates for ammo. They certainly don't need it anymore.
If I learn that the beings we are fighting have acid for blood or that their blood contains some sort of bio-agent, I will make damn sure I am at least 15 feet away from any I shoot.
If my team possesses an APC, but it won't fit into the corridors of the ops area, I'll rectify the situation with explosives instead of going in on foot.
If my opponents use cloaking devices that short out upon contact with water, I will always carry a small super-soaker pistol with me.
If forced to pick a position within a facility to make a last stand, it will not be a room which can easily be breached by going above the ceiling or under the floor.
If I hear a low hissing or moaning directly behind me, I will take off running without thinking. Whatever it is, its first bite of me is going to be ass.
If anyone in the squad has a flamethrower, I will make sure everyone else is trained to instinctively duck whenever he even begins to turn around.
When the team's mission is to plant a bomb I will make sure we have more than one bomb, and more than one person who knows how to plant it.
If going into an area in where research in biological warfare was occurring, I will not remove my gas mask before entering the facility.
If there is a countdown to an explosion or the sealing off of the facility, I will set my watch timer 10 minutes ahead of that to give myself a margin of safety.
If any of the rescued or one of my team members starts to convulse and scream, I'll have the guy with the flamethrower hose them down and then move on. If it is the napalm guy I'll shoot the tank. Whatever made them do it, it wasn't a cramp.
If my team has heavy weaponry, I will not wait until there are only a few people left and we are surrounded to use them. I will use them as early and as often as possible.
Similarly, if I have a large ship in orbit over the planet, and find out that there are no survivors in a heavily infested area, I will call for an orbital bombardment of the hot zone.
If I hear odd noises coming from a grate nearby, I won't stare quizzically at it and shine a weak flashlight beam through the grate, I will immediately empty my current mag into the grate then kick it in and send a grenade into the tunnel.
If we have prisoners, and one of them is talking to me steadily in a calm voice while staring behind me, I will immediately dive to the side and roll to hose whatever was about to attack me. The same response if a team-member looks behind me with an expression of horror.
If I address a query to the guy that should be behind me, and receive no immediate response, I will immediately break into a dead run, dropping grenades along the way.
If I find that rooms marked on my map as dining halls turn out to be full of stasis chambers and odd piping instead, I will immediately leave the ops area and refuse to enter until I get a damn good explanation.
If we manage to ambush the enemy and I hear a high pitched beeping and it starts laughing, I will be smart enough to just start running, instead of searching it for the timer.
I will never walk through water any deeper than I can see down into. I won't walk in the water period if there is electric cabling nearby.
Any transports we bring into the ops area and intend to use to escape will have cameras on the outside to allow us to scan for unwanted guests.
Along the same line, the landing bay/pad we return to will have several large turrets to take care of any stowaways we miss.
I will point out to my superiors that if the corporation/government has enough money to fund an 8 man team, they have enough damn money to buy us a remote controlled robot with cameras that we can send in to scout the area first.
My favored method of advance down a dark corridor will be with a 5 man team, the first man hosing down the corridor in front, the second throwing a grenade, the third hauling a huge cart of ammo and explosives, the fourth throwing a grenade behind us, and the fifth hosing down the corridor behind. Take five steps, repeat.
My favored method of advance down a well-lit corridor is the same but take ten steps and repeat.
If a cat comes flying out of a vent, scaring the **** out of me, I will unload a clip into the vent. Something scared the cat.
I will hold the belief that heavy breathing from the nearby darkness is not to be investigated. It is to be used for target practice.
Warning shots are for wusses. Fire is for effect.
If the other people with me have all disappeared, I won't bother wandering around the immediate area looking for them and yelling their names, peering into dark rooms.
When any member of my squad dies, I will have them hosed down with the flamethrower or plant a proximity mine on them. No use feeding or increasing the numbers of whatever is trying to kill us.
If I die on a mission, it will be because I snapped my neck trying to look everywhere at once.
Felon
An family man named Ben (I think) kills a home-invader in what he thinks is self-defense. Since it happens on his lawn, and he has the misfortune of living in the People's Republic of California, he goes to jail.
The movie is about the Ben's survival in prison, as he adapts to the rules of the new society, attempting to survive both the sadistic race wars between the prison gangs and the sadistic guards who bet on gladiator-style games between the prisoners.
Ben shares a cell with John Smith played by Val Kilmer. Smith's family was killed by two thugs, and he cut down their family trees in an attempt to give them the same madness they gave him. He's an unruly warrior/philosopher, and takes in Ben, shows him the ropes.
The movie builds towards a showdown with the (very) evil guards, and by the end of the movie, the worst of humanity has shown traits seen in the best of humanity, heroes have shown themselves, and people have died in ways that simultaneously make you really happy and wishing they'd suffered more for what they'd done.
Excellent movie. 2/3s of it is an unrelentingly abyssal slog of depression. Despite this, it seems realistic and well made. Well worth watching, but I can't imagine wanting to own it.
The movie is about the Ben's survival in prison, as he adapts to the rules of the new society, attempting to survive both the sadistic race wars between the prison gangs and the sadistic guards who bet on gladiator-style games between the prisoners.
Ben shares a cell with John Smith played by Val Kilmer. Smith's family was killed by two thugs, and he cut down their family trees in an attempt to give them the same madness they gave him. He's an unruly warrior/philosopher, and takes in Ben, shows him the ropes.
The movie builds towards a showdown with the (very) evil guards, and by the end of the movie, the worst of humanity has shown traits seen in the best of humanity, heroes have shown themselves, and people have died in ways that simultaneously make you really happy and wishing they'd suffered more for what they'd done.
Excellent movie. 2/3s of it is an unrelentingly abyssal slog of depression. Despite this, it seems realistic and well made. Well worth watching, but I can't imagine wanting to own it.
Friday, August 15, 2008
So As I Don't Go Forgetting...
...What I Want To Remember
Spaghetti I didn't buy. Weird guy cleaning a gun in the parking lot. Ice cream I didn't suggest, but did buy. Stadium atrium.
God, don't ever let me forget this.
Spaghetti I didn't buy. Weird guy cleaning a gun in the parking lot. Ice cream I didn't suggest, but did buy. Stadium atrium.
God, don't ever let me forget this.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Shooty Goodness
Went out to the range on Monday with my new shooter friend. Scoped .22, my evil black shotgun, a battle-rifle, and my Jim Doyle Edition USP Compact all came with us.
Though initially scared of the shotgun, my friend did quite well with it, remarking that it was fun and had way less recoil than he'd thought. Moving on to the rifle range, he and I did some work with the scoped .22 at 25 yards (he is a new shooter) before he set a target out to 100 yards and I went over to the nearby pistol range to get to know Jim Doyle a little better.
I loaded up a couple magazines with 5 rounds a piece and started shooting it off a rest. Grouped nice, but shot down and to the left. 50 rounds shot that way really confirmed that.
Meanwhile, my friend is banging away at 100 yards with that .22. For kicks we put the guns down and check our targets. Mine is the same as I can see from the firing line (but with a lot more touching holes than I had originally thought). His target from 100 yards is scary. The black target is a little larger than an orange, and I've got way better eyesight than he does. Despite this, he's got just a handful of fliers on the paper from getting the range, and then all the rest are in target. Headshot quality.
Next I run 5 rounds off through my battle-rifle, and then give it over to him. He did poorly, though I don't think he was aiming correctly. We'll have to work on that next time.
Back to the .22 for him, and I went back to my USP. Now I try it standing. Still grouping good, But now high right. Perhaps because I'm overcompensating for the low left. Now I try doing reload drills. 5 shots, as accurately as I can, drop the mag as I pull the gun in towards my waist, pull another from the holder on my belt, plug it in, rack the slide overhand as I bring it up. Over and over again. At first I was fumbling, but about 35 rounds later I was going a little faster. It's an enjoyable drill. And I can (and do) practice it in my house with empty mags.
My friend's final targets were very good for a beginner. Standing with the .22 rifle he'd placed all his shots inside a 1.5-2inch target at 25 yards. Seated with the same rifle at the same distance, he'd put so many shots inside the target the black was almost gone.
A fun time was had by all. My school/work schedule and his look to coincide to a degree that will allow us to do this nearly every Monday morning. And he's started to offer financial support for the ammo, which is good.
Though initially scared of the shotgun, my friend did quite well with it, remarking that it was fun and had way less recoil than he'd thought. Moving on to the rifle range, he and I did some work with the scoped .22 at 25 yards (he is a new shooter) before he set a target out to 100 yards and I went over to the nearby pistol range to get to know Jim Doyle a little better.
I loaded up a couple magazines with 5 rounds a piece and started shooting it off a rest. Grouped nice, but shot down and to the left. 50 rounds shot that way really confirmed that.
Meanwhile, my friend is banging away at 100 yards with that .22. For kicks we put the guns down and check our targets. Mine is the same as I can see from the firing line (but with a lot more touching holes than I had originally thought). His target from 100 yards is scary. The black target is a little larger than an orange, and I've got way better eyesight than he does. Despite this, he's got just a handful of fliers on the paper from getting the range, and then all the rest are in target. Headshot quality.
Next I run 5 rounds off through my battle-rifle, and then give it over to him. He did poorly, though I don't think he was aiming correctly. We'll have to work on that next time.
Back to the .22 for him, and I went back to my USP. Now I try it standing. Still grouping good, But now high right. Perhaps because I'm overcompensating for the low left. Now I try doing reload drills. 5 shots, as accurately as I can, drop the mag as I pull the gun in towards my waist, pull another from the holder on my belt, plug it in, rack the slide overhand as I bring it up. Over and over again. At first I was fumbling, but about 35 rounds later I was going a little faster. It's an enjoyable drill. And I can (and do) practice it in my house with empty mags.
My friend's final targets were very good for a beginner. Standing with the .22 rifle he'd placed all his shots inside a 1.5-2inch target at 25 yards. Seated with the same rifle at the same distance, he'd put so many shots inside the target the black was almost gone.
A fun time was had by all. My school/work schedule and his look to coincide to a degree that will allow us to do this nearly every Monday morning. And he's started to offer financial support for the ammo, which is good.
Solve Crime, Arrest EVERYONE
ACLU cries foul as city nets arrests with 24-hour curfew
HELENA-WEST HELENA, Arkansas (AP) -- Officers armed with military rifles, some with laser sights, have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.
Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty.
The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter the cost.
"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."
The area under curfew, in what used to be a West Helena neighborhood, sits among abandoned homes and occupied residences in disrepair.
White signs on large blue barrels warn those passing by that the area remains under curfew by order of the mayor. The order was scheduled to end at 3 p.m. Tuesday, but Valley said the City Council's vote would allow police to have the same powers across Helena-West Helena.
Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons, Fielder said. The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights. Other officers carry short-barrel shotguns.
Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.
"We've had people call us, expressing concern for their children," Fielder said. "They had to sleep on the floor because of stray bullets."
Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.
However, such stops likely violate residents' constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting. Because of that, Dickson said any convictions coming from the arrests likely would be overturned.
"The residents of these high-crime areas are already victims," she said. "They're victims of what are happening in the neighborhoods; they're victims of fear. But for them to be subject to unlawful stops and questioning ... that is not going to ultimately going to help this situation."
The council rejected Dickson's claims, at one point asking the Little Rock-based attorney if she'd live in a neighborhood they described as under siege by wild gunfire and gangs.
"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."
The curfew is the second under the mayor's watch since the rival cities of Helena and West Helena merged in 2006. That year, Valley set a nightly citywide curfew after a rash of burglaries and other thefts.
Police in Hartford, Connecticut, began enforcing a nightly curfew for youths after recent violence, including a weekend shooting that killed a man and wounded six young people.
Helena-West Helena, with 15,000 residents at the edge of Arkansas' eastern rice fields and farmland, is in one of the nation's poorest regions, trailing even parts of Appalachia in its standard of living.
In the curfew area, those inside the homes in the watch area peered out of door cracks Tuesday as police cruisers passed. They closed the doors afterward.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, the best way to stop crime is just to arrest everyone. Too bad nobody's doing torchlight marches on city hall. Place could use a good fire.
And as for Mayor James "...some infringement on constitutional rights is OK..." Valley, someone get a rope.
HELENA-WEST HELENA, Arkansas (AP) -- Officers armed with military rifles, some with laser sights, have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.
Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty.
The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter the cost.
"Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here," Mayor James Valley said. "The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."
The area under curfew, in what used to be a West Helena neighborhood, sits among abandoned homes and occupied residences in disrepair.
White signs on large blue barrels warn those passing by that the area remains under curfew by order of the mayor. The order was scheduled to end at 3 p.m. Tuesday, but Valley said the City Council's vote would allow police to have the same powers across Helena-West Helena.
Among the curfew operation's arrests, 10 came from felony charges, including the arrest of two people carrying both drugs and weapons, Fielder said. The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights. Other officers carry short-barrel shotguns.
Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.
"We've had people call us, expressing concern for their children," Fielder said. "They had to sleep on the floor because of stray bullets."
Fielder said officers had not arrested anyone for violating the curfew, only questioned people about why they were outside. Those without good answers or acting nervously get additional attention, Fielder said.
However, such stops likely violate residents' constitutional rights to freely assemble and protections against unreasonable police searches, said Holly Dickson, a lawyer for the ACLU of Arkansas who addressed the council at its packed Tuesday meeting. Because of that, Dickson said any convictions coming from the arrests likely would be overturned.
"The residents of these high-crime areas are already victims," she said. "They're victims of what are happening in the neighborhoods; they're victims of fear. But for them to be subject to unlawful stops and questioning ... that is not going to ultimately going to help this situation."
The council rejected Dickson's claims, at one point asking the Little Rock-based attorney if she'd live in a neighborhood they described as under siege by wild gunfire and gangs.
"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."
The curfew is the second under the mayor's watch since the rival cities of Helena and West Helena merged in 2006. That year, Valley set a nightly citywide curfew after a rash of burglaries and other thefts.
Police in Hartford, Connecticut, began enforcing a nightly curfew for youths after recent violence, including a weekend shooting that killed a man and wounded six young people.
Helena-West Helena, with 15,000 residents at the edge of Arkansas' eastern rice fields and farmland, is in one of the nation's poorest regions, trailing even parts of Appalachia in its standard of living.
In the curfew area, those inside the homes in the watch area peered out of door cracks Tuesday as police cruisers passed. They closed the doors afterward.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, the best way to stop crime is just to arrest everyone. Too bad nobody's doing torchlight marches on city hall. Place could use a good fire.
And as for Mayor James "...some infringement on constitutional rights is OK..." Valley, someone get a rope.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Dad Wasn't Dad After All, But Still Owes Child Support
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.htm
Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support
A Florida Supreme Court case raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and legal responsibilities.
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.
Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.
Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.
"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.
"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."
In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.
The Parker case illustrates an increasingly contentious debate over the rights and responsibilities of divorced fathers who have been duped and don't challenge paternity at or near the time of divorce. But it also raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and the legal responsibilities that can attach to a father-child relationship – even when that relationship is the result of fraud and deception by a wife and mother.
Most states have laws that permit courts to order men who have been deceived to continue to make child- support payments even when they have no biological connection to the child. The idea is to minimize any disruption in the life of the child. In recent years, some states have begun passing laws that give deceived dads some ways to fight back.
There are no reliable estimates of how often "paternity fraud" takes place. Some findings suggest 4 to 10 percent of fathers, but no definitive study has been completed.
Unlike most duped ex-husbands in the US, Parker may still prevail in court. Last summer the Florida legislature passed a law that allows men to use newly discovered paternity evidence (like Parker's DNA test results) to overturn a court order to pay child support for someone else's child.
The June 2006 law is aimed at preventing the kind of outcome ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The policy approach taken by the Florida Legislature stands in sharp contrast to the "policy considerations" cited by the state supreme court justices.
Supporters of the Florida law see it as a major step toward justice for deceived ex-husbands. Critics see it as a potential danger to the well-being of mothers and their vulnerable children.
In addition to Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, and Wyoming have laws allowing ex-husbands to overturn a child-support order when deception or fraud by an ex-wife is discovered, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. By contrast, most other states set a one- to four-year deadline for fathers to file lawsuits challenging paternity determinations.
The idea behind the deadline is that any action taken in a marriage breakup should be completed while the child is as young as possible to avoid a major disruption during the most formative years.
"We don't want a system where a child is 10 years old and you have people who come in and undo what has been put in place many years before," says Susan Paikin of the Center for the Support of Families in Silver Spring, Md.
Ms. Paikin says that it is up to the adults in the relationship to thoroughly investigate any paternity issues at the time of the divorce.
But fathers' rights advocates say that few husbands are aware of a paternity deadline and its legal implications. And many have no idea that their wives have been unfaithful.
In generations past such infidelity might have gone undetected. But the advent of DNA testing is changing that. It is giving new momentum to a debate over how best to provide for broken families.
"There is no perfect answer," says Paikin. "There are a lot of people who will argue that it is always in the child's best interest to have a relationship with the biological parent and that should override everything else. There are others who believe just as fervently that being a parent has more to do with being caring and nurturing, and that is what makes you a father."
Part of the difficulty in paternity disestablishment cases is that once the financial contribution of the nonbiological father is terminated, the courts do not recognize a legal right to continued contact between the child and the man.
"It is the ultimate Catch-22 for my client," says Parker's lawyer, Scott Lazar of Miami. "On the one hand he has a relationship with this child and cares about this child and would probably be willing to provide money for this child, but he doesn't want to provide it to the mother to use as she wishes."
Family court judges aren't interested in fostering a continuing relationship between men and the children of their ex-wives, says Carnell Smith, who runs a DNA-testing company and is founder of Atlanta-based US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. "The court is only concerned about financial payments."
Judges generally view the man in a divorce proceeding as nothing more than a "walking checkbook," he says.
Smith says that instead of targeting deceived ex-husbands, the legal system should investigate the conduct of the wife and hold the mother and biological father responsible for the child they produced.
"In no other area of the law do we punish the victim for the conduct of two other people," Smith says. "For me it is disingenuous for the Florida justices to turn around and say [to Parker] 'Well, it is your fault that you didn't find out sooner.' "
The Florida legislature tried to balance the law to avoid forcing children onto welfare rolls, says Tom Sasser, chairman of the family-law section of the Florida Bar. It rejected a proposal to allow ex-husbands to recover prior child-support payments. It also rejected a proposal to allow triple damages against deceptive mothers. Instead, the law allows ex-husbands to be released from future payments.
And that, advocates say, opens the door for some ex-husbands to attempt to build a trusting relationship with someone new and perhaps start a family without the burden of a court-imposed financial debt hanging over his new wife and children.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I should start posting divorce and child court screwups as a regular feature.
Dad needs to fall off the grid and go live in Canada. The sadistic mother/ex-wife, the jury/judges who originally tried this thing, and the 7 Florida judges who reaffirmed it all need to have tragedies befall them.
Seriously. At this point, what does this guy have to look forward to in his life? The court system that should've protected him ruined him, and you just know the b****is going to come back at him for more than the $1200 a month she's getting now. That's just a starting place. His life is destroyed. The people who did this to him need to be destroyed as well.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci
Dad wasn't dad after all, but still owes child support
A Florida Supreme Court case raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and legal responsibilities.
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.
Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.
Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.
"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.
"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."
In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.
The Parker case illustrates an increasingly contentious debate over the rights and responsibilities of divorced fathers who have been duped and don't challenge paternity at or near the time of divorce. But it also raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and the legal responsibilities that can attach to a father-child relationship – even when that relationship is the result of fraud and deception by a wife and mother.
Most states have laws that permit courts to order men who have been deceived to continue to make child- support payments even when they have no biological connection to the child. The idea is to minimize any disruption in the life of the child. In recent years, some states have begun passing laws that give deceived dads some ways to fight back.
There are no reliable estimates of how often "paternity fraud" takes place. Some findings suggest 4 to 10 percent of fathers, but no definitive study has been completed.
Unlike most duped ex-husbands in the US, Parker may still prevail in court. Last summer the Florida legislature passed a law that allows men to use newly discovered paternity evidence (like Parker's DNA test results) to overturn a court order to pay child support for someone else's child.
The June 2006 law is aimed at preventing the kind of outcome ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The policy approach taken by the Florida Legislature stands in sharp contrast to the "policy considerations" cited by the state supreme court justices.
Supporters of the Florida law see it as a major step toward justice for deceived ex-husbands. Critics see it as a potential danger to the well-being of mothers and their vulnerable children.
In addition to Florida, Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, Alabama, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, and Wyoming have laws allowing ex-husbands to overturn a child-support order when deception or fraud by an ex-wife is discovered, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. By contrast, most other states set a one- to four-year deadline for fathers to file lawsuits challenging paternity determinations.
The idea behind the deadline is that any action taken in a marriage breakup should be completed while the child is as young as possible to avoid a major disruption during the most formative years.
"We don't want a system where a child is 10 years old and you have people who come in and undo what has been put in place many years before," says Susan Paikin of the Center for the Support of Families in Silver Spring, Md.
Ms. Paikin says that it is up to the adults in the relationship to thoroughly investigate any paternity issues at the time of the divorce.
But fathers' rights advocates say that few husbands are aware of a paternity deadline and its legal implications. And many have no idea that their wives have been unfaithful.
In generations past such infidelity might have gone undetected. But the advent of DNA testing is changing that. It is giving new momentum to a debate over how best to provide for broken families.
"There is no perfect answer," says Paikin. "There are a lot of people who will argue that it is always in the child's best interest to have a relationship with the biological parent and that should override everything else. There are others who believe just as fervently that being a parent has more to do with being caring and nurturing, and that is what makes you a father."
Part of the difficulty in paternity disestablishment cases is that once the financial contribution of the nonbiological father is terminated, the courts do not recognize a legal right to continued contact between the child and the man.
"It is the ultimate Catch-22 for my client," says Parker's lawyer, Scott Lazar of Miami. "On the one hand he has a relationship with this child and cares about this child and would probably be willing to provide money for this child, but he doesn't want to provide it to the mother to use as she wishes."
Family court judges aren't interested in fostering a continuing relationship between men and the children of their ex-wives, says Carnell Smith, who runs a DNA-testing company and is founder of Atlanta-based US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. "The court is only concerned about financial payments."
Judges generally view the man in a divorce proceeding as nothing more than a "walking checkbook," he says.
Smith says that instead of targeting deceived ex-husbands, the legal system should investigate the conduct of the wife and hold the mother and biological father responsible for the child they produced.
"In no other area of the law do we punish the victim for the conduct of two other people," Smith says. "For me it is disingenuous for the Florida justices to turn around and say [to Parker] 'Well, it is your fault that you didn't find out sooner.' "
The Florida legislature tried to balance the law to avoid forcing children onto welfare rolls, says Tom Sasser, chairman of the family-law section of the Florida Bar. It rejected a proposal to allow ex-husbands to recover prior child-support payments. It also rejected a proposal to allow triple damages against deceptive mothers. Instead, the law allows ex-husbands to be released from future payments.
And that, advocates say, opens the door for some ex-husbands to attempt to build a trusting relationship with someone new and perhaps start a family without the burden of a court-imposed financial debt hanging over his new wife and children.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I should start posting divorce and child court screwups as a regular feature.
Dad needs to fall off the grid and go live in Canada. The sadistic mother/ex-wife, the jury/judges who originally tried this thing, and the 7 Florida judges who reaffirmed it all need to have tragedies befall them.
Seriously. At this point, what does this guy have to look forward to in his life? The court system that should've protected him ruined him, and you just know the b****is going to come back at him for more than the $1200 a month she's getting now. That's just a starting place. His life is destroyed. The people who did this to him need to be destroyed as well.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo da Vinci
Friday, August 08, 2008
2 Records, 1 Day
Broke 2 running records today.
My usual running schedule is 8 mile jogs every other day, filling in the off days with 1.5-2 mile sprints. At the beginning of the summer, I ran 10 miles. A couple of times I've run 9's, but mostly it's 8, 1.5, 8, 1.5, etc.
I measure everything by the standard of running I set a few years ago: a 4.5 mile route. That's the absolute minimum I want to be able to run. The route also features quite a few hills, so it's a difficult run.
Today I did something I had jokingly set as a goal for the summer. I ran my 4.5 mile route twice.
Coming back, I knew I was going to run 10 miles minimum. I felt good enough to break that record once I hit the 10 mile mark, so I took an alternate route home. By my estimate I ran 11 miles today, minimum. Probably closer to 11.5 or 12.
I am dead tired.
My usual running schedule is 8 mile jogs every other day, filling in the off days with 1.5-2 mile sprints. At the beginning of the summer, I ran 10 miles. A couple of times I've run 9's, but mostly it's 8, 1.5, 8, 1.5, etc.
I measure everything by the standard of running I set a few years ago: a 4.5 mile route. That's the absolute minimum I want to be able to run. The route also features quite a few hills, so it's a difficult run.
Today I did something I had jokingly set as a goal for the summer. I ran my 4.5 mile route twice.
Coming back, I knew I was going to run 10 miles minimum. I felt good enough to break that record once I hit the 10 mile mark, so I took an alternate route home. By my estimate I ran 11 miles today, minimum. Probably closer to 11.5 or 12.
I am dead tired.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Black Label Society: Just Killing Time
I sit reflecting
I feel the end has begun
It seems my days now mirror the setting sun
So many places that I have been
This ride that was long
Seems so short in terms of now and then
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
Dead man breathing
Just taking up space
Calloused and weathered
Like the lines on one's face
Dead man breathing
My conscience is bare
The lining of my soul is torn
Yet I no longer care
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
(solo)
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
(solo)
-----------------------------------
It seems contrary to what I just posted, but this song really resonates for me right now.
When you're racing a clock, the urgency, the need to beat the deadline infects everything you do. You're evaluating everything you do in terms of how it can advance your position ahead of the clock hands. Minor distractions, annoyances can seem earth-shatteringly frustrating, and God help your sanity if something doesn't turn out exactly according to plan. You can be driven up the wall with a feeling of "must do something, can't do anything." Your need to move, to win, can cause you to abandon some of your self-control, change your judgment, to make bad decisions. Every wait, every meaningless moment that you pause knaws at your mind, angers and saddens you.
The lines "I'm just killing time and time's killing me" have been bandied about songwriting for decades. That's 'cause they're what sticks to the wall. Everyone can identify with that sentiment, can find some place in their life where it's true. Combined with Zach's gruff voice and the beautifully haunting guitars, that perfect sentiment has finally found the perfect expression.
I feel the end has begun
It seems my days now mirror the setting sun
So many places that I have been
This ride that was long
Seems so short in terms of now and then
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
Dead man breathing
Just taking up space
Calloused and weathered
Like the lines on one's face
Dead man breathing
My conscience is bare
The lining of my soul is torn
Yet I no longer care
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
(solo)
For all that has been
And all that is
All that's to be
Lord, I'm Just Killing Time
And time's killing me
(solo)
-----------------------------------
It seems contrary to what I just posted, but this song really resonates for me right now.
When you're racing a clock, the urgency, the need to beat the deadline infects everything you do. You're evaluating everything you do in terms of how it can advance your position ahead of the clock hands. Minor distractions, annoyances can seem earth-shatteringly frustrating, and God help your sanity if something doesn't turn out exactly according to plan. You can be driven up the wall with a feeling of "must do something, can't do anything." Your need to move, to win, can cause you to abandon some of your self-control, change your judgment, to make bad decisions. Every wait, every meaningless moment that you pause knaws at your mind, angers and saddens you.
The lines "I'm just killing time and time's killing me" have been bandied about songwriting for decades. That's 'cause they're what sticks to the wall. Everyone can identify with that sentiment, can find some place in their life where it's true. Combined with Zach's gruff voice and the beautifully haunting guitars, that perfect sentiment has finally found the perfect expression.
Life Is Beautiful Pt.2
I walk into my boss's office on Thursday, and we go over the stuff I'm doing. He loves it. He says "What would you think about getting paid to do this?"
*blink, blink*
"Well, uh, I like getting paid..."
"Whether you realize or not, whether you like it or not, you ARE running your own business. It's time to get people accustomed to paying you for your skills. Draw up a payment proposal to go with your service agreement."
It's not a lot of money, but it's better than nothing. It's a foot in the door.
A few hours later, I've finished my work in a new client's house, and he's happy with what I've done.
Yesterday I call the project director for a project at a friend's church. I say "I can do this project. And I can do this in such a way that it doesn't cost you $500." Of course, I was a lot more flattering and roundabout than that, but that's the gist of it.
She says "Let's meet tomorrow to discuss it."
That's less than 24 to prepare my product for demo. Most people "selling" this type of product also have proposals and fact sheets and crap like that. I get 5 hours of sleep 'cause I'm working on it, pack up my laptop, go to church, and proceed to sell my product to the director and treasurer. They want me to create something from scratch that they were planning on buying new, from a professional company, for nearly $500.
Plus, the day that got the "So As I Don't Go Forgetting Entry..." was incredible.
Best week of the summer so far, bar none.
*blink, blink*
"Well, uh, I like getting paid..."
"Whether you realize or not, whether you like it or not, you ARE running your own business. It's time to get people accustomed to paying you for your skills. Draw up a payment proposal to go with your service agreement."
It's not a lot of money, but it's better than nothing. It's a foot in the door.
A few hours later, I've finished my work in a new client's house, and he's happy with what I've done.
Yesterday I call the project director for a project at a friend's church. I say "I can do this project. And I can do this in such a way that it doesn't cost you $500." Of course, I was a lot more flattering and roundabout than that, but that's the gist of it.
She says "Let's meet tomorrow to discuss it."
That's less than 24 to prepare my product for demo. Most people "selling" this type of product also have proposals and fact sheets and crap like that. I get 5 hours of sleep 'cause I'm working on it, pack up my laptop, go to church, and proceed to sell my product to the director and treasurer. They want me to create something from scratch that they were planning on buying new, from a professional company, for nearly $500.
Plus, the day that got the "So As I Don't Go Forgetting Entry..." was incredible.
Best week of the summer so far, bar none.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sixx A.M. - Life Is Beautiful
You can’t quit until you try
You can’t live until you die
You can’t learn to tell the truth
Until you learn to lie
You can’t breathe until you choke
You gotta laugh when you’re the joke
There’s nothing like a funeral
To make you feel alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
I know some things that you don’t
I’ve done things that you won’t
There’s nothing like a trail of blood
To find your way back home
I was waiting for my hearse
What came next was so much worse
It took a funeral
To make me feel alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
(guitar solo)
(spoken)Alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral(/spoken)
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
--------------------------------------------
I think the last song I posted here was Sixx A.M.'s Accidents Can Happen. Funny that. I posted that at the end of just about the darkest day I'd ever had, and now here I am posting more Sixx A.M. at the end of one of my greatest weeks.
I really, really fear to hope. Always have, probably always will. I don't like getting let down, and that's happened a bunch. Somehow though, things are working out, and better than expected. Whether its fate or karma or my own sheer cussed persistence, things are going the way I want. Perhaps I should take another look at this hoping thing.
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
You can’t live until you die
You can’t learn to tell the truth
Until you learn to lie
You can’t breathe until you choke
You gotta laugh when you’re the joke
There’s nothing like a funeral
To make you feel alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
I know some things that you don’t
I’ve done things that you won’t
There’s nothing like a trail of blood
To find your way back home
I was waiting for my hearse
What came next was so much worse
It took a funeral
To make me feel alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
(guitar solo)
(spoken)Alive
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral(/spoken)
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
Just open your eyes
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Will you swear on your life
That no one will cry
At my funeral
--------------------------------------------
I think the last song I posted here was Sixx A.M.'s Accidents Can Happen. Funny that. I posted that at the end of just about the darkest day I'd ever had, and now here I am posting more Sixx A.M. at the end of one of my greatest weeks.
I really, really fear to hope. Always have, probably always will. I don't like getting let down, and that's happened a bunch. Somehow though, things are working out, and better than expected. Whether its fate or karma or my own sheer cussed persistence, things are going the way I want. Perhaps I should take another look at this hoping thing.
Just open your eyes
And see that Life Is Beautiful
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
N.Y. State To Restrict Video Games, Consoles
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080724/tc_cmp/209401184;_ylt=Ag1tanZsMHtP0yM.z1xd9vwK77EF
N.Y. State To Restrict Video Games, Consoles
By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
Wed Jul 23, 1:35 PM ET
New York State will prohibit sales and rentals of video games without ratings prominently displayed on their covers and it will ban the sale of consoles that lack technology for parental blocking.
New York Gov. David Paterson signed a bill into law on Tuesday that will require the prominent display of ratings and require game consoles sold in New York to have technology that allows parents to block certain games. The law also requires the state to create an advisory council to review video games' voluntary ratings system for accuracy and effectiveness.
The law aims to give the state and parents greater control over violent and inappropriate content, but critics say it goes too far and will curb free speech.
"Read together, these provisions would create a state system regulating how video games are sold and played based on content that the First Amendment protects from regulation," the New York State Civil Liberties Union explained in a statement.
New York Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Republican from Staten Island, introduced the bill. He chairs the Senate Task Force on youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry. Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat, drafted the matching bill in the New York State Assembly.
"Many studies have indicated that violent behavior is learned," Lanza said in a statement. "Technology advances have allowed video games to become increasingly more realistic and interactive, and unfortunately more violent. Some games simply aren't appropriate for nine- and ten-year-old children, for example. Children's behavior is far too often shaped by these violent virtual reality video games. It is important that we arm parents with the information needed to shield their children from these corrupting influences."
The NYCLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship fought to kill the legislation.
"New Yorkers do not need the state judging which video games are appropriate and which aren't," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman, said. "Parents, not government committees, should be responsible for making those judgments. If the legislature wants to reduce youth violence, it should fund educational programs to teach students conflict resolution skills."
In a letter to Gov. Paterson, the two groups said the legislation unconstitutionally restricts video game sales based on a belief that viewing violent images leads to violence. They cited a recent study from the Harvard Medical School Center for Public Health and Media which found little evidence of a causal link between playing violent video games and violent behavior. The groups pointed out that the authors of the study refute research that points to a link, saying it's based on "scanty evidence, inaccurate assumptions and pseudoscience."
"The entertainment industry's current rating system for video games already helps parents make informed decisions," Joan Bertin, NCAC executive director, said. "The system cannot become subject to the government's editorial oversight without violating the First Amendment."
The conservative group, Americans For Tax Reform, also opposed the bill.
See original article on InformationWeek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called the First Amendment, Paterson you idiot. At some point in your ignoble political career you swore an oath to uphold the law. Either this was done in complete ignorance of the United States Constitution, or you knowingly violated the aforementioned document. Time for removal from office. By catapult.
It'll never come to pass, but it'd be nice to see these vermin (Paterson and everyother slack-brained imbicile with delusions of adequacy who voted for this) get hauled out of office and incarcerated for a good long time. It's unfortunate that the Constitution doesn't have any teeth. You screw with it, it should screw with you.
N.Y. State To Restrict Video Games, Consoles
By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
Wed Jul 23, 1:35 PM ET
New York State will prohibit sales and rentals of video games without ratings prominently displayed on their covers and it will ban the sale of consoles that lack technology for parental blocking.
New York Gov. David Paterson signed a bill into law on Tuesday that will require the prominent display of ratings and require game consoles sold in New York to have technology that allows parents to block certain games. The law also requires the state to create an advisory council to review video games' voluntary ratings system for accuracy and effectiveness.
The law aims to give the state and parents greater control over violent and inappropriate content, but critics say it goes too far and will curb free speech.
"Read together, these provisions would create a state system regulating how video games are sold and played based on content that the First Amendment protects from regulation," the New York State Civil Liberties Union explained in a statement.
New York Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Republican from Staten Island, introduced the bill. He chairs the Senate Task Force on youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry. Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat, drafted the matching bill in the New York State Assembly.
"Many studies have indicated that violent behavior is learned," Lanza said in a statement. "Technology advances have allowed video games to become increasingly more realistic and interactive, and unfortunately more violent. Some games simply aren't appropriate for nine- and ten-year-old children, for example. Children's behavior is far too often shaped by these violent virtual reality video games. It is important that we arm parents with the information needed to shield their children from these corrupting influences."
The NYCLU and the National Coalition Against Censorship fought to kill the legislation.
"New Yorkers do not need the state judging which video games are appropriate and which aren't," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman, said. "Parents, not government committees, should be responsible for making those judgments. If the legislature wants to reduce youth violence, it should fund educational programs to teach students conflict resolution skills."
In a letter to Gov. Paterson, the two groups said the legislation unconstitutionally restricts video game sales based on a belief that viewing violent images leads to violence. They cited a recent study from the Harvard Medical School Center for Public Health and Media which found little evidence of a causal link between playing violent video games and violent behavior. The groups pointed out that the authors of the study refute research that points to a link, saying it's based on "scanty evidence, inaccurate assumptions and pseudoscience."
"The entertainment industry's current rating system for video games already helps parents make informed decisions," Joan Bertin, NCAC executive director, said. "The system cannot become subject to the government's editorial oversight without violating the First Amendment."
The conservative group, Americans For Tax Reform, also opposed the bill.
See original article on InformationWeek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called the First Amendment, Paterson you idiot. At some point in your ignoble political career you swore an oath to uphold the law. Either this was done in complete ignorance of the United States Constitution, or you knowingly violated the aforementioned document. Time for removal from office. By catapult.
It'll never come to pass, but it'd be nice to see these vermin (Paterson and everyother slack-brained imbicile with delusions of adequacy who voted for this) get hauled out of office and incarcerated for a good long time. It's unfortunate that the Constitution doesn't have any teeth. You screw with it, it should screw with you.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
New Shooter Report
Took a friend out to the range yesterday. 2 days ago actually, given the time.
His politics range from "don't care" to "liberal," but he's willing to give it a shot (pun intended). Comes over at 10 in the morning, and we go through the weaponry I have available to bring. I discard the idea of taking my assault rifles, focusing instead on lower recoil. .22, 9mm Beretta 92, and the Beretta Storm. I take my new shotgun along just in case we decide to hit that range.
We go through all the safety steps out at the range, all the ways the guns work. Then I load up the .22 and shoot through a magazine at 10 yards. Reload and let my friend have a try. Once he gets used to the sights, he's grouping them nicely. We go through probably 100 rounds of 22 that way, shooting 7 rounds off per magazine.
Next up is the Beretta Storm. Again I try a few rounds, and hand it over. Again, he's putting them all pretty much together. Not a hard feat at 10 yards, but that's all right.
Then we go on to the Beretta 92. Out of 50 rounds, probably had 30 malfunctions. It shot better with a nice, hard, squared-to-the-target stance, but even then was problematic. Probably the Wolf ammo, which makes no sense because it worked in the Storm. My friend manages to get some nice groups with the 92 despite the malfunctions. He doesn't think he's shooting well, but I assure him a piece of printer paper is a fine place to put all your shots.
Then it's over to the 25 yard range for some more of the .22 and the Storm. Probably 150 rounds of .22 and 50-75 more of the 9mm, and my friend is quite the sharpshooter. Put the majority of the 9mm in one ragged hole on the target. From a rest of course.
While he was practicing with the .22, I took the Storm and fired some offhand groups. 30 rounds in a measuring cup, about an inch above and to the right of the bullseye.
Didn't get a chance to run the shotgun as it started raining. Got home and had a few Cokes. My friend kept his targets, wants to go out again, take the assault rifles and the shotgun. Hoping to go again with another friend on Friday.
I am blessed enough to love my work.
His politics range from "don't care" to "liberal," but he's willing to give it a shot (pun intended). Comes over at 10 in the morning, and we go through the weaponry I have available to bring. I discard the idea of taking my assault rifles, focusing instead on lower recoil. .22, 9mm Beretta 92, and the Beretta Storm. I take my new shotgun along just in case we decide to hit that range.
We go through all the safety steps out at the range, all the ways the guns work. Then I load up the .22 and shoot through a magazine at 10 yards. Reload and let my friend have a try. Once he gets used to the sights, he's grouping them nicely. We go through probably 100 rounds of 22 that way, shooting 7 rounds off per magazine.
Next up is the Beretta Storm. Again I try a few rounds, and hand it over. Again, he's putting them all pretty much together. Not a hard feat at 10 yards, but that's all right.
Then we go on to the Beretta 92. Out of 50 rounds, probably had 30 malfunctions. It shot better with a nice, hard, squared-to-the-target stance, but even then was problematic. Probably the Wolf ammo, which makes no sense because it worked in the Storm. My friend manages to get some nice groups with the 92 despite the malfunctions. He doesn't think he's shooting well, but I assure him a piece of printer paper is a fine place to put all your shots.
Then it's over to the 25 yard range for some more of the .22 and the Storm. Probably 150 rounds of .22 and 50-75 more of the 9mm, and my friend is quite the sharpshooter. Put the majority of the 9mm in one ragged hole on the target. From a rest of course.
While he was practicing with the .22, I took the Storm and fired some offhand groups. 30 rounds in a measuring cup, about an inch above and to the right of the bullseye.
Didn't get a chance to run the shotgun as it started raining. Got home and had a few Cokes. My friend kept his targets, wants to go out again, take the assault rifles and the shotgun. Hoping to go again with another friend on Friday.
I am blessed enough to love my work.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Gods, This Is Good
The good stuff is in BOLD. And red.
Published by Tax AnalystsTM
In a letter to the editor, Alan Viard says a recent statement by David Cay
Johnston about income redistribution is contradicted by data from the
Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center.
* * * * *
To the Editor:
In a recent Tax Notes interview, former New York Times reporter David Cay
Johnston stated:
When I started reporting on taxes, I had no idea that . . . the
tax system actually . . . takes from the many to enrich the few
at the top. . . . If you just look at individual income taxes in
isolation, you get a distorted picture. You have to look at the
whole system, not just the income tax, to understand that we have
a socialist redistribution system that is not trickle-down, but
Niagara-up./1/
I write to note that Johnston's statement is squarely contradicted by
available data, particularly the Congressional Budget Office's latest annual
tabulation of the distribution of the federal tax burden./2/
Households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution should be a good
representation of the "few at the top" to whom Johnston referred. To begin,
CBO found that this small group paid a staggering 38.8 percent of all
federal individual income taxes in 2005. Johnston is correct, though, that
it is best to look at the "entire system" rather than only individual income
taxes. After adding social insurance taxes, corporate income taxes, and
excise taxes to the picture, the top 1 percent still paid 27.6 percent of
federal taxes. Since this group had 18.1 percent of before-tax income, it
paid a higher fraction of its income in federal taxes than the remainder of
the population.
Moving below the top 1 percent, the progressivity of the federal tax system
continues to hold. Households in the next 4 percent of the income
distribution paid 16.2 percent of federal taxes and those in the next 5
percent paid another 10.9 percent. In total, households in the top 10
percent paid 54.7 percent of federal taxes; this group had 40.9 percent of
before-tax income.
In contrast, households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution
paid a mere 0.8 percent of federal taxes and the next 20 percent paid only
4.1 percent. The next 20 percent, the middle of the income distribution,
paid only 9.3 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population paid only 14.2 percent of federal taxes; this group had 25.8
percent of before-tax income.
A more recent study, by Jeffrey Rohaly of the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy
Center, uses different data, assumptions, and income definitions and looks
at different years, but obtains very similar results./3/
Rohaly finds that the top 1 percent will pay 24.6 percent of federal taxes in 2010, the next 4 percent will pay another 16.2 percent, and the next 5 percent will pay
another 10.6 percent. In total, the top 10 percent will pay 51.4 percent of
federal taxes. The lowest-income 20 percent will pay 0.8 percent of federal
taxes, the next 20 percent another 4.0 percent, and the middle 20 percent
another 10.9 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population will pay only 15.7 percent of federal taxes.
Of course, those numbers cannot settle the question of what tax burdens
various income groups ought to bear. Johnston may well contend that, in view
of significant and rising income inequality, high-income households should
pay still more than they currently do. Others, including myself, may respond
that extracting substantial amounts of revenue from those households would
require damaging increases in marginal tax rates./4/
Ultimately, those disagreements must be resolved through the democratic
process; the appropriate distribution of the federal tax burden is likely to
be an important issue in the upcoming election. Whatever our views, though,
we have a responsibility to accurately describe the current system. When
households in the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution pay less than
one-sixth of all federal taxes and those in the top 1 percent pay a quarter
of all federal taxes, it is simply false to claim that the tax system
engages in "Niagara-up" redistribution or takes from the many to enrich the
few at the top.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Viard,
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
June 16, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Next time some clueless nitwit claims we need to "tax the rich," please direct them to this site. I don't even care about the traffic, I just want people to see this.
Published by Tax AnalystsTM
In a letter to the editor, Alan Viard says a recent statement by David Cay
Johnston about income redistribution is contradicted by data from the
Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center.
* * * * *
To the Editor:
In a recent Tax Notes interview, former New York Times reporter David Cay
Johnston stated:
When I started reporting on taxes, I had no idea that . . . the
tax system actually . . . takes from the many to enrich the few
at the top. . . . If you just look at individual income taxes in
isolation, you get a distorted picture. You have to look at the
whole system, not just the income tax, to understand that we have
a socialist redistribution system that is not trickle-down, but
Niagara-up./1/
I write to note that Johnston's statement is squarely contradicted by
available data, particularly the Congressional Budget Office's latest annual
tabulation of the distribution of the federal tax burden./2/
Households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution should be a good
representation of the "few at the top" to whom Johnston referred. To begin,
CBO found that this small group paid a staggering 38.8 percent of all
federal individual income taxes in 2005. Johnston is correct, though, that
it is best to look at the "entire system" rather than only individual income
taxes. After adding social insurance taxes, corporate income taxes, and
excise taxes to the picture, the top 1 percent still paid 27.6 percent of
federal taxes. Since this group had 18.1 percent of before-tax income, it
paid a higher fraction of its income in federal taxes than the remainder of
the population.
Moving below the top 1 percent, the progressivity of the federal tax system
continues to hold. Households in the next 4 percent of the income
distribution paid 16.2 percent of federal taxes and those in the next 5
percent paid another 10.9 percent. In total, households in the top 10
percent paid 54.7 percent of federal taxes; this group had 40.9 percent of
before-tax income.
In contrast, households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution
paid a mere 0.8 percent of federal taxes and the next 20 percent paid only
4.1 percent. The next 20 percent, the middle of the income distribution,
paid only 9.3 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population paid only 14.2 percent of federal taxes; this group had 25.8
percent of before-tax income.
A more recent study, by Jeffrey Rohaly of the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy
Center, uses different data, assumptions, and income definitions and looks
at different years, but obtains very similar results./3/
Rohaly finds that the top 1 percent will pay 24.6 percent of federal taxes in 2010, the next 4 percent will pay another 16.2 percent, and the next 5 percent will pay
another 10.6 percent. In total, the top 10 percent will pay 51.4 percent of
federal taxes. The lowest-income 20 percent will pay 0.8 percent of federal
taxes, the next 20 percent another 4.0 percent, and the middle 20 percent
another 10.9 percent. In total, the lowest-income 60 percent of the
population will pay only 15.7 percent of federal taxes.
Of course, those numbers cannot settle the question of what tax burdens
various income groups ought to bear. Johnston may well contend that, in view
of significant and rising income inequality, high-income households should
pay still more than they currently do. Others, including myself, may respond
that extracting substantial amounts of revenue from those households would
require damaging increases in marginal tax rates./4/
Ultimately, those disagreements must be resolved through the democratic
process; the appropriate distribution of the federal tax burden is likely to
be an important issue in the upcoming election. Whatever our views, though,
we have a responsibility to accurately describe the current system. When
households in the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution pay less than
one-sixth of all federal taxes and those in the top 1 percent pay a quarter
of all federal taxes, it is simply false to claim that the tax system
engages in "Niagara-up" redistribution or takes from the many to enrich the
few at the top.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Viard,
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
June 16, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Next time some clueless nitwit claims we need to "tax the rich," please direct them to this site. I don't even care about the traffic, I just want people to see this.
Yup, Canadian Health Care Is So Awesome....
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.
But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.
De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.
Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.
The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.
A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.
Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.
Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."
As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.
However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?
Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which the average American responds: It's never been tried properly! We can make it work this time! Do it again, only harder!
I don't want to see my healthcare destroyed by a bunch of slack-brained idiots. And that's exactly what's fixing to happen. The rest of the country may get the candidate they want, and if so, that's the candidate they deserve. They deserve to fail. They deserve their economy, their health care, their country failing.
The real Americans don't deserve it
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.
But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.
De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.
Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.
The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.
A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.
Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.
Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."
As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.
However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?
Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which the average American responds: It's never been tried properly! We can make it work this time! Do it again, only harder!
I don't want to see my healthcare destroyed by a bunch of slack-brained idiots. And that's exactly what's fixing to happen. The rest of the country may get the candidate they want, and if so, that's the candidate they deserve. They deserve to fail. They deserve their economy, their health care, their country failing.
The real Americans don't deserve it
The Line...
Between Civilization and something else, is very, very thin. Very first day after the hurricane, look at the store. Look at what the police are doing.
Yeah, I know it's old. But "some days, I fear for my republic." (tm)
Saturday, July 12, 2008
I Love This Video
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=171293&page=1
Long story short, Mexican bar is flying the flag of Mexico over an American flag. Torqued off veteran w/ a Ka-Bar remedies the situation.
That is righteous patriotism right there.
Long story short, Mexican bar is flying the flag of Mexico over an American flag. Torqued off veteran w/ a Ka-Bar remedies the situation.
That is righteous patriotism right there.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Yo, Homie!
Is U.S. ready to serve?
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.
Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
Goals set for students"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.
In Chicago, meanwhile, billionaire investor Warren Buffett headlined two fundraisers to benefit Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
mccormickj@tribune.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
So it's not enough that I spent thousands of dollars (private, no grants, loans, or scholarships allowed) paying for my own schooling. It doesn't matter that I worked my @$$ off getting a 3.7GPA. It doesn't matter that I'm 100% more dedicated than 98% of my fellow classmates. It means nothing that I've worked full time throughout school.
No.
Obama doesn't want me to graduate unless I turn in 100 hours of mandatory volunteerism. One would think that man would have heard a thing or two about slavery in his life, which is exactly what forcing anyone to work against their will is. And I'm guessing volunteering for the church, or teaching range safety is probably out of the question. Applicable charities will probably be registering 'hood rats (regardless of color, I've known a bunch of white ones) to vote and distributing clean needles or bull$#it like that.
I'm thinking about going back to school for another degree, and this might just turn me away. This sick **** wants to prevent me from graduating unless I play his ****ing reindeer games, and if I refuse to play along, I don't get my diploma, which is an effective bar to employment. This ******* is the antithesis of everything I believe, and a threat to my way of life.
I think I'll go watch relax now, by watching Collateral. My blogging name sake knew how to deal with threats. And he preceded dealing with them with "Yo Homie! Is that my briefcase?"
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.
Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
Goals set for students"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He said he would make federal assistance conditional on school districts establishing service programs and set the goal of 50 hours of service a year for middle school and high school students.
For college students, Obama would set the goal at 100 hours of service a year and create a $4,000 annual tax credit for college students tied to that level of service.
In Chicago, meanwhile, billionaire investor Warren Buffett headlined two fundraisers to benefit Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
mccormickj@tribune.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
So it's not enough that I spent thousands of dollars (private, no grants, loans, or scholarships allowed) paying for my own schooling. It doesn't matter that I worked my @$$ off getting a 3.7GPA. It doesn't matter that I'm 100% more dedicated than 98% of my fellow classmates. It means nothing that I've worked full time throughout school.
No.
Obama doesn't want me to graduate unless I turn in 100 hours of mandatory volunteerism. One would think that man would have heard a thing or two about slavery in his life, which is exactly what forcing anyone to work against their will is. And I'm guessing volunteering for the church, or teaching range safety is probably out of the question. Applicable charities will probably be registering 'hood rats (regardless of color, I've known a bunch of white ones) to vote and distributing clean needles or bull$#it like that.
I'm thinking about going back to school for another degree, and this might just turn me away. This sick **** wants to prevent me from graduating unless I play his ****ing reindeer games, and if I refuse to play along, I don't get my diploma, which is an effective bar to employment. This ******* is the antithesis of everything I believe, and a threat to my way of life.
I think I'll go watch relax now, by watching Collateral. My blogging name sake knew how to deal with threats. And he preceded dealing with them with "Yo Homie! Is that my briefcase?"
Monday, July 07, 2008
New Record
Wearing jeans and a t-shirt (as always) I ran 10 miles at the beginning of the week. 80 degree heat. Like before, I could've kept going.
Ran 6 miles on the 4th. It was nice running in the cool night air, seeing and hearing all the fireworks exploding overhead. Good times. If I'd been out and about at professional fireworks, I would've had a better time.
Oh well. If wishes was horses, we'd all be eating steak.
Ran 6 miles on the 4th. It was nice running in the cool night air, seeing and hearing all the fireworks exploding overhead. Good times. If I'd been out and about at professional fireworks, I would've had a better time.
Oh well. If wishes was horses, we'd all be eating steak.
Shooty Goodness
So a couple of months ago, I bought a shotgun. Very nice piece, in a rather benign configuration. Innocent looking.
Innocent doesn't always translate into "easy to handle," so my dad and I decided to take on a father/son project involving metalworking, dremels, and about $300 worth of parts.
Lots of complications ensue. Parts don't go together right, the teeth on the dremel cutting wheel get shaved down, the grinding wheel eventually is discarded for a squirt bottle and a metal file, and various holes have to be drilled in various places where one shouldn't have to drill holes.
Getting the trigger back together was a chore and a half.
In its new configuration, it has a pistol grip and a folding stock (w/ rubber pad that is a godsend over the metal plate it had before). Took us roughly 10 hours total over 2 days, and that's pretty dang good.
Took it out today with 25 rounds of lowbrass bird and 5 slugs. Didn't cross myself before shooting it, like I have every other time.
And...it works. Something my dad and I built, with absolutely no experience, half-@$$ed directions, over the weekend, is now identical to something built by major custom gunshops selling for $1700.
The birdshot was actually fun - the recoil was nice, as recoil goes.
Then we hit the rifle range for the slugs. I fired the first one from a bench (@ 25 yards), my elbows on the table. BOOM! Pushed me back so hard it tore up my elbows on the carpetting. Shot the next four off-hand, two doubletaps.
Painful. Accurate, but painful.
The slugs grouped together in a size smaller than a pie plate (and definitely smaller than the target) at 25 yards. Seeing as I only stock slugs for that end-of-the-world scenario involving vehicles, that's good accuracy. Minute of pie-plate at 25 definitely equals minute of SUV.
On the other hand, my right hand goes numb now every time I touch my shoulder, and there's something grinding below the skin.
I'll keep an eye on this.
Innocent doesn't always translate into "easy to handle," so my dad and I decided to take on a father/son project involving metalworking, dremels, and about $300 worth of parts.
Lots of complications ensue. Parts don't go together right, the teeth on the dremel cutting wheel get shaved down, the grinding wheel eventually is discarded for a squirt bottle and a metal file, and various holes have to be drilled in various places where one shouldn't have to drill holes.
Getting the trigger back together was a chore and a half.
In its new configuration, it has a pistol grip and a folding stock (w/ rubber pad that is a godsend over the metal plate it had before). Took us roughly 10 hours total over 2 days, and that's pretty dang good.
Took it out today with 25 rounds of lowbrass bird and 5 slugs. Didn't cross myself before shooting it, like I have every other time.
And...it works. Something my dad and I built, with absolutely no experience, half-@$$ed directions, over the weekend, is now identical to something built by major custom gunshops selling for $1700.
The birdshot was actually fun - the recoil was nice, as recoil goes.
Then we hit the rifle range for the slugs. I fired the first one from a bench (@ 25 yards), my elbows on the table. BOOM! Pushed me back so hard it tore up my elbows on the carpetting. Shot the next four off-hand, two doubletaps.
Painful. Accurate, but painful.
The slugs grouped together in a size smaller than a pie plate (and definitely smaller than the target) at 25 yards. Seeing as I only stock slugs for that end-of-the-world scenario involving vehicles, that's good accuracy. Minute of pie-plate at 25 definitely equals minute of SUV.
On the other hand, my right hand goes numb now every time I touch my shoulder, and there's something grinding below the skin.
I'll keep an eye on this.
New Stuff
Bought Kane And Lynch:Dead Men on a whim. Better than Crysis. Better than a good chunk of Far Cry. Possibly the best game I've ever played.
Not too keen on the squad dynamics, but you don't need to play it tactically much of the time. Story is fantastic, Lehane noir quality. Bruce Willis is in the last stages of negociations to play Kane on the big screen, if that gives you any idea how awesome it is.
Weapons selection is great, and realistic. Love the Sig 552, and using a Ruger Mini-30 in a videogame is kinda weird.
Bought Theory Of A Deadman's Scars And Souvenirs (edited) last week. Possibly the best CD of the year. Every song could be a single, and they range up and down the thematic tree from humorous country/rock to ballad to fist pumping anthem. I love The Heroin Diaries, give it a 10/10, but this is much more solid, cohesive, and enjoyable.
And...someone please remind me that when I see a light at the end of the tunnel, it's usually a train. And so far it's batting 100 for running my *** over. That said, I love it when a plan comes together.
Not too keen on the squad dynamics, but you don't need to play it tactically much of the time. Story is fantastic, Lehane noir quality. Bruce Willis is in the last stages of negociations to play Kane on the big screen, if that gives you any idea how awesome it is.
Weapons selection is great, and realistic. Love the Sig 552, and using a Ruger Mini-30 in a videogame is kinda weird.
Bought Theory Of A Deadman's Scars And Souvenirs (edited) last week. Possibly the best CD of the year. Every song could be a single, and they range up and down the thematic tree from humorous country/rock to ballad to fist pumping anthem. I love The Heroin Diaries, give it a 10/10, but this is much more solid, cohesive, and enjoyable.
And...someone please remind me that when I see a light at the end of the tunnel, it's usually a train. And so far it's batting 100 for running my *** over. That said, I love it when a plan comes together.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Call All You Want...
Obama issues new call for national service
Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:07pm EDT
www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0126054220080702
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised on Wednesday to create new opportunities for national service that would give Americans a chance to fight growing challenges on issues like poverty, climate change and education.
On a trip to Colorado, which Obama hopes to turn into an election battleground in his November White House race with Republican John McCain, Obama said Americans were ready to answer a new call for national service.
"I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate -- I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States," Obama said.
"This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program -- this will be a central cause of my presidency," he said. "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."
Obama, an Illinois senator, touted a package of proposals he first offered in December that would expand AmeriCorps, the domestic service agency, and double the size of the Peace Corps.
He also would offer more service opportunities to retirees and set goals for middle- and high-school students to serve 50 hours a year of public service, and for college students to serve 100 hours a year.
The speech was part of a week-long campaign focus for Obama on values and patriotism in the run-up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4.
Obama, who would be the first black president, has been dogged by Internet speculation about his patriotism and criticism from Republicans about his liberal voting record. Continued...
"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," he said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger."
Colorado Springs is in a conservative region of the state that is home to a military base, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the religious conservative group Focus on the Family.
Obama, who was scheduled to meet in the afternoon with military officials, renewed his call for bigger and stronger U.S. forces.
But the future of the United States does not just depend on the military, he said, "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia."
He criticized President George W. Bush for not taking advantage of a national desire to serve others shown by Americans after the September 11 attacks.
"Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping," Obama said. "Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history."
Obama cited his decision to become a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago after college as the kind of service that was beneficial to the community and satisfying.
"We need your service, right now, at this moment -- our moment -- in history," he said.
(Editing by David Wiessler)
----------------------------------------------------
I have nothing constructive to add, nothing that doesn't involve profanity.
Wed Jul 2, 2008 2:07pm EDT
www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0126054220080702
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised on Wednesday to create new opportunities for national service that would give Americans a chance to fight growing challenges on issues like poverty, climate change and education.
On a trip to Colorado, which Obama hopes to turn into an election battleground in his November White House race with Republican John McCain, Obama said Americans were ready to answer a new call for national service.
"I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate -- I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States," Obama said.
"This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program -- this will be a central cause of my presidency," he said. "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."
Obama, an Illinois senator, touted a package of proposals he first offered in December that would expand AmeriCorps, the domestic service agency, and double the size of the Peace Corps.
He also would offer more service opportunities to retirees and set goals for middle- and high-school students to serve 50 hours a year of public service, and for college students to serve 100 hours a year.
The speech was part of a week-long campaign focus for Obama on values and patriotism in the run-up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4.
Obama, who would be the first black president, has been dogged by Internet speculation about his patriotism and criticism from Republicans about his liberal voting record. Continued...
"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," he said. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger."
Colorado Springs is in a conservative region of the state that is home to a military base, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the religious conservative group Focus on the Family.
Obama, who was scheduled to meet in the afternoon with military officials, renewed his call for bigger and stronger U.S. forces.
But the future of the United States does not just depend on the military, he said, "It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia."
He criticized President George W. Bush for not taking advantage of a national desire to serve others shown by Americans after the September 11 attacks.
"Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping," Obama said. "Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war for the very first time in our history."
Obama cited his decision to become a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago after college as the kind of service that was beneficial to the community and satisfying.
"We need your service, right now, at this moment -- our moment -- in history," he said.
(Editing by David Wiessler)
----------------------------------------------------
I have nothing constructive to add, nothing that doesn't involve profanity.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
We Won!
Today, at about 9:14 my time, while I was madly refreshing Arfcom, I scrolled to the bottom of my recently refreshed thread and saw one word that gave me hope, just a little, but hope still, that the Republic is not lost.
Affirmed.
DC lost in DC vs. Heller. Scalia gave the 4 traitors who voted to deny Americans the right of self defense the worst legalese horsewhipping I have ever seen. Words like "absurdity" and "groteseque" are now preserved in American call, used appropriately to denounce the side of liberalism.
This is not "machine guns for all." Unfortunately. This means the forces of freedom have taken on small beach-head in the war against tyranny, and now it's time for the REST of the good guys to come sweeping in behind. If my math is right, exactly 1 minute after I read "Affirmed," the NRA filed suit against Chicago and Illinois, challenging THEIR gun bans.
It's nice to be on the offensive for a change. Yes, I know, Feinstein, Shumer, and Boxer have not been hung by the neck until dead, but this is the first time in history that I've heard of a gun law being struck down.
Here we go.
I close with a note from Ted Nugent:
---------------------------------------------
A “SUPREME” COURT? I CAN DO BETTER
by Ted Nugent
It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers’ clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless? How about 4 out of the 9 so called “Supreme” justices of the land. God help us all.
Who could be so asinine as to believe that a free man has no such right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? What kind of low-life scoundrel would know that courageous heroes of the U.S. Military would volunteer over and over again to sacrifice and die for such self-evident truths, then turn around and spit on their graves by discounting the very freedoms that these brave men and women have died to protect?
Will these supreme legal scholars also affirm an individual right to choose the religion of our individual choice? Do they authorize our individual freedom of speech? Can you imagine? Them is fighting words my friends, and the line drawn in the sand has never been more outrageous.
Recent USA Today and Gallup polls showed a whopping 73% of good Americans know damn well that we are all created equal, and that we each have an individual right to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What kind of jackass doesn’t know this? Allow the guitar player to translate for the soul-dead among us.
Keep-this means the gun is mine and you can’t have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for “we the people,” not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.
Bear-this means I’ve got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.
Shall not be infringed-this of course is another way of saying Don’t tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don’t even think about it.
When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.
Corrupt men cannot be trusted, hence the right of “the people” to choose the individual church of our choice, to speak our individual ideas and beliefs, to have individual freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and ultimately, to exercise our individual right to keep and bear arms so that evildoers cannot do unto us that which we would not do unto them. Get it? I would love to meet the human being who would argue these points with us. We would be looking at a fascist, and of course fascists, by all historical and empirical evidence, must be eliminated.
If you value the American Way, if you believe in the words and spirit of the US Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, if you know in your heart that you have the right, the duty, the spiritual obligation to protect yourself and your loved ones from evil in all of its forms, then you had best contact each and every one of your elected officials right away and let them know that you know exactly what the Second Amendment says and stands for. Remind them about the “shall not be infringed” clause.
It will not be the fault of the rotten anti-Americans out there who don’t believe in individual rights that rape and pillage our Constitution, it will be the fault of those who know better but failed to speak up. Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the “Supreme” Court of America-We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die.
Affirmed.
DC lost in DC vs. Heller. Scalia gave the 4 traitors who voted to deny Americans the right of self defense the worst legalese horsewhipping I have ever seen. Words like "absurdity" and "groteseque" are now preserved in American call, used appropriately to denounce the side of liberalism.
This is not "machine guns for all." Unfortunately. This means the forces of freedom have taken on small beach-head in the war against tyranny, and now it's time for the REST of the good guys to come sweeping in behind. If my math is right, exactly 1 minute after I read "Affirmed," the NRA filed suit against Chicago and Illinois, challenging THEIR gun bans.
It's nice to be on the offensive for a change. Yes, I know, Feinstein, Shumer, and Boxer have not been hung by the neck until dead, but this is the first time in history that I've heard of a gun law being struck down.
Here we go.
I close with a note from Ted Nugent:
---------------------------------------------
A “SUPREME” COURT? I CAN DO BETTER
by Ted Nugent
It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding fathers’ clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God-given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless? How about 4 out of the 9 so called “Supreme” justices of the land. God help us all.
Who could be so asinine as to believe that a free man has no such right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? What kind of low-life scoundrel would know that courageous heroes of the U.S. Military would volunteer over and over again to sacrifice and die for such self-evident truths, then turn around and spit on their graves by discounting the very freedoms that these brave men and women have died to protect?
Will these supreme legal scholars also affirm an individual right to choose the religion of our individual choice? Do they authorize our individual freedom of speech? Can you imagine? Them is fighting words my friends, and the line drawn in the sand has never been more outrageous.
Recent USA Today and Gallup polls showed a whopping 73% of good Americans know damn well that we are all created equal, and that we each have an individual right to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What kind of jackass doesn’t know this? Allow the guitar player to translate for the soul-dead among us.
Keep-this means the gun is mine and you can’t have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for “we the people,” not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.
Bear-this means I’ve got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.
Shall not be infringed-this of course is another way of saying Don’t tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don’t even think about it.
When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.
Corrupt men cannot be trusted, hence the right of “the people” to choose the individual church of our choice, to speak our individual ideas and beliefs, to have individual freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and ultimately, to exercise our individual right to keep and bear arms so that evildoers cannot do unto us that which we would not do unto them. Get it? I would love to meet the human being who would argue these points with us. We would be looking at a fascist, and of course fascists, by all historical and empirical evidence, must be eliminated.
If you value the American Way, if you believe in the words and spirit of the US Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, if you know in your heart that you have the right, the duty, the spiritual obligation to protect yourself and your loved ones from evil in all of its forms, then you had best contact each and every one of your elected officials right away and let them know that you know exactly what the Second Amendment says and stands for. Remind them about the “shall not be infringed” clause.
It will not be the fault of the rotten anti-Americans out there who don’t believe in individual rights that rape and pillage our Constitution, it will be the fault of those who know better but failed to speak up. Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the “Supreme” Court of America-We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Breaking Records
Broke my previous record of 5.5 miles last Sunday - 6 miles.
Today I broke my record again - 8 miles. Ran my 4.5 route, then my 1.5 route, then a mile to the gas station and back again. My hands and shoulder went numb (I'm thinking dehydration) around mile 6. Kept running though, and here I am 8 hours later and my throat's STILL dry. Only reason I quit was because I was getting bored. Coulda run another mile, mile and a half.
Mind you, I ran 8 miles in 85 degree heat while wearing jeans and an UnderArmor t-shirt. That makes me feel even better.
Today I broke my record again - 8 miles. Ran my 4.5 route, then my 1.5 route, then a mile to the gas station and back again. My hands and shoulder went numb (I'm thinking dehydration) around mile 6. Kept running though, and here I am 8 hours later and my throat's STILL dry. Only reason I quit was because I was getting bored. Coulda run another mile, mile and a half.
Mind you, I ran 8 miles in 85 degree heat while wearing jeans and an UnderArmor t-shirt. That makes me feel even better.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Good Shoot
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2086555
Nevada Family Court Judge Allegedly Shot Over Divorce Ruling
Courts Boost Security as Judge's Increasingly Become Targets
By NANCY WEINER
June 16, 2006
The shooting of a family court judge this week in Nevada points to an alarming phenomenon in which those involved in emotional and acrimonious cases are taking their frustrations out on the judges.
On Monday Nevada Family Court Judge Chuck Weller was shot in his office by a man he dealt with in a divorce case.
The suspect, Darren Mack, is a multmillionaire father of three whose relatives say was deeply upset over Weller's rulings in his divorce case.
"He felt that the financial remuneration that was awarded to his wife was totally unjust and unfair," said Mack's cousin, Jeff Donner.
Mack allegedly used a sniper's rifle to fire through the window of the judge's third-floor office window, shooting Weller in the chest. He was hospitalized and survived the shooting.
Later that day Mack's estranged wife, Charla Mack, was found dead in the garage of her home. Darren Mack was also charged for the slaying and remains a fugitive.
New Protections for Family Court Judges
Mack's campaign against Weller began months in advance, according to the judge's spokesman, who said the suspect found plenty of company in his frustrations on the Internet.
One blogger called the judge a terrorist. Another complained he was a bully and abusive. A third compared him to Hitler.
Family court judges across the country said, sadly, that such venom is not unusual. These courts are actually considered by many judges to be even more volatile than criminal courts because the plaintiffs have so much at stake -- custody, visitation rights, money -- and emotions are often at the breaking point.
"We draw the ire of some people who are incapable of thinking objectively because the pressures of divorce and custody matters sometimes drive them to the bitter end," said Judge Charles McGee.
In New York state, every family courthouse is now equipped with a day care center. The policy was put in place after a Brooklyn parole officer shot and killed his estranged wife in a courthouse hallway packed with children.
"We terminate parental rights sometimes, which is the equivalent of the death penalty in civil courts. That's not something that goes down very easy," said Judge Stephen Rubin, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Many of the nation's courthouses have been made more secure since Sept. 11, 2001. Monday's shooting prompted the introduction of legislation to replace courthouse windows with bulletproof glass.
As for Weller, he survived the shooting but went straight from the hospital into hiding, where he's likely to remain until his attacker is caught.
------------------------------------------------
Found this a couple of weeks ago when people were talking about individuals "pushing the reset button." Figured it'd make a good follow-up to what I just posted.
The gist of the story is that well-known crooked judge for divorce court broke up a family, and the father "pushed the reset button" with a rifle. What I got from the retelling I heard was that Weller bought it, DRT. Apparently not.
Dang.
Darren Mack, the guy who shot Mr. Weller, was no choirboy. As I understand it, he later murdered his ex-wife.
That said, Mr. Weller has a history of screwing men over in divorce court, backing them down with promises of asset forfeiture, stuff like that. And the law is stacked against men so much in divorce court that if they get screwed, it's 99.999% of the time the fault of the court/judge.
Used to be, not getting married and not having kids was a way for a guy to protect himself. Still is, except in NJ.
Anyway. Good shoot. Too bad he didn't kill him.
This needs to keep happening until the divorce laws are reformed, until fathers have rights, until men aren't looked at as gravy trains by the law.
I'm thinking Chucky is going to at least think about taking a round to the chest every time he steps into his court room, and that's the way it should be.
Post script: What caliber for judges?
Nevada Family Court Judge Allegedly Shot Over Divorce Ruling
Courts Boost Security as Judge's Increasingly Become Targets
By NANCY WEINER
June 16, 2006
The shooting of a family court judge this week in Nevada points to an alarming phenomenon in which those involved in emotional and acrimonious cases are taking their frustrations out on the judges.
On Monday Nevada Family Court Judge Chuck Weller was shot in his office by a man he dealt with in a divorce case.
The suspect, Darren Mack, is a multmillionaire father of three whose relatives say was deeply upset over Weller's rulings in his divorce case.
"He felt that the financial remuneration that was awarded to his wife was totally unjust and unfair," said Mack's cousin, Jeff Donner.
Mack allegedly used a sniper's rifle to fire through the window of the judge's third-floor office window, shooting Weller in the chest. He was hospitalized and survived the shooting.
Later that day Mack's estranged wife, Charla Mack, was found dead in the garage of her home. Darren Mack was also charged for the slaying and remains a fugitive.
New Protections for Family Court Judges
Mack's campaign against Weller began months in advance, according to the judge's spokesman, who said the suspect found plenty of company in his frustrations on the Internet.
One blogger called the judge a terrorist. Another complained he was a bully and abusive. A third compared him to Hitler.
Family court judges across the country said, sadly, that such venom is not unusual. These courts are actually considered by many judges to be even more volatile than criminal courts because the plaintiffs have so much at stake -- custody, visitation rights, money -- and emotions are often at the breaking point.
"We draw the ire of some people who are incapable of thinking objectively because the pressures of divorce and custody matters sometimes drive them to the bitter end," said Judge Charles McGee.
In New York state, every family courthouse is now equipped with a day care center. The policy was put in place after a Brooklyn parole officer shot and killed his estranged wife in a courthouse hallway packed with children.
"We terminate parental rights sometimes, which is the equivalent of the death penalty in civil courts. That's not something that goes down very easy," said Judge Stephen Rubin, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Many of the nation's courthouses have been made more secure since Sept. 11, 2001. Monday's shooting prompted the introduction of legislation to replace courthouse windows with bulletproof glass.
As for Weller, he survived the shooting but went straight from the hospital into hiding, where he's likely to remain until his attacker is caught.
------------------------------------------------
Found this a couple of weeks ago when people were talking about individuals "pushing the reset button." Figured it'd make a good follow-up to what I just posted.
The gist of the story is that well-known crooked judge for divorce court broke up a family, and the father "pushed the reset button" with a rifle. What I got from the retelling I heard was that Weller bought it, DRT. Apparently not.
Dang.
Darren Mack, the guy who shot Mr. Weller, was no choirboy. As I understand it, he later murdered his ex-wife.
That said, Mr. Weller has a history of screwing men over in divorce court, backing them down with promises of asset forfeiture, stuff like that. And the law is stacked against men so much in divorce court that if they get screwed, it's 99.999% of the time the fault of the court/judge.
Used to be, not getting married and not having kids was a way for a guy to protect himself. Still is, except in NJ.
Anyway. Good shoot. Too bad he didn't kill him.
This needs to keep happening until the divorce laws are reformed, until fathers have rights, until men aren't looked at as gravy trains by the law.
I'm thinking Chucky is going to at least think about taking a round to the chest every time he steps into his court room, and that's the way it should be.
Post script: What caliber for judges?
NJ Idiocy
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/12137649544110.xml&coll=1
Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey
Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BY TOM HESTERStar-Ledger Staff
In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.
The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship."
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.
The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.
"This is the first ruling of its type in the country," said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L'Esperance, 75. "I don't remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a 'bright-line' requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor."
Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.
"The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage," he said. "I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims."
The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.
"The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff's claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit," Wallace wrote.
The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.
The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney's contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L'Esperance in 2003 "demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage."
They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L'Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.
Devaney was 23 and L'Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L'Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.
The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L'Esperance's promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L'Esperance.
"As the trial judge so aptly phrased it," Wallace wrote, "'the parties' relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.'"
----------------------------------------
It's long been known that men get screwed in divorce court, child involved or no. Looks like New Jersey isn't even requiring marriage to a factor in divorce court. It used to be that not marrying was a possible option for a guy to be in a relationship and safeguard his possessions. Not so much in New Jersey now.
The stupidity is strangling. How do people come up with this crap.
Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey
Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BY TOM HESTERStar-Ledger Staff
In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.
The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship."
The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.
"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.
The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.
"This is the first ruling of its type in the country," said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L'Esperance, 75. "I don't remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a 'bright-line' requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor."
Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.
"The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage," he said. "I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims."
The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.
"The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff's claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit," Wallace wrote.
The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.
The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney's contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L'Esperance in 2003 "demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage."
They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L'Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.
Devaney was 23 and L'Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L'Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.
The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L'Esperance's promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L'Esperance.
"As the trial judge so aptly phrased it," Wallace wrote, "'the parties' relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.'"
----------------------------------------
It's long been known that men get screwed in divorce court, child involved or no. Looks like New Jersey isn't even requiring marriage to a factor in divorce court. It used to be that not marrying was a possible option for a guy to be in a relationship and safeguard his possessions. Not so much in New Jersey now.
The stupidity is strangling. How do people come up with this crap.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
More Government Overreach
Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government
Broad, invasive provision touches nearly every aspect of American commerce.
Contact: Adam Brandon
Phone: 202-942-7612
Email: abrandon@freedomworks.org
Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."
"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.
"At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications."
From the Senate Bill Summary:
Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.
------------------------------------------------------------
There's a line of dialogue from Collateral that springs to mind:
bangbang...bang
Broad, invasive provision touches nearly every aspect of American commerce.
Contact: Adam Brandon
Phone: 202-942-7612
Email: abrandon@freedomworks.org
Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."
"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.
"At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications."
From the Senate Bill Summary:
Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.
------------------------------------------------------------
There's a line of dialogue from Collateral that springs to mind:
bangbang...bang
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
So As I Don't Go Forgetting...
...What I Want To Remember...
Yesterday was part 2 of the last entry. So much I'd like to say, so much I won't.
Yesterday was part 2 of the last entry. So much I'd like to say, so much I won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)