Police State Tactics
Senseless rules, arbitrarily enforced.
Here are two comments (sent by Lisa Simeone) from Jonah Goldberg's TSA column in the LA Times:
anonymousreader at 5:25 PM June 29, 2011 Two weeks ago I flew from LA to Madison, Wisconsin with only a carry-on bag. Before going through security, I checked with airport personnell to make sure I didn't have to check my bag, since it had my cosmetics, sunscreen, and hair products in it. They said it was OK. Security in LA had no problem with it, didn't ask a question, I flew with my carry on no problem. On my way back from Wisconsin four days later, the TSA tried to force me to throw out the very same objects. (It was too late to check in a bag for my flight, so I had no other option but throw them away) When I objected and pointed out that this was inconsistent with what the TSA in Los Angeles did, they accused me of having guns & being a terrorist. At this point the airport police were called and I was totally hysterical. I was handcuffed, given a 325 dollar ticket for disorderly conduct, and missed my flight-- all for questioning the inconsistent policy and total asinine behavior of the TSA. Oh and just for kicks, I might mention that I am a caucasian female with no criminal record and an extensive education. F*** you TSA!!! I vote Greyhound from here on out.anonymousreader at 5:27 PM June 29, 2011
Let me add that the airport police manhandled me and shoved me against a glass wall to handcuff me because I was walking towards them (thought they would be the voice of reason here) -- "walking towards them" was taken as "an implication of aggression". Oh yeah, because a little blonde lady upset over her cosmetics is gonna beat the crap out of two overweight knuckleheads with GUNS. Do those guys even think???
Now, all we have is an anonymous person's word, but I think anyone who flies -- including me, and I'm mentioned in that column -- has had experience with the arbitrary enforcement and bullying of the TSA.
And for what? We aren't safer. The screening procedures wouldn't have caught the pantybomber, but they did humiliate a little old lady in Depends on her last legs from leukemia who just wanted to go see her family.
Protecting People From Earning A Living
Mark Meranta from Institute for Justice wrote to tell me they're taking the Arizona Cosmetology Board to court because they're requiring eyebrow threaders to get an expensive (and unnecessary) license before they're allowed to earn a living.
In Meranta's words, this is yet another example of "protectionist licensing laws that have nothing to do with the health/safety of the public."
More background from the IJ:
Eyebrow threading is very popular in Arizona. Threading is a natural and safe method of hair removal that uses a single strand of cotton thread to remove unwanted hair, most commonly from the eyebrows, with no chemicals, dyes, hot wax or sharp objects. But state officials have decided that threaders cannot practice their trade without first obtaining an unnecessary and expensive government license.The Arizona Board of Cosmetology is now requiring skilled threaders to obtain an aesthetician license, which requires at least 600 hours of classroom instruction--not one hour of which teaches or tests threading--and that can cost over $10,000. But threaders do not need full-blown cosmetology training. The Board's irrational application of Arizona's licensing scheme cuts the bottom rungs off the economic ladder for threaders working in a safe and sanitary occupation.
The Arizona Constitution protects everyone's right to earn an honest living without first having to obtain a completely unnecessary license. That is why a group of five threaders have filed Gutierrez v. Aune, a lawsuit to vindicate their economic liberty, which is the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government regulation.
The video:
More from the Arizona Republic -- blasting the law and supporting the IJ lawsuit.
California And Amazon
All of you reading and commenting here have been very sweet and generous about going through my Amazon links, and I've been using the money I get to stay afloat in these tough times. I'm very distressed that I may lose this income (starting at the ed of September) and would like to prevent that. For anyone who hasn't heard, here it is from CNN Money, by Dan Mitchell:
FORTUNE - California Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed the so-called "Amazon tax" into law. The measure forces out-of-state retailers (not just Amazon) to pay taxes on sales within the state. Earlier on Wednesday, Amazon (AMZN) sent notices to its affiliates in California, warning them that if the measure became law, the company would have to terminate its contracts with them because it's the affiliates' presence in the state that makes Amazon subject to the tax. Amazon has pulled similar maneuvers in other states where such taxes were imposed.California, like other cash-strapped state governments, is flailing about for new sources of revenue. Proponents of the tax claim it will raise $317 million in revenue a year. But California should look around at other states that have tried this tactic: it usually doesn't work out so well.
A 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Quill v. North Dakota held that online sales are not subject to taxation unless the seller has a physical presence in the jurisdiction imposing the tax. That has allowed Amazon and other retailers to undercut competition from bricks-and-mortar retailers by selling tax-free in states where it has no physical presence.
...California could lose 25,000 "small businesses," according to CalWatchdog, which calls itself an "independent journalism venture," but which is backed by the libertarian Pacific Research Institute. That number comes from the Performance Marketing Association. Madigan, its executive director, told me that it includes anyone who has sold at least $25 worth of goods. So the true number of people who will lose their livelihoods is hard to pin down. But losses there will surely be.
Mitchell wrote a very good piece. Be sure to read the rest at the link.
I got this from a regular commenter:
Sorry to hear your going to lose your income stream. Have you checked out a Montana LLC? Many RVer's (Recreational Vehicles) create a LLC in Montana to get around sales tax, etc. I think you have to do business in Montana once a year to keep it going. Link from a quick google:
If this even works, Montana's a long flight. Maybe Vegas would work instead? I've seen comments on bulletin boards that say it's not an answer. My bank account they deposit into is in California, a few miles from my house. I live in California. Also, I'm not a tax cheat or looking to be one. I just need to keep this income stream coming. I use it to keep the lights on.
Anybody who wants to weigh in on what I might do, have at it. Things are very tough now. I've cut back on everything, and I've been managing, but losing the kickbacks you all generously send my way from the purchases you make on Amazon have really helped.
Texas Becomes The Light Bulb State
Most of America will soon be lit like a mental institution (with those ugly CFL bulbs that require you to keep a flashlight in the room in case you need the light to come on right away).
But, Texas just told the Federal nannies it's lights out on pushing them around. From the Tenth Amendment Center:
That flickering light of freedom down in Texas emanates from an incandescent light bulb.Edison's brilliant invention will soon go dark in the U.S., essentially prohibited by federal law. Beginning next year, the feds will force Americans to begin abandoning the old standard light bulbs in favor of compact florescent bulbs filled with mercury, or other more expensive lighting.
But not in Texas.
Last week, Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill that will allow for the intrastate manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in the Lone Star State.
HB 2501 rests on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, affirming that the authority to regulate intrastate commerce remains with the states.
..."This is a victory for state sovereignty," Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said. "The federal government has no authority to determine what type of light bulbs Texans choose to manufacture and sell within their borders. More states should follow Texas' lead, not just with lighting, but every product imaginable. It's high time the states and the people took back the decision making power they rightfully possess."
Pssst! San Francisco Is Not Surrounded By A Forcefield
In fact, residents and visitors seem quite free to come and go from the city as they please. Which is why San Francisco's Animal Control and Welfare Commission is so completely lint-for-brains to try to ban pet sales within the city. From an LA Times op-ed:
The measure being pushed by San Francisco's Animal Control and Welfare Commission would ban all sales of all pets: kittens, snakes, hamsters, goldfish. Rats!The ban wouldn't affect animals sold for food, so city residents could still buy a live crab to boil in a pot of water for dinner, just not to keep in an aquarium. Live tilapia to grill, no problem, but a splendidly colored Siamese fighting fish for a fishbowl?
Genius!
Animals will be treated better when they are owned by responsible people who are ready to keep a pet for its lifetime. That means allowing people to buy the pet they want, not the one the city thinks they should have. Of course, prospective pet owners should check the shelters and rescue groups first; they would be surprised by the variety of loving, attractive animals.
No, they shouldn't -- not if they want a specific dog from a specific breeder -- but that's the PC thing to say. Although, whoops, it kind of contradicts the line about "allowing people to buy the pet they want."
I do think it's nice to take dogs from a shelter. People in SF who want to promote the shelter idea should feel free to do that -- with an ad campaign and other methods that they fund.
"How Dumb Are You?" Public Relations
Jill Le Brasseur, the "Communications Specialist" from the "Produce for Better Health Foundation" (a "non-profit" sponsored by big biz fruit and veggie sellers), must think I'm a drooling moron, because she sent me this ridiculous press release:
Moms Agree, Eat Fruits and Vegetables to Stay Healthy!All Forms of Fruits and Vegetables Count
Hockessin, Del. - Moms report various reasons for eating fruits and vegetables, but 86 percent of Gen X moms agree that eating fruits and veggies can help them stay healthy. Other reasons for eating fruits and vegetables given by a majority of moms include; they like the taste, to feel well, to lose weight, and to prevent weight gain.
Yes, the fact that you have working ovaries and gave birth qualifies you as a dietary science expert.
Press releases get more and more idiotic, just as we're inundated with more and more of them.
Here's what an actual doctor, cardiologist Dr. William Davis, has to say about fruit. More here.
Economic Freedom And Quality Of Life
The U.S. is slipping in this department. The Supreme Court's legislation on a developer taking a woman's home as a permissible "public use" (Kelo) is one example -- property rights trampled:
FOIA Docs Show TSA Scanner Radiation Problem Worse Than Reported
Now, there's a surprise.
I'm always amazed by people who trust the government, and think the government will protect them. Bureaucracy protects itself.
Documents were obtained by EPIC.org through a lawsuit:
On June 24, 2011, EPIC released documents obtained from DHS as a result of EPIC's lawsuit.The disclosed documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests.
The documents raise new questions concerning the radiation risks posed by the TSA full body scanner program. The records demonstrate:
•TSA employees have identified cancer clusters allegedly linked to radiation exposure while operating body scanners and other screening technology. However, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that would warn of radiation exposure.•The DHS has publicly mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners. NIST stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test full body scanners for safety, and that the Institute does not do product testing.
•A Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
•A NIST study warns airport screeners to avoid standing next to full body scanners.
via Lisa Simeone
Al Qaeda And The Depends Bomber
Terrific post at the Wash Ex by Gene Healy:
Meanwhile, no thanks to (the) TSA, al Qaeda looks increasingly harried, desperate and weak.Earlier this month, al Qaeda-ist Adam Gadahn -- "Azzam the American" by his rap handle -- put out a video urging American Muslims, "Do not rely on others, take the task upon yourself." He noted that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms, what are you waiting for?"
Predictably, the Washington Post and the Daily Kos seized on the report to stoke fear and urge Congress to close the "gun show loophole."
But Gadahn's call is best seen as a mark of how far al Qaeda has fallen -- and how they're anything but an "existential threat" to America. On Sept. 11, they left a smoking hole in the Manhattan skyline. Now, for their follow-up, 10 years later, they hope some kid will take the initiative and shoot up a shopping mall.
Even supposing that what's left of al Qaeda is clever and resourceful enough to recruit kindergartners and elderly leukemia patients, it's not at all clear that tactic would be successful. Risk analysts Mark Stewart and John Mueller report that when the Christmas crotch-bomber's "effort was duplicated on a decommissioned plane in a test set up by the BBC, the blast did not breach the fuselage, leading air accident investigator Capt. J. Joseph to conclude, 'I am very confident that the flight crew could have taken this aeroplane without any incident at all and get it to the ground safely.' "
A free people ought to be brave enough not to quake before the imaginary threat of a Depends bomber. No society can be made perfectly safe, and, in the pursuit of safety, certain policies ought to be considered beyond the pale.
We can debate whether waterboarding falls into that category, but ritual humiliation of innocent citizens surely qualifies. TSA's abuses are making our choice ever clearer: Assume some risk ... or assume the position.
How A Man Can Lose Everything -- On An Accusation
Christopher Goffard writes for the LA Times of the case against Louis Gonzales III for kidnapping, torture, and sexual assault of his ex-girlfriend. Part Two is here. An excerpt:
Del Marto wondered: Did Gonzalez commit the attack after he left the school, and before he was seen at a nearby bank? Or perhaps after he left the bank, and before he was seen buying a bagel?Six minutes.
Was that enough time for the attack she had described?The detective concluded that each scenario would have given Gonzalez a narrow window of opportunity at West's house:
Six minutes.
Was that enough time for the attack she had described?
Enough time for Gonzalez to find her in her garage, knock her out, drag her up the stairs, put gloves on his hands and mittens on hers, and slip on protective overalls so that his suit would remain immaculate?
Enough time to strip her, tie her up, burn her with matches, sexually assault her with a coat hanger and attempt to suffocate her with a plastic bag?
Enough time to dispose of all this evidence, along with a duffel bag she said he had carried?
Why did no one, before or after, notice that Gonzalez was nervous or out of breath?
The disarray at the house on Penngrove Street seemed to reflect the struggle West described: clumps of her hair, scissors discarded on the carpet, a spindle yanked out of the banister.
But Del Marto could find nothing to place Gonzalez there. No fingerprints, no DNA, no hair, no clothes fibers.
He remembered how West looked that day, bruised and traumatized. But the medical records seemed at odds with the sexual assault she described: They showed no internal tears or bleeding.
For the record, I believe those who can be proved to have made false accusations of rape against another person should be made to do the time the person they falsely accused would have done.
The problem, of course, is that false accusations can't always be proved to be false.
People need to be very, very careful of who they pair up with. You can't take it on faith that anybody's a good and ethical person. You can pay attention, serious attention, over time, and find out what kind of person they are. And before you know that, tread with caution and expect surprises.
That's A Congressional "Bone-Us"
That's what Congressional staffers got -- to the tune of $6.1 million, a CNN investigation by Lisa Desjardins reveals. Matt Schneider writes at Mediaite. Republicans, in a time of belt-tightening, forked over $908,000 in bonuses, and the Democrats handed out $3.1 million.
Some representatives are happy to defend the expenditure like Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn who said in a statement:"My staff worked extremely hard . . . including quite a few all-nighters and many weekends . . . and I rewarded them with an end-of-the-year bonus."
The rest of us are working are to not quite make ends meet, and we aren't getting bonuses, so maybe those of you who've fucked up the country, and your little elves, should be the last ones to get a bonus for it.
From the comments, timzank writes:
If you want to become physically ill, click on this:http://www.legistorm.com/browse_by_representative.html
look up your congress critter and see what his annual staff expenditure is and multiply it by 535.
Doesn't look like they're suffering to me. And note that the money listed is just for one quarter. Here's the money paid out by the lame Jane Harman, who just resigned, and who will probably be replaced by ficus-tree-in-a-pantsuit, Janice Hahn.
via @mpetrie98
To Protect And To Serve
This cop could do with a little less serving. I found him shockingly wide, but I couldn't catch the other angle before he was blocked by a car. How does a guy like this chase any perp who is not wheelchair-bound and 80? 
UPDATE: The PC police, however, are out in force. See below comment from "Erin," and my response a few comments below it.
The Hypocrisy Of Al Gore
It's the hubris of one who knows what's best for all of us, but feels above having to comply. Walter Russell Mead writes on The American Interest:
If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka "indulgences") with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.
"Inconvenient Truth," indeed.
Gingrich: Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman...Until The Man Tosses The Woman Aside For Another Woman
Loved this bit from a Jonathan Turley blog item:
Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from "drifting toward a terrible muddle." He said that he would be looking for ways to "defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible."Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages -- making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
Come on, is anyone's marriage affected in the slightest if the lady next door is married to a lady? Does anyone really think anyone's going to say, "Well, Honey, it's been a wonderful 22 years, but now that the lesbians are getting hitched, IT'S CURTAINS FOR OUR MARRIAGE"?
Starting Or Restarting Low-Carb, Part Two
Another wildly helpful post by Dr. Michael Eades -- the follow-up to the wildly helpful Part One. An excerpt from Two:
In the last post we discussed ramping up the fat intake as the single best way to hurry the low-carb or keto adaptation along. I didn't mention it in the previous post, but another little secret is to keep an eye on the protein intake. Too much protein will prevent the shift into ketoses because the liver will convert some of the protein into glucose - this glucose will then be used first and slow down the ketogenic process. Which, if course, prompts the question, how much protein is too much? As long as you're getting your protein from meat, especially fatty cuts of meat, you're probably okay. If you go for the extremely lean cuts of meat, say, skinless chicken breasts, or if you are supplementing your diet with low-fat protein shakes, you could have a little more trouble low-carb adapting. If you're going the shake route, I would recommend you add some coconut oil to the shakes for a couple of reasons. First, you'll hasten the keto-adaptation, and, second, the fat it coconut oil will help remove the fat from your liver (which I'll discuss more later in this post).
I learned from this post that I should take magnesium before I go to bed -- not at 9 o'clock in the morning:
Magnesium is natures relaxant. It makes many people sleepy, so we always recommend taking it at bedtime.
As for potassium, pills I've found that are commercially available often come in a ludicrously small dose -- maybe as low as two percent of your daily requirement. I eat Italian parsley which is very potassium-rich. After I make my bacon, I save a little bit of the grease and toss in a big clump of Italian parsley -- about the size of three fists. I then cook the hell out of it, until it's reduced down to little crispies. Next steps: Eat. Enjoy.
P.S. Get the Italian kind. And you have to cook it to kill the taste.
A Little Graffiti On A Homeopathy Poster
Right on. Via Diana Fleischman, who found it on @lou_hurst's Twitter feed.
Borrowed Office Space
I was having trouble figuring out how to start one of the chapters in my new book, so I used this spot for a few minutes as a temporary office, taking a gentle swing on the tire swing I pass on my walk. (I cracked the opening problem late yesterday -- phew!) 
95-Year-Old Woman With Leukemia: Potential Al Qaeda Terrorist
Via Lobster, this utterly obscene violation and humiliation of an elderly leukemia sufferer by the TSA. Lauren Sage Reinlie writes in the NWF Daily News:
Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.
"It's something I couldn't imagine happening on American soil," Weber said Friday. "Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this."
Cancer sufferers' daily lives have so much dignity removed from them already, and there's so much suffering. It is just appalling that we pretend that there's something other than blind allegiance to bureaucracy behind this search and most searches.
In Crumbling City, Congressman Has A Crumbling House
My pal Charlie LeDuff on Detroit Congressman John Conyers' golf course-adjacent eyesore:
Fur A Good Time, Call...
Reading web message boards to spy on humankind, and I saw this:
"Girl u gotta trim that up u look like chewbacca down there."
Secret Garden
A view from my walk on Wednesday morning. 
You can feel pretty crappy some morning, and if you live in California, all you have to do to get your spirits up is take a walk.
The Hard Life Of A Muslim Terrorist In An Israeli Prison
Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, blogs:
What's your mental image of prison. Breaking rocks, risky showers and listening to trains go by where rich folks are eating from a fancy dining car?Forget all that. If you're a Muslim terrorist in Israeli prison, life is smartphones, salaries paid for by American taxpayers and access to your own Facebook fan page.
Photo at the link.
There's more in his Front Page article:
Hamas terrorist Haytham Battat, who was responsible for the murder of four Israelis, uses his Facebook page to share Jihadi videos from YouTube. PFLP terrorist Saeed Omar, who was sentenced to nineteen years in jail, poses with his favorite soccer team's banner...Using a 3G smartphone, Omar is able to update his own Facebook 'fan page' from prison. Other terrorists use smartphone video to go shopping with their friends and pick out their own clothes, which are then brought to them in prison, and remotely attend family events.
New York Approves Gay Marriage!
Nicholas Confessore and Michael Barbaro write for The New York Times that the New York State Senate just voted in favor of it:
Senate approval was the final hurdle for the legislation, which was strongly supported by Mr. Cuomo. The Assembly approved changes made by the Senate, after passing an earlier version last week. Mr. Cuomo was expected to sign the measure soon, and the law will go into effect 30 days later, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by midsummer. "I am very proud of New York and the statement we made to the nation today," Mr. Cuomo said.The bill's passage followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- permit same-sex marriage. It is also legal in : the District of Columbia.
...Mr. Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who opposed gay marriage when he ran for election last year, said he had studied the issue closely, agonized over his responsibility as a lawmaker, and concluded he could not vote against the bill. Mr. Grisanti voted yes. "I apologize for those who feel offended," he said. "I cannot deny, a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife."
From the comments, kofender writes:
There are tears in my eyes as I type this. Tears of joy to know New York now is the home of marriage equality. But sadly, tears of sadness as well knowing I can never celebrate with my partner of 23 years, the great love of my life, lost to cancer three years ago. If Don were here now, we'd be among the first to apply for an official license. But still, I'm thrilled for all my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who have earned the right to marry. "All of my wishes are with you tonight. I've had a love of my own, like you. I've had a love of my own."
Gays and lesbians who marry still won't be equal to straights who do on a Federal level. Tara Siegel writes, also in The New York Times, about how gay marriage will changes couples' financial lives:
Of course, there's still a long list of federal benefits that will remain out of reach. Since the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as between a man and a woman -- is still being enforced, gay couples in New York will still need to file separate federal tax returns. They will not be eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits. And they will continue to owe extra income taxes on their spouse's health insurance benefits -- a cost that opposite-sex married couples don't have to pay.
Disgusting. I'm against marriage privileging, but as long as straight spouses get privileges, gay spouses should get those same privileges, too.
UPDATE: Conservative arguments for gay equality.
How Has The Internet Changed The Way You Socialize?
Has it changed it? For better? For worse?
UPDATE: A woman goes back to her high school in Germany to see how things have changed in "Generation FB," in The New York Times. Katrin Bennhold writes, in her very interesting piece:
"My e-mail?" The boy looks at me as if I had just suggested staying in touch by carrier pigeon. "What, you don't have an email?" I ask, insecure now. "Sure I do. But I only use it for my parents and my grandparents," he says. "Aren't you on Facebook?" I am. Phew. Of course I mostly check my Facebook profile when I'm prompted by an e-mail notification, but I don't tell him that. Trevor Dougherty is 19 and to him, I am a geriatric 36-year-old who belongs to that amorphous generation of people-who-don't-really-get-social-networking that stretches all the way back to, well, his grandparents....Two decades ago Attention Deficit Disorder was barely on the radar in Europe. But in recent years the number of cases has gone up, and not just in my old school. Studies by psychologists and educators have linked excessive screen time to a loss of concentration and deep thinking. In one of them, published in the journal Pediatrics last year, Douglas A. Gentile of the Media Research Lab at Iowa State University studied 1,300 school-age children and found that more than two hours a day in front of a screen raised the odds of exceeding the average level of attention problems by 67 percent.
Many teenagers I met say they spend at least two hours every day in front of some electronic device. But not all that time is wasted. I witnessed an impressive capacity for self-directed learning. Arne Thate, 18, got bored with his classical piano lessons so he started teaching himself pop songs with YouTube tutorials (Praise You by Fat Boy Slim is a favorite.) Marcel Sievers, a 14-year-old fan of computer games, taught himself Camtasia, a screencasting software. Many more are members of interest-driven groups on Facebook with peers in far-flung places whom they have never met.
...Social networking has penetrated just about every aspect of teenage interaction, not least dating etiquette. When you like a girl, explains 19-year-old Leo Laun, a teenage heartthrob who reminds me of Robert Pattinson minus the messy hair, it's much easier to send a friend request than to ask for her phone number. Then you can check out her photos, her profile information and her posts. "You know whether she is single, what she looks like in a bikini and what music she likes," he says, counting these clearly crucial points off on one hand. "If you're still interested, chances are she's worth pursuing."
It all sounds a little unromantic to me, but also pretty efficient. They court each other with studied casualness in one-liners on their public walls (and no, spelling is not a priority) before moving on to chatting, texting and eventually -- this at least hasn't changed -- a date at the movies. They post a heart-shaped icon to publicly declare a new relationship and then change it to a broken heart when it ends.
Food Stamp Millionaires
Thirty-five states have abolished the assets test for getting food stamps writes James Bovard in the WSJ:
Millionaires are now legally entitled to collect food stamps as long as they have little or no monthly income. Thirty-five states have abolished asset tests for most food-stamp recipients. These and similar "paperwork reduction" reforms advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are turning the food-stamp program into a magnet for abuses and absurdities.The Obama administration is far more enthusiastic about boosting food-stamp enrollment than about preventing fraud.
...The food-stamp poster boy of 2011 is 59-year-old Leroy Fick. After Mr. Fick won a $2 million lottery jackpot, the Michigan Department of Human Services ruled he could continue receiving food stamps. The Detroit News explained: "If Fick had chosen to accept monthly payments of his jackpot, the winnings would be considered income, according to the DHS. But by choosing to accept a lump sum payment, the winnings were considered 'assets' and aren't counted in determining food stamp eligibility."
Decades after liberals derided Ronald Reagan's reference to a Cadillac-driving "welfare queen," Obama administration policies could easily permit Trust Fund Babies driving Rolls Royces to get free food courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Oh, and don't you just be blaming the Democrats:
As Slate reporter Annie Lowrey wrote for the online magazine last December, President Bush and his food-stamp chief Eric Bost "went on a quiet crusade to expand eligibility, increase enrollment, and reduce stigma around nutrition aid."H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living." The explosion in the number of food-stamp recipients tilts the political playing field in favor of big government. The more people who become government dependents, the more likely that democracy will become a conspiracy against self-reliance.
There should be loads of stigma around "nutrition aid," so people won't be on it.
It's not only wrong economically for people to think it's okay to be on the dole; Bovard is right about the problem of self-reliance. If there's always a handout, why raise a hand to work?
"I Think You're Clueless" Sen. Rand Paul About TSA
He was talking about their invasive search of a 6-year-old girl.
And, as I blogged a few days ago, they took away the plastic hammer that a mentally disabled man had had for his emotional comfort for 29 years.
Meanwhile, I just got a comment on my entry about TSA groper Magee Thedala (or Thedala Magee) sticking her hand sideways INTO my vagina, between my labia, four times. It was left by a person calling themself "Blank tso" (from a Long Beach, CA, Verizon Mobile I.P. address):
Okay goddess lady I work for tsa at the airport u went thru an to me it sounds like your just one of tjose typical people who when something was to happen you would point a finger at tsa an you must feel that why should I go thru all this an im no terroist by the way terriost can be any body an you talking about a pat down when the police pat down is more.intruding an also we ask you is that.okay we go thru.sensitive areas with back of hand to me your just a typical blogger with.nuthing else to do. An sorry for all these periods im on my phone
My response:
your just a typical blogger with.nuthing else to do.Actually, I'm not. I go to presentations at Rand Corp. on terrorism and talk to, interview and read security experts.
Here's one of the experts I read regularly (Bruce Schneier), quoted in The Economist:
"Counter terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better," Schneier tells Goldberg. "Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."You earn a living violating Americans' rights, and that's despicable.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- quote on the title page of a book by Richard Jackson, published by Ben Franklin (and usually attributed to Franklin)
The Rand presentation was by Brian Jenkins. No slouch, Brian.
Here's Brian on Why Terrorists Attack Airports. And what better place for terrorists to pick off a bunch of sheeple than while they're standing in their socks waiting to be felt up by employees who'd otherwise be working at McDonald's? (Duh.)
We're safer by looking for terrorists, not tweezers.
There really is no guaranteed safety, but I'd rather live in a free society than a "safe" one. I'll sign something to take the plane where you don't get groped and passengers have to take down the guy with the bomb between his cheeks (aka a "wedgie bomb")...which, by the way, would not be discovered by our current search procedures. And hilariously, from that link just above (and I have to say, I'm not sure about the site):
How to explode your rectum without harming anyone nearbyThe ABC News story mentioned above goes on to state that this terrorist's underwear was packing 80 grams of an explosive powder called PETN, which government tests have revealed can blow a (tiny) hole in the wall of an airplane.
This is all brilliant stuff, of course. Truly brilliant. This whole idea that underwear explosives might destroy an airplane all makes sense except for the fact that the terrorist's butt cheeks are in the way!
Had this explosive packet actually been set off, I can tell you exactly what would have happened: There would have been a really loud pop, immediately followed by in-flight pieces of exploding butt cheeks.
I'm not trying to be funny here. This is a true description of the way bombs work. They explode outward, destroying whatever is closest to them first. And this guy actually had this bomb wedged in between his butt cheeks. A sort of "wedgie bomb", if you will. A wedgie with a bang.
This is a serious discussion. There was an attempted assassination of a Middle Eastern prince that happened not long ago. It was even reported in the press. The assassin had somehow managed to shove explosives into his rectum -- I swear I'm not making this up -- and waltzed right through security with it. He then shuffled toward his target, fired off the bomb and subsequently blew his butt cheeks all over the room... without harming anyone else.
Brilliant, huh?
Reporters Arrested For Photographing, Videotaping Public Meeting
Reason's Jim Epstein was arrested yesterday. He writes at reason.com:
On June 22, 2011, I attended a meeting of the D.C. Taxi Commission for a story I'm currently working on about a proposed medallion system in the district.About 30 minutes into the meeting, I witnessed journalist Pete Tucker snap a still photo of the proceedings on his camera phone. A few minutes later, two police officers arrested Tucker. I filmed Tucker's arrest and the audience's subsequent outrage using my cell phone.
A few minutes later, as I was attempting to leave the building, I overheard the female officer who had arrested Tucker promise a woman, who I presumed to be an employee of the Taxi Commission, that she would confiscate my phone. Reason intern Kyle Blaine, overheard her say, "Do you want his phone? I can get his phone."
(The woman who was given assurances by the officer that she could have my phone can be seen at the end of the video telling me, "You do not have permission to record this!")
As I tried to leave, I was told by the same officer to "stay put." I told her I was leaving and attempted to exit the building. I was then surrounded by officers, and told to remain still or I would be arrested.
I didn't move, but I tried to get the attention of a group of cab drivers who were standing nearby. At this point I was arrested.
I spent the remainder of the day in a cell in the basement of the building. In the late afternoon, I was released.
Here's the video:
Violations of our constitutional rights are getting to be a very ordinary, daily thing, from the TSA violations of our Fourth Amendment rights, to the woman being arrested for videotaping the police from her front lawn, to this. If you aren't terrified, you're really taking our rights for granted.
Why Is This America's Job?
I think it's terrible the way women are treated in Afghanistan and in pretty much all Muslim-majority countries, but it's up to Muslims to reform Islam; Americans in the military shouldn't be getting their legs blown off "to ensure that little girls get to school," as my friend radio host John Phillips put it on his KABC show yesterday.
We cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and we should not be intervening in any other country where the intervention does not stem from our national interests. "No nation building!" as George Bush put it -- before spearheading the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, terrible to the Kurds, but this shouldn't be our problem. Yet so many assume it should be, simply because people are suffering.
On The Daily Beast, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon writes:
Last May, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to female Afghan officials that "we will not abandon you, we will stand with you always."
And then there's this:
Ever since, Afghan women have been speaking out about the risk that the international community's exit could end the progress they have made in the last 10 years, a decade in which women have won seats in parliament, girls have returned to school, and civil society has started to find its footing.
Let the "international community" keep working on this -- after you fix the broken U.N., where countries like Libya are seriously considered in speaking out against human rights violations.
Think You Have First Amendment Rights?
Well, isn't that cute.
More and more, police are acting like there's no such thing as The First Amendment. This woman was arrested for standing on her lawn and videotaping the police. She was exercising her First Amendment right to videotape the police -- an essential right, in order to see that there is no police misconduct -- and they arrested her.
The officer who arrested her talked about how he didn't feel "safe" with her behind him. I can understand that. Think about what would've happened if the officers beating Rodney King had been able to stop the guy from videotaping them. From my book, I See Rude People -- a bit on videotaping police misconduct (and other sorts of misconduct):
It's a recent phenomenon, the power of the Average Joe to expose wrongdoing and affect change with relatively inexpensive and widely available consumer electronics -- like a video camera that anyone with a few hundred dollars can pick up at the corner electronics store.Some might say the earliest example of this is Abraham Zapruder's 8 millimeter home movie of the Kennedy assassination, but Zapruder caught the shooting by accident while filming the parade. The first major intentional example of Average Joe electronic journalism was in 1991, although it wasn't Web-based since only a smattering of uber-geeks were puttering around on what would become the World Wide Web.
Los Angeles resident George Holliday, then a manager at a big plumbing and rooting company, was awakened in the middle of the night by sirens. He ran to his apartment window and looked out on four white LAPD officers engaged in the beating of an arrest-resisting black man, Rodney King (who'd just led the officers on a car chase, and who subsequently charged at one of the officers). Holliday turned on his Sony Handycam and rolled the videotape -- the videotape that was aired, seen, written and talked about around the world.
The broadcasting of the tape led to the trial and eventual acquittal of the officers -- in Simi Valley, a conservative, white-on-white bedroom community of Los Angeles. Blacks were enraged by the verdict, suspecting from the start that Simi Valley was no place for a fair trial, and the racially driven LA riots flared -- six days of looting, arson, robbery and murder.
The four officers were later retried on Federal civil rights violations, and two were convicted. Officer Laurence Powell, who brutally clubbed King with his baton numerous times -- including in the face, against LAPD policy, and typed on his patrol car computer, "I havent [sic] beaten anyone this bad in a long time" -- was found guilty. Sergeant Stacey Koon was the supervising officer on the scene. Koon, a cop with over 90 commendations who'd once given mouth-to-mouth rescuscitation to a black transvestite with open mouth sores, and who never beat King and unsuccessfully tried to subdue him by twice tasing him, was also found guilty. All four officers are now off the force.
The woman in this current case of videotaping the police, 28-year-old Emily Good, now faces a misdemeanor charge of obstructing governmental administration. Or, as I would edit that, protecting our rights and guarding against police misconduct.
Thank you, Emily Good.
Some newsroomlawblog thoughts on videotaping the police.
And here, from a cop bulletin board, policeworld:
James and Barbara Smith filed suit against the City of Cumming, Georgia (the "City"), and its police chief, Earl Singletary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City police had harassed the Smiths, including a claim that Mr. Smith had been prevented from videotaping police actions in violation of Smith's First Amendment rights....As to the First Amendment claim under Section 1983, we agree with the Smiths that they had a First Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, manner and place restrictions, to photograph or videotape police conduct. The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.
Do You Think He Drives A Smart Horse And Buggy?
Do you think it has BlueTooth?
CNN reports that an Amish man in Indiana was arrested -- accused of sexting a 12-year-old girl from his smart phone.
Loved the crack I saw on somebody's Facebook page:
"He thought she was 13."
Eat Your Fruit Loops!
U.S. Dietary Guidelines Committee Member Joanne Slavin:
"There is no scientific basis for the U.S. Dietary Guidelines."
Does Success In Your Career Mean You Get To Break The Law?
If you are in the country illegally, you should be deported.
Even if you are a Pulitzer winner.
From NBC Washington:
A high profile writer who won a Pulitzer Prize with the Washington Post has revealed himself as an illegal immigrant."I couldn't hide the secret anymore," Jose Antonio Vargas told ABC News in an interview this week. Vargas said watching other illegal immigrants fighting for passage of the DREAM Act inspired him to tell his story.
In addition to the ABC News interview, Vargas wrote his story in the New York Times magazine, in an article titled "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant."
Vargas says that when he was 12-years-old, living in the Philippines, his mother put him on an airplane bound for the United States. He said that he did not know he was an illegal immigrant until he was a teenager trying to get his driver's license.
I have friends from Cuba, Europe, and Asia who have gone through a lot to be here legally. How is allowing lawbreakers this enormous prize -- the right to be in the USA or even citizenship -- a right reward for breaking the law and jumping the line to get in here?
Campus Kangaroo Courts
Have you committed the campus crime of hurting somebody's feelings? Staring at a woman's bare calves a little too long? Off with your head!
Sounds like a joke, but it's a witch hunt being put in place on college campuses for people who -- gasp! -- make sex jokes and offend in other ways.
Michael Barone writes at the Washington Examiner that the Feds are cracking down on campus flirting and sex jokes, with the weight of a potential loss of funds for a university adding muscle to their effort.
There was a "seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities":
The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities....The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.
That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes involve charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.
But more often they involve alleged offenses defined in vague terms and depending often on subjective factors. Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate put-downs of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).
All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?
He hints that men are sure to be the victims of these kangaroo courts. (Duke lacrosse players, anyone?)
And finally:
As Lukianoff points out, OCR had other options. The Supreme Court in a 1999 case defined sexual harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." In other words, more than a couple of tasteless jokes or a moment of elevator eyes.
How To Tell Teens It's Cool To Smoke
I think it's very possible the new warning labels will have that effect, since teens feel immortal and are into rebelling. (It's a link, not a download, even though it goes to a PDF.)
Personally, I find being asked "Can I bum a cigarette?" kind of like being asked "Are you a big, honking moron?"
Wow, What An Offer
I didn't "belong" in high school when I was in it; I'm sure not going to pay to belong now. But, nice try, Kimosabe, with this email:
Powered by AlumniClass.com! NORTH FARMINGTON ALUMNIHi Amy,
We are getting a lot of activity on our alumni site with the class of '82. To get everyone in your class involved, we are having a class of '82 Lifetime Membership sale. Instead of the normal $20 annual fee, blast into the past with a $20 Lifetime Membership! Take advantage now and join for life.
http://www.alumniclass.com/northfarmington/load?MTE3
Sincerely,
Class of '82
Muslim Cleric: "There Is A Beating Etiquette"
In Islam, you can't just haul off and beat your wife any old way. There are rules, Bub! But, they're for your wife's own good, really they are.
The guy claims you can't haul off and smack her unless she refuses to have sex with you, and then, well, she's fair game for a good whipping.
"All these things honor the woman...she is in need of discipline," says Egyptian cleric Sa'ad Arafat in the video. He adds that "Allah honored wives by instating (sic) the punishment of beatings."
And, in case you were wondering about the correct way for a Muslim man to beat his wife, here's just one example:
"He can beat her with a short rod..."
Cool! Even in Islam, it seems size matters.
Handy-dandy Quran reference (no beating around the bush here...so to speak) about beating women until they obey you:
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
More here.
Death Penalty For The Cat?
Penelope Trunk writes:
We had to decide: Do we kill the cat because we don't want to buy expensive cat food?
The whole story at her link above. Where do you stand?
Here's more from Trunk:
One thing I have learned from living on a farm is that you are not really experiencing diversity unless you are also experiencing repulsion.We each have lots of assumptions about what is right and wrong, how the world works, how people should act in a civilized community. When faced with true diversity - that is, diversity of experience -- we have to allow our assumptions to be challenged. It's hard to not feel some repulsion for the person who challenges our core assumptions.
...3. Real diversity is personally challenging. Here are things I thought were patently wrong before I lived on the farm: Drowning cats. Shooting possums. Peeing on the front lawn. Feeding sub-par food to animals. Confining animals in labor. Branding cattle. Notching an animal's ear. I could go on forever.
Whole Foods has a five-tiered program to let customers know where their animal products comes from. There are five hoops farmers can jump through to get rated by Whole Foods. The Farmer - my farmer - absolutely loves his animals and he will spend all night in a rain storm to keep one alive for one more day. But he doesn't even meet the first standard--the bottom rung--with Whole Foods.
Now that I live on a farm, I see both sides of everything. People are not morally depraved. They are living in the context of their own community. We all grow a lot more personally by trying to understand people rather than judging them.
It's no easy task, though. I know this myself, because I still hate cat people.
Sorry but it's the truth. People who treat animals like humans are people who cannot cope with complexities of human relationships. People who think their cat gives them what they need for companionship are probably right, because they are so underdeveloped emotionally.
via Instapundit
Have You Eaten Your Triglycerides Today?
Dr. Michael Eades writes, linking to a post by cardiologist Dr. William Davis: "To lower your triglycerides, eat triglycerides. And avoid the carbs, of course."
How Come God Never Says Stuff Like "Eat Fewer Oreos"?
Christopher Santarelli posts at The Blaze that US flights out of D.C.'s Reagan National came to a screeching halt for about 20 minutes after a woman claimed God told her there was a bomb on a plane.
I later saw a tweet from Albert Brooks:
@Albert Brooks I asked God for a favor today. So far I have heard nothing back. How long do you give God to make a decision?
Couldn't help myself. Tweeted the above link and the message:
@amyalkon God doesn't have call-waiting. http://ow.ly/5mlb2
A Small, Furry Mammal In Every Port
It seems my boyfriend's been unfaithful to my dog. Turns out he has a "little friend" in Detroit: 
(Lucy is curled up in my bed, weeping quietly into my pillow.)
How To Get Out Of An Unfair Parking Ticket
I got a street-cleaning ticket the other day -- sixty-four smackers, payable to the city of Santa Monica. (It's $65 in L.A.)
It turns out there's a "No Parking, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. sign behind that tree, and I parked just before the driveway you see in the photo.
Normally, I wouldn't contest a parking ticket, because going to court is a waste of a writing day. But, I saw on the back of the ticket that I could contest it by mail. And I resent the hell out of the price of the ticket, which bureaucracies are using the suck drivers for money in a terrible economy.
I had an idea. I Googled something like "Contesting a parking ticket" or "Contesting a street cleaning ticket" and added Los Angeles, and then Santa Monica, and I came up with this guy's letter, with all the applicable codes researched and inserted.
(I particularly enjoyed the way the guy pulled the definition of "conspicuous" out of the dictionary, and credited the source.)
I changed the info slightly to reflect my car/ticket number and situation, added a couple of pictures, and sent the letter off. I think I have a strong case for getting this ticket dismissed. And it took me maybe 20 minutes of my time, all told, and was extremely satisfying. Thanks, Dude!
Some information on traffic tickets from the National Motorists Association that you maybe haven't thought of:
Traffic tickets are a multi-billion industry. They have virtually nothing to do with highway safety, but they have everything to do with money.When you begin to grasp the full magnitude of the public and private interests that depend on ripping off motorists through traffic tickets, you begin to understand why this unethical system continues to expand every year.
No one knows how many traffic tickets are actually issued. Many local units of government deliberately hide this information so they don't have to split their traffic ticket revenue with the state. Not including parking tickets, we can estimate that somewhere between 25 and 50 million traffic tickets are issued each year. Assuming an average ticket cost of $150.00, the total up front profit from tickets ranges from 3.75 to 7.5 billion dollars.
If just half of these tickets result in insurance surcharges (typically at least $300 over a period of three years), you can add another 3.75 to 7.5 billion dollars in profit for insurance companies. This is why insurance companies "care" so much traffic "safety" programs and are willing to donate millions of dollars worth of radar and laser guns to the police. For them, it's simple: more tickets equal more money!
Realistically, there is no connection between receiving an occasional traffic ticket and the likelihood of being in an accident. So, there is no justification for charging a person more for auto insurance because they were convicted for a random traffic violation. The purpose of insurance is to cover unusual risk. The act of exceeding an unreasonably low limit is hardly an "unusual risk." That means speeding ticket surcharges are pure profit for the insurance industry.
It's really a secret tax, blogs Scotty Starnes -- cities and states using traffic tickets as revenue.
More by Sam Harnett at change.org on how the scumbags so many idiots vote in are bleeding people dry to pay for Mo Bigger Government:
These days, California is testing the limits of what residents consider their Eight Amendment right to have no "excessive fines imposed." New state and local fees have accumulated over the last five years. Now, what used to be a $100 ticket easily ratchets up into the $300-400 range.The Silicon Mercury News says "lawmakers are seeing traffic tickets as a relatively easy source of revenue in tough times, and add-on fees are being used to fund services that may have nothing to do with traffic violations, like collecting criminals' DNA." Pretty bad rationale to pay $446 for running a red light, $173 for jaywalking and $445 for driving solo in the carpool lane.
...In Los Angeles, lawmakers are considering booting cars after three unpaid parking tickets instead of five, a measure they anticipate will generate about an extra $60 million a year. I thought punishment policy was supposed to be about social accountability and criminal deterrence, not about generating capital.
It is nice (I'd like to say essential) to have accountability in government, especially when it comes to taxes and fees. It is one thing to tack surcharges on traffic tickets to pay for keeping the roads safe and maintained. It is an entirely different matter to use tickets and fees as a revenue source to pay for a busted budget.
Offing Criminals Is Way Too Pricey
Personally, I don't feel we have a right to kill people, except in self-defense, and killing somebody to say that killing somebody is the utmost wrong seems absurd.
Just had to get that out there before I post about this LA Times article. Carol J. Williams writes that most of the people being penalized by the death penalty are taxpayers:
Taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment in California since it was reinstated in 1978, or about $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out since then, according to a comprehensive analysis of the death penalty's costs.The examination of state, federal and local expenditures for capital cases, conducted over three years by a senior federal judge and a law professor, estimated that the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row and legal representation for the condemned adds $184 million to the budget each year.
The study's authors, U.S. 9th Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell, also forecast that the tab for maintaining the death penalty will climb to $9 billion by 2030, when San Quentin's death row will have swollen to well over 1,000.
...The authors outline three options for voters to end the current reality of spiraling costs and infrequent executions: fully preserve capital punishment with about $85 million more in funding for courts and lawyers each year; reduce the number of death penalty-eligible crimes for an annual savings of $55 million; or abolish capital punishment and save taxpayers about $1 billion every five or six years.
Keep them alive, unpleasantly, and working to earn their keep.
Anybody, in fact, who goes to prison, should have to work to pay their way. As I like to say, let's not let crime pay, especially if the taxpayers have to do the paying in the wake of the crime to keep the criminal watching wide-screen TV and enjoying other amenities of modern prisons.
How the Feds Target the Innocent
FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate has a new book out, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
From the description on Amazon:
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.
The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets.
The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to "white collar criminals," state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
It's Always The Money
Obama's views on gay marriage are "evolving"? Yeah, in the direction of the checkbooks, now that he needs cash from gay donors.
Gays should have the same right to marry the person of their choice and have all the ensuing rights and privileges straight people who marry do. What "evolving" does it take to agree with that?
The Dumbass Years
The teen years are not exactly the era of fantastic judgment -- that hasn't changed -- but the punishment for being a prankster sure has. (Try felony charges.)
An Indiana high school senior named Tyell Morton had what he thought would be a hilarious idea, blogs Jack Huber at Discovery, and bought a blow-up doll:
He propped it up in a box inside the girls' bathroom, escaped unseen, and waited for the uproarious laughter to begin.Only it didn't.
Because he wasn't unseen. School officials watching a surveillance video viewed it like this: a hooded figure wearing latex gloves enters a women's bathroom carrying a suspicious package and leaves empty-handed. So they contacted authorities.
Tyell claims it was an innocent senior prank. School officials and the law see it differently.
In spite of the fact that everyone seems to agree on the silly but harmless circumstances, he faces felony charges relating to laws on terrorism that could amount to eight years behind bars.
Thanks to excessive legislation, we're all criminals these days. The question is just which law they use to reel us in and ruin our lives.
And sure, make the kid pay the cost involved, and give him some other punishment, but as Huber noted, he'd only get three years, maximum, if he'd come to school with a gun instead of an inflatable doll.
More on this here, from WTHR.com, Indianapolis.
George W. Obama's War On Rights
The New York Times has an op-ed about how "hope and change" about civil liberties has degraded into more of the same...and more beyond that:
The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans' basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations -- not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone -- that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama's Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.
Attorney General John Ashcroft began weakening rights protections after 9/11. Three years ago, his successor, Michael Mukasey, issued rules changes that permit agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use highly intrusive methods -- including lengthy physical surveillance and covert infiltration of lawful groups -- even when there is no firm basis for suspecting any wrongdoing.
...Take, for example, the lowest category of investigations, called an "assessment." The category was created as part of Mr. Mukasey's revisions to allow agents to look into people and groups "proactively" where there is no evidence tying them to possible criminal or terrorist activity. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search databases without making a record about it. Once an assessment has started, agents will be permitted to conduct lie detector tests and search people's trash as part of evaluating a potential informant. No factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing will be necessary.
Ugly Islam
Via MEMRI TV, top clerics and Arab officials spew hideously ugly anti-Semitism -- and make it clear that they'd hate Jews and call for their death regardless of the existence of the state of Israel.
(The Jew hatred is written into the Quran, far predating the existence of the state of Israel, as more than one of these vile Jew haters make clear.)
This video needs to go viral to show the "COEXIST" people how silly and naive they are. I'll coexist with anybody who believes in any sort of ridiculous stuff -- providing they don't want me and others dead. Unfortunately, while Jesus tells Christians to turn the other cheek, Islam commands Muslims to convert or slaughter the infidel.
On the video, watch the imam teaching children to hate Jews, and hoping their mothers will compel them to do Jihad. They have claymation of the Jews who have transformed into apes.
See them blame the Jews for "provoking Hitler," and hear a Lebanese official rejoice about the mass murder of the Jews in the Holocaust.
The last guy, in the Italian tablecloth-like red headdress, again and again trumpeting the death and "humiliation" of the Jews in the Holocaust, is one of the ugliest things I've ever experienced.
All in all, vile, ugly stuff.
Leaving In Di$grace
Weiner's outta there, but his pension lives on (along with other perks mentioned at the link, like access, for a small fee, to the congressional gym where he he took some of those dick pix of himself). Daniel Stone writes for The Daily Beast:
Rep. Anthony Weiner may be resigning in shame, but he'll leave Capitol Hill with the same golden parachute afforded to all members of Congress who leave public service.Having been in Congress since 1999 and a staffer in the '80s, Weiner will be eligible for a congressional pension of up to $46,224 each year, according to the National Taxpayers Union, which calculates all congressional pensions. He'll eventually be eligible to collect the balance of his Congressional Thrift Savings Plan, which is currently $216,011. And he'll be able to keep his high-quality health-care package, at his own expense, until November 2012.
These pensions are not sustainable. For members of Congress or for lifeguards on the beach in California:
One Newport Beach lifeguard recently retired at 51 with an annual pension of $108,000, plus medical benefits, report the Times' Catherine Saillant and Mike Reicher.
How will the rest of us manage to pay these pensions? Will there have to be a total collapse of this country for them to be rolled back?
Got Radiation?
Overuse of CT scans needlessly exposes patients to radiation, write Walt Bogdanich and Jo Craven McGinty in The New York Times:
In 2008, about 75,000 patients received double scans, one using iodine contrast to check blood flow, and one that did not. "If you do both, you bill for both," Dr. Pentecost said.Radiologists say one scan or the other is needed depending on the patient's condition, but rarely both. Double scanning is also common among privately insured patients who tend to be younger.
Double scans expose patients to extra radiation while heaping millions of dollars in extra costs on an already overburdened Medicare program. A single CT scan of the chest is equal to about 350 standard chest X-rays, so two scans are twice that amount.
"The primary concern relates to radiation exposure," said Dr. James A. Brink, chief of diagnostic radiology at Yale-New Haven Hospital, where double scans accounted for only a fraction of 1 percent of cases. He added: "It is incumbent upon all of us to limit it to the amount needed to make a diagnosis."
"Member" Of Tribe
Spotted an unfortunate Google Ad in The New York Times, and I'm not talking about the one with the dog: 
Racism In Islam
Why being a black Muslim is like being a Jewish KKK member.
Groped Texas Official: "You're Punishing Me For Opting Out." TSA: "Yes, We Are."
Barry Smitherman, Chairman of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, and Texas State Rep. Barbara Nash tell about their experiences with "aggressive" TSA groping. State Rep. David Simpson discusses his bill to prohibit the TSA from groping innocent travelers without probable cause. Fox 7 Austin's Camille Williams reports.
Texas Lawmakers are regrouping on their bill to prohibit the TSA's sexual assaults on passengers in the name of "security." Bob Unruh writes at WND:
"Instead of threatening to shut down flights in Texas, why doesn't the TSA just show us their statutory authority to grope or ogle our private parts?" he asked. "All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."...Simpson said the federal government's characterization of the state protection wasn't accurate.
"We aren't even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason - you have to have probable cause - before groping someone's sexual organs," he said.
Simpson has called on the spirit of President Reagan for people to continue the fight over what he called the "brazen show of disregard for the dignity and the constitutional rights of American citizens," saying, "If not us, who? And if not now, when?"
Simpson has accused the Obama administration of turning the nation into a police state with its invasive pat-down procedures at airports.
The Republican lawmaker criticized airport procedures that require travelers to either pass through a scanner that images the entire body or submit to an intrusive pat-down.
He said metal detectors are far more effective, noting instances in which the detectors caught banned objects while the body screeners missed them.
The Texas plan would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression.
Transportation Security Administration agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail under the measure.
(U.S. Attorney John E.) Murphy said that's unacceptable, arguing federal agents have to be able to touch sex organs as they please.
via Lisa Simeone
Legally Enabled Bullies
The Anne Arundel County Police Department went after illegal Internet gambling and really made out, writes Brian McGraw at OpenMarket.org:
The gist of the story is that the police force set up their own online payment processor and processed payments for internet gambling sites as if they were a real legitimate business. The federal government used this evidence to seize funds belonging to those companies....They begin by seizing roughly $30 million in funds, a large majority of which belonged to American citizens engaged in a private activity within the confines of their home.Then they shut the website down and encouraged Americans to contact the gambling website to see if they can get their funds back. These are the same businesses that were just shut down and lost access to their website, capital, payment processing services, and are dealing with serious criminal charges. There is absolutely no chance that they will be able to pay back the money that belonged to American citizens, some of which is now in the hands of the Anne Arundel County Police Department:
Police said they would use the money for equipment to assist with undercover investigations, plus new vehicles and weapons.Apologies to the Americans who won't be receiving the money they deposited via a fake business the government set up, but fear not as they're going to be buying lots of shiny new police toys with your money. This is yet another way in which horrid police activity fuels itself (much more about that here). The police received monetary rewards for disrupting the lives of innocent people and are using that money to buy fancy new equipment which they will use to harass even more private American citizens engaged in activities that some bureaucrat finds distasteful.
As Radley Balko puts it at the link just above, it's a "license to steal."
via @walterolson and @ceidotorg
Gay Haters Find Homoporn The Hottest
Ph.D. candidate Nathan Heflick blogs at Psychology Today about a study which suggests homophobic men are most aroused by gay male porn. There were three videos:
One video depicted straight sex, one depicted lesbian sex and one depicted gay male sex. While this was happening, a device was attached to each participant's penis. This device has been found to be triggered by sexual arousal, but not other types of arousal (such as nervousness, or fear - arousal often has a very different meaning in psychology than in popular usage). When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.
The Auschwitz Album
The story behind it is just below. View it with the sound on at this link:
18-year-old Lilly Jacob was deported with her family, and most of the Jews of Hungary, in the spring of 1944. On the ramp at Auschwitz she was brutally separated from her parents and younger brothers; she never saw any of them again. She was lucky and survived; yet, she was not always convinced of the blessing of having survived totally alone, bereft of family, friends and her world.Unlike all of the other survivors, she was granted a small miracle. On the day of her liberation, in the Dora concentration camp hundreds of miles from Auschwitz, she found in the deserted SS barracks a photo album. It contained, among others, pictures of her family and friends as they arrived on the ramp and unknowingly awaited their death. It was a unique tie to what once had been, could never return, and could never be rebuilt.
It was also, as we now know, the only photographic evidence of Jews arriving in Auschwitz or any other death camp.
Gotta Get To The Office
Photo by Robert Werner in British Columbia at the beach. Used with permission...of course.
What's The Libertarian Position On Abortion?
reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie answer the question:
Their soon-to-be-published book: The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America
My position on abortion is here.
Let There Be Blight
Regarding governmommy's impending incandescent lightbulb ban, you can tear my incandescents out of my cold, dead, but beautifully lit hands.
Conor Friedersdorf blogs on theatlantic.com (and quotes my brainy friend Virginia Postrel, with whom I'm in complete agreement):
The federal law that makes the sale of 100 watt incandescent bulbs verboten passed during George W. Bush's tenure, and takes effect on January 1, 2012, when the era of ugly light officially begins. Over time, lower watt incandescents will be phased out too unless Congress reverses itself. The ostensible reason is environmental. Defenders of the law point out that CFLs save energy, even if they are pricier and filled with mercury vapor. As Virginia Postrel notes in her latest Bloomberg column, however, banning incandescent bulbs is a poor way to reduce America's carbon footprint. "A well-designed policy would allow different people to make different tradeoffs among different uses to produce the most happiness for a given amount of power," she writes. "Maybe I want to burn a lot of incandescent bulbs but dry my clothes outdoors and keep the air conditioner off. Maybe I want to read by warm golden light instead of watching a giant plasma TV."
I drive a 2004 Honda Insight and pay high rent to live in a live/work area where I can walk to everything. I spent $153 on gas last year. All last year.
Why Are We Paying For Congresspeople's Gym Memberships?
Mark Steyn brings up a great point in relation to some of the shots of Weiner's weiner, and that point is, "Why should Anthony Weiner be provided with a taxpayer-funded gym to crotch-grab in?"
If the Board of Selectmen of my small town in New Hampshire were to propose a taxpayer-funded municipal gym, there would be an uproar at Town Meeting and they'd all be voted out of office. Same for every town in this state, I'd wager - and even over the river in Vermont, too. What then is it about being a national legislator that makes a taxpayer-funded gym apparently entirely non-risible?Nothing. Except that it's just another of a trillion-and-one public expenditures from federally-funded cowboy poetry to federally-funded experiments on the effects of meth and cocaine on menstruating monkeys. To modify Stalin, one waste of taxpayer money is a fiscal tragedy, a million of them is a rounding error.
I don't think Congressman Weiner should have a federal bathhouse to auto-snap his towel in. In fact, I believe there's a direct line between the existence of a House gym and the likes of Anthony Weiner. When the people accept that the political class has the right to send them the bill for an activity that every other American has to make private provision for, it's telling you something about the relationship between the citizenry and their rulers.
Low-Carbohydrate, High-Protein Diets May Reduce Both Tumor Growth Rates and Cancer Risk
Press release about a mouse study from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR):
When asked to speculate on the biological mechanism, Krystal said that tumor cells, unlike normal cells, need significantly more glucose to grow and thrive.
via Dr. Eades
Porn Star Says Weiner Isn't Moral Enough To Be A Congressman
Hinderaker quotes porn star Ginger Lee at Powerline:
I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied. He lied to the public and the press for more than a week. If he lied about this, I can't have much faith in him about anything else.
Rat with a law license Gloria Allred $peak$ for her client:
Allred finally shuts her big rat-yap at around 4:27, and Lee gets to speak (in a rather cute Southern accent), and tell her story about how Weiner told her to lie about their communication.
Hinderaker remarks:
There is considerable amusement value in Ginger Lee's press conference, but the bottom line is that when even your porn star/stripper admirers think you are too depraved to be a Congressman, it is time to go.
Doggie Bjorn
I didn't know what a Babybjorn was until I came out of the house with Lucy in a little frontpack and a guy walking by (probably a dad) said, "Hah - you've got a Babybjorn
Lucy's kind of old and can't see well enough to go on walks, but why should that stop her? She loves to be out and sniffing the air and meeting other dogs, so I go for walks and I wear my dog.
The Kid Should Have Gotten A Gold Star For Empathy
I write in I See Rude People about how empathy is the root of manners, and how teaching kids to be kind, by teaching them to have empathy, is of primary importance.
Well, one kid learned that lesson pretty early -- and it got him expelled from his Philly charter school. At age 6. Drew Singer writes in the Philly Inquirer:
The unnamed 6-year-old touched the top of his teacher's thigh after she complained of leg pains, Judge Paul P. Panepinto wrote in his opinion.While touching her legs, the child said "I want to make them feel better," testified Milissa Gillespie, the boy's teacher, who reported the incident.
This was the boy's fourth suspension, writes Singer, "a trigger that requires the school's board of trustees to consider expulsion."
Now maybe this little boy is a little terror who tries to grope the girls and clock the boys with a plastic shovel. But, this incident -- showing a teacher empathy -- how do you end up suspending and expelling a kid for that?
via @freerangekids
Your Taxpayer Dollars For Wine-Tastings!
The headline of this op-ed alone, Jim DeMint's "Why Are Taxpayers Paying For Wine Tasting?" made my head fly off and steam rush out of my ears. He's writing in the WSJ about the Economic Development Administration:
The EDA was created in 1965 with the same high-minded intent used to usher in the $814 billion stimulus bill in 2009. Set inside the Commerce Department, the bureau and its grants are supposed to promote economic competitiveness and create jobs. In reality, the EDA has given taxpayers little return on their investment and instead become a slush fund for the well-connected.Certainly, the bureau has funded some well-meaning projects, just as there were some noncontroversial earmarks mixed in with bridges to nowhere and teapot museums. As a recovering earmarker, I must say that I have supported certain EDA grants in the past. But to my fellow senators, I now say this: If you aren't willing to cut spending you previously supported, our nation is destined for bankruptcy.
...A review of the EDA's grants makes clear that, just like the stimulus, this program too often has used federal dollars to fund pet projects that have little relation to the national interest. In April, the bureau reported that it gave a $2 million grant to build a "culinary amphitheater," wine tasting room, and gift shop at the Port of Benton and the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Richland, Wash. The same month, it gave $1.5 million to promote tourism in the Northern Mariana Islands. In January, it spent $1 million on an "innovation conference center" in Arkansas to promote "cultural enrichment."
Want "cultural enrichment"? Look in your local alt weekly (free!) for gallery openings. Tip the guy who hands you the cheap wine in the plastic cup. Drink two glasses, and it'll be $2 right there -- $4 if you're feeling generous. But, it's your money, not ours, and I'm way fine with that.
Cheap Shots
Flip Camera Sale
Your purchases through my links on my blog and at Amy's Mall help support my blogging and writing, and are much appreciated. To buy something that I haven't listed and give me the kickback from the sale (which costs you nothing), just click on the "Powered By Amazon" link on the upper left corner of Amy's Mall, and I'll get the credit for your purchase (usually 6-7 percent).
If you haven't already, I hope you'll consider buying a copy of my book, I See Rude People: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society. It's only $12.37, brand new, with Amazon's discount at the link above. (New copies go against my advance, and help me keep writing...and eating!)
Milton Friedman Bitchslaps A Young (And Thin) Michael Moore
Brilliant.
via Vinnie Bartilucci
Hilarious
Guess who said this:
Sadly, the Internet is the predator's venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.
via @walterolson & @DrEades
Evil HR Lady Slaps Them Upside The Head With The Reality Stick
Suzanne Lucas, aka Evil HR Lady, reports on her blog that six women have filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against Bayer. She had a problem with their claim #14, as do I. Lucas quotes from the Bayer ladies' claim:
"The few women who have advanced beyond the director level and into the highest echelon of management have achieved this rank by sacrificing their personal lives and abandoning work-life balance. Female Vice President of Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research Kathleen Gondek is unmarried with no children, female Senior Director Susan Herster has no children and female Vice Presidents Shannon Campbell and Leslie North have others who serve as primary care-givers to their children."
Lucas' take on it (echoing my thinking):
And this is a problem because? Ladies, let me give you a dose of reality: Climbing into the executive ranks of a major pharmaceutical company requires the abandonment of work-life balance for men too.Do you really think that the male vice presidents are running when the school calls to say that little Paisley has just puked all over her desk? If you can show me that they are, then I apologize but I suspect if that were the case, it would have been documented in the lengthy complaint. My guess is that their wives/ex-wives/mothers-in-law or nannies are running to pick up Paisley.
If you choose to be the primary caregiver to children (and yes, it is a choice), you get the consequences along with it. One of those consequences is that you cannot spend as much time working as can your coworkers who are not the primary caregivers. I know that not everyone needs the same amount of time to accomplish the same tasks. But, when you have to skip out of a meeting because daycare is closing in 15 minutes, it's going to affect your career.
Smart chickie, Evil HR Lady. And I love the name.
My neighbor, who is the mom of two kids and has a third on the way, usually meets me on Sunday to hang out and write. She's been working very hard on a Y.A. novel for a number of years, and it's actually quite good.
She's trained as an architect (and designed some very cool restaurant and business interiors), but has been a stay-at-home-mom for 11 years. That's job one for her. And that's why, last Sunday, I threw my computer on my back and got to Starbucks at 9:30, and she got there at 2:30 -- after she made pancakes, shopped for her family's meals for the week, and helped her husband put together new beds for the two kids they already have.
Sorry, ladies, but you just can't have it all. Not out here in the real world.
NYPD: Now They're The Fashion Police?
Christina Boyle writes for the New York Daily News that a cop allegedly pulled a "leggy Dutch tourist" over in Soho for showing too much skin for wearing a little miniskirt while riding her bike (photo of her skirt, which is very cute, at the link):
"He said it's very disturbing, and it's distracting the cars and it's dangerous," Rijcken told the Daily News. "I thought he was joking around but he got angry and asked me for ID."Rijcken, 31, was not given a ticket during the May 3 incident, and did not get the officer's name, but was left feeling baffled.
New York Deputy Commissioner Paul Brown acts as the journalism police, telling the reporter:
"Whether this story bears even a modest semblance of what actually occurred is impossible to establish without being provided the purported officer's name and getting his side of the story."
UPDATE: Here, for you disputers, from Gothamist's John del Signore:
Rijcken, who was in town for the New Amsterdam Bicycle Show and has since returned home, is standing by her story. She points out that she didn't run to the media after the incident, which happened in the beginning of May, but posted her story on May 23rd to the VANMOOF Facebook page. This was subsequently shared on the New Amsterdam bike show Facebook photo wall last Thursday. We assume this is how it caught Streetsblog's eye, then Gothamist's, then the Daily "we don't attribute any stories to the Internet sources we poach from" News.Responding to allegations that she was lying to promote the bike company, Rijcken wrote on Twitter, "I wish it was [a guerrilla marketing stunt]. but unfortunately i am not the only one who this has happened to. its very offensive and discriminating." And Streetsblog editor Ben Fried tells us, "Jasmijn's been saying the same thing going all the way back to May 3rd. The Facebook photo that led the press to pick up on her story didn't appear online until May 23rd. While I wouldn't put it past an ingenious guerrilla marketer to fabricate an event like this, given what we know right now the simplest explanation is that she told the truth."
Is There An Afterlife?
Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, David Wolpe and Bradley Artson debate:
Why Democrats And Republicans Are Full Of It On The National Debt
I'm part of the way through a smart Matt Welch cover story in the June print edition of reason on Rand Paul. He opens the piece with this speech by Paul, which clearly illustrates what bullshitters members of both parties are on doing something about the debt:
"On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day. So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day's borrowing....Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem. If we were to adopt the president's approach, we would have a $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we're going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that's coming....I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said $500 billion is not enough. And they're right. $500 billion is a third of one year's problem. Up here that's way too bold, but it's not even enough." --Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor, March 9, 2011
A bit more from Matt's piece:
Even while being sworn in, Paul gave notice that the most radical of the budget-cutting notions being floated by the new GOP hotheads in the House of Representatives--totaling $61 billion, maybe even $100 billion this fiscal year--were utterly inadequate to the gravity of America's crisis. "In January alone I will introduce a one-year, $500 billion spending cut, along with a balanced-budget amendment," he promised. He delivered on that promise three weeks later, with a bill that proposed ending the Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, slashing the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation, and eliminating all foreign aid, including aid to Israel.Having outflanked the most radical of the incoming Tea Party freshmen in the less temperate House, Paul then--by deed, not word --made a mockery of the much-ballyhooed "roadmap" of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to tackle entitlements and balance the federal budget by 2063. Paul instead wants to balance the budget in five years. In March he unveiled a plan to reduce government spending by $4 trillion relative to President Barack Obama's long-term budget proposal by ratcheting back spending to fiscal year 2008 levels, eliminating the Department of Commerce (in addition to the ones above), capping and block-granting Medicaid payments to the states, and enacting bold reforms on entitlement spending.
"Entitlements will consume the entire budget within a few decades," Paul writes in his sprightly new book The Tea Party Goes to Washington. "Entitlements plus interest will consume the entire budget in a little over a decade. Is it any wonder that [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Admiral [Mike] Mullen, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates and others have said that the biggest threat to our national security is our debt?" What about Rep. Ryan's plan? Paul is blunt: "We don't have six decades to fix entitlements."
Unlike any other national politician of recent vintage, Rand Paul has the cheerful confidence that confronting entitlements is a political winner. "I don't think we lost many votes because of my willingness to discuss entitlement reform," he writes.
Gallery Openings And Milton Freedman On Greed
I ran into a friend of a friend on Saturday night at a gallery opening. He was horrified when I told him that I bite off the heads of puppies.
Well, actually, he was horrified when I told him that I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian (it was the fiscally conservative part he had a real problem with, of course).
He started railing about the evils of capitalism. I tried to ask him a question. He kept railing. I tried to say something. He kept railing. I finally talked over him and asked if he'd read any Hayek or Milton Friedman.
"EVILLL!" he intoned. (Or some word like that.)
I pressed him. "Have you read...?"
And no, he hadn't read both, but he'd skimmed one of them. EVIL! EVIL!
At this point, I bolted. No point in wasting a rational argument on a guy like this.
On the bright side, the interchange reminded me to look this video up on YouTube. Makes a lot of sense to me.
But, feel free to explain why you think Friedman's views are EVIL! and irrational and otherwise wrong.
It's Prison, Not A Trip To The Spa
We talk about prisoners "paying their debt to society," but it's all just talk. Sitting around watching TV costs society. Blair Gibbs hints at the right idea in this Telegraph/UK piece:
Last October, the Justice Secretary said: "We need to instil in our jails a regime of hard work." People expect prisoners to work, but the default life of most prisoners - especially those on shorter sentences - is just a few hours a day of association and "purposeful activity" such as education, with only a small part of that involving work. The rest is lounging around on bunks, bench-pressing and lots of television.Literacy and drug treatment should be the priority for most prisoners, but without adequate work schemes, the captive opportunity to develop the skills and work ethic of prisoners is lost, leading to poor employment rates and high reoffending. In the economy, 29 million people work and pay their way, but our 85,000 prisoners do not. Rules require prisoners to engage in "useful work" and privileges can be used to encourage compliance, but no inmate is compelled to work and most do not - partly due to lack of incentives and partly because work opportunities do not exist for the majority, let alone a full working week.
Work should be a condition of privileges allowed -- and of release.
Crime isn't supposed to pay, but it pays and pays again if taxpayers are shelling out for the room and board of society's scumbags.
Power-Mad U.S. Immigration Officials Bully The Elderly
Andy Bloxham and John Bingham write in the Telegraph/UK that elderly British cruise passengers were made to go through a seven hour security check for a one-day visit to the U.S.:
Although they had already been given advance clearance for multiple entries to the country during their trip, all 2,000 passengers were made to go through full security checks in a process which took seven hours to complete.The fingerprints of both hands were taken as well as retina scans and a detailed check of the passport as well as questioning as to their background.
Passengers claim that the extra checks were carried out in "revenge" for what had been a minor spat over allegedly overzealous security.
They complain that they were "herded like animals" and made to stand for hours in temperatures up to 80F with no food or water or access to lavatories.
Some are said to have passed out in the heat while others were left confused and bewildered.
When one lady asked in desperation whether she could use a bathroom, one immigration official is said to have replied: "Do it over the side, we won't mind."
Is that a bomb in your cane or are you just 80 and a little infirm?
Killing U.S. tourism -- one power-mad petty bureaucrat at a time.
via Lisa Simeone
California School District Bans Dictionaries
JEANNESAGER blogs on Babble that a parent got wiggo because her kid's school's Merriam-Webster dictionary contained the definition for "oral sex":
So now they're out of the classrooms, according to the Press Enterprise, local newspaper for the Menifee Union School District. A district spokeswoman says a review is being done to determine whether it's age appropriate. Which will include actually looking for other "graphic" content.In a dictionary?
As a parent who learned all her good old-fashioned sex talk on the school bus, I've got to know what's so "graphic" about a factual, scientific definition. Because if you check out Merriam-Webster's definition of "oral sex," it's defined as "sexual activity that involves stimulating someone's genitals with the tongue or mouth."
It's succinct. Truthful. And if kids are looking up the words "oral sex," you know they already know a little something about it. What better way to let them get the truth than a reference book? Perhaps you'd prefer they sneak onto the Internet, type the words in and accidentally come up with a real, live example? I'd much prefer my kid read a definition in the dictionary in fifth grade than tried it out for herself.
Consider yourself lucky if your kid uses a dictionary, regardless of what they're looking up.
Via Lenore Skenazy
The Government's War On Cameras
From reason.tv:
The Real Secret
Forget crapthink like "The Secret." Just live like a Basset Hound. For further info, see photos of Basset Hounds running.
Murals At Denver International Airport: "Prophecy Of Satan!"
William Tapley has some issues with the art at the Denver airport:
Phallic symbols everywhere!
Emasculation 101
On Friday night, some guy driving one of those luxury SUV-agons tried -- unsuccessfully -- to parallel park just down from my house. He angled his big prissy vehicle all wrong and couldn't get into the space.
I went out to see what was going on because his loud and shrewish girlfriend could be heard through their vehicle's open window scolding him about his parking job. Gregg was holding on on the phone at the time and could hear shrew-woman loud and clear. A truly unpleasant sound. (I told him, "I'd pay a bunch of money to never hear her voice again.")
Then, unbelievably, shrew-woman barked at the man, "Get out!" and stormed around to the driver's side in her heels to park the vehicle. Her man-pussy obediently ejected from the driver's side and got in the passenger side while she did the parking. Scary.
I don't happen to be so great at parking myself, but if I were Danica Patrick I wouldn't do what that woman did. I didn't look too closely, but I bet those were his balls dangling on the rear-view mirror.
WSJ's Fashion Recommendations For Women Who Do Not Actually Exist
In the WSJ, Alexa Brazilian is the author of one of those ill-advised fashion pieces that comes out every few years advising women to wear those ugly-as-fuck suits that have shorts instead of pants as the bottom. Seriously.
The headline:
"Shelve your skirt and pant suits. The summer's most versatile combo is cropped and goes from office to party without a hitch"...
My comment at the WSJ:
Uh, the second part of the headline is missing. "...if you are 12 and borderline anorexic."Please don't advise women to wear shorts to the office. Save for the truly lithe ones, your recommendation is a crime against female humanity.
And frankly, against the eyeballs of the rest of us.
Alabama Gets Tough On Illegal Immigration
Predictable cries of racism follow. Sorry, but not enabling people to be in this country illegally is racist? Please somebody explain why, because I'm a little too dim to figure that out.
Richard Fausset writes in the LA Times:
"This draconian initiative signed into law this morning by Gov. Robert Bentley is so oppressive that even Bull Connor himself would be impressed," said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, referring to Birmingham's notorious segregationist public safety commissioner from the civil rights era. "HB 56 is designed to do nothing more than terrorize the state's Latino community."
What does the Alabama law say? Fausset writes:
In an echo of the Arizona law, the Alabama legislation requires that police, in the course of any lawful "stop, detention or arrest," make a reasonable attempt to determine a person's citizenship and immigration status, given a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an immigrant, unless doing so would hinder an investigation.It outlaws illegal immigrants from receiving any state or local public benefits, bars them from enrolling in or attending public colleges, and prohibits them from applying for or soliciting work.
It forbids the harboring and transport of illegal immigrants, and outlaws renting them property or "knowingly" employing them for any work within the state. It also makes it a "discriminatory practice" to fire, or decline to hire, a legal resident when an illegal one is on the payroll.
The law criminalizes "dealing in false identification documents" and, beginning April 1, will require every business in the state to verify employees' immigration status using the federal E-Verify system.
It deems invalid any contract to which an illegal immigrant is a party if the legal party in the contract has "direct or constructive knowledge" that the other person was in the country illegally. And it requires a citizenship check for people registering to vote.
For opponents, one of the most disturbing provisions is a requirement that officials in K-12 public schools determine whether students are illegal immigrants. It will not ban the students from schools, but rather require every school district to submit an annual report on the number of presumed illegal immigrants to the state education board.
But Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum, fears that simply asking parents about their children's immigration status will cause them to pull their kids from school.
They shouldn't be IN school to begin with, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, nor should they be in the country. Would you expect to go to Mexico and have Mexican taxpayers fund your life? You sure wouldn't because in Mexico, you'd be a felon as an illegal immigrant, subject to two years of jail time. Jerry Seper writes in the Wash Times:
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.
Sounds right on to me. If I'm in another country illegally, I expect to find myself in a piece of trouble.
Let's abandon the fiction, shall we, that being anti-illegal immigration (which costs the U.S. an estimated $113 billion a year -- $1,117 per every "native-headed" household) means one is necessarily racist.
It's Curtains For Parental Responsibility
It is tragic whenever a child is killed, and it's understandable that parents who've lost children would seek to blame others, and to prevent others from dying in the way their children did. But the answer is to think -- and be a parent -- don't try to legislate every area of the lives of the rest of us.
Ellen Gabler writes in the LA Times of parents who claim the window blind industry isn't doing enough to eliminate the risk of strangulation for children:
Cords on window blinds and shades have been a known strangulation hazard for decades, as children can get caught in the cords that hold the products together or are used to pull them up and down. About one child dies this way every month, U.S. government regulators say. Brandyn died in 2009.Last summer, safety regulators in the U.S., Canada and Europe told the window covering industry to enact safety standards that would eliminate strangulation hazards. Now, government regulators and safety advocates say that more children could die if the latest proposals being considered by the Window Covering Manufacturers Association are adopted.
That's because the proposals allow manufacturers to still use cords that children can wrap around their necks, according to safety consultants and regulators who are part of a committee to oversee the standard-setting process.
....Linda Kaiser, who founded Parents For Window Blind Safety and is a safety advocate on the committee, said she would withdraw her support from the group if the standards weren't strict enough by the October deadline.
"I'm not going to risk the lives of children just so (companies) can have their products out and make money," said Kaiser, whose 1-year-old daughter, Cheyenne, strangled in her crib in 2002 after she got caught in the inner cord of blinds near her crib.
More than 200 children in the U.S. have died in the last two decades from being strangled in window-cord related accidents with blinds and shades, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The annual rate has remained steady, the commission said.
The answer is for parents to babyproof their homes. My parents did it. They were psycho about it, in fact, and way before people talked about babyproofing like they do know. My neighbors do it, too. When their kids were really little, I knew to ask their mother before I gave them anything, lest it not be approved for their age.
A commenter at the link, ocreadertoo, has the solution:
While I feel bad for this family mini-blind cords are known to be a risk and have been in the news for many, many years.A minor fix by the parents would have prevented this...cut the loop into 2. When there are 2 cords don't knot them together. Common sense stuff that parents should be doing to kid-proof the house.
And another commenter, Reyalk, weighs in:
Brandyn was "alone" in the living room. Well, there's your problem. There are many household items that are dangerous but we treat them with extra care because we have something called common sense (or at least some of us do). If you're going to leave a child unattended with the blind cord full length and within reach then you have no one to blame for the boy's death other than yourself. My deepest prayers to the family, just too bad they weren't smart enough.
Oh, and I'm all for free range kids. Free range babies, not so much.
Wet And Riled
Does your dog hate you and think you're trying to drown her when you're giving her (or him) a bath, or is mine somewhat unique in that regard?
Female Sex Slaves A-OK Under Islam
I've read this in Islamic texts, but haven't blogged it because I thought it just too much for people to believe would happen in the modern age (our modern age, that is, since Islam is snugly ensconced in the Dark Ages). But now a former candidate for Kuwaiti parliament, Salwa al-Mutairi, is speaking out about how it's time to "revive the institution of sex-slavery." Raymond Ibrahim reports:
A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.The Arabic news website, Al Arabiya, has the sordid details, including a video of Mutairi addressing this topic. I summarize and translate various excerpts below (note: I am not making any of this up):
The Kuwaiti female activist begins by insisting that "it's of course true" that "the prophet of Islam legitimized sex-slavery." She recounts how when she was in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, she asked various sheikhs and muftis (learned, authoritative Muslims) about the legality of sex-slavery according to Sharia: they all confirmed it to be perfectly legal; Kuwaiti ulema further pointed out that extra "virile" men--Western synonyms include "sex-crazed," "lecherous," "perverted"--would do well to purchase sex-slaves to sate their appetites without sinning.
Here's a particularly interesting excerpt from her taped speech on the rules governing sex-slaves:
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state--sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state--and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter's body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up--she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave--he just buys her and that's that....Mutairi suggests the enslaved girls be at least 15 years-old.
Well, that's big of her. Move to The Netherlands or another small European country, and have children, and maybe your 15-year-old can be among the first to be sold.
Good Book For Too-Nice Girls
It's a book to help any girl who suffers from doormat-itis -- Beverly Engels' The Nice Girl Syndrome: Stop Being Manipulated and Abused -- and Start Standing Up for Yourself
Be honest with yourself about your real reasons for being a Nice Girl. When we look for the motive for our niceness, we often find guilt, shame, fear of confrontation, fear of rejection, and an intense fear of being alone.
Meet The 21st Century Slutrepreneur
Great term by a really cool woman -- Susannah Breslin -- whom I met when we both were on (class act) Candace Bergen's interview show together.
Susannah blogs at Forbes of the word she coined -- "slutrepreneur" -- for "the growing number of women who are making money by selling their stories of having sex with, having sexted with, or having otherwise gotten sexual with a famous man":
In the case of Rep. Anthony Weiner's wiener gone wild, ABC News reportedly paid Weiner's former virtual lover Meagan Broussard between $10,000 and $15,000 "to license dozens of photos, emails, Facebook messages and cell phone call logs."Are you a (hopefully) young, (ideally) attractive woman looking to generate extra income fast? Earn big bucks by getting frisky online or offline with a political figure or Hollywood celebrity, and media outlets that insist they don't "pay" for stories will buy the detritus of your torrid affair! All you have to do is take the cash -- and infamy awaits you.
Mentally Disabled Man Could Bring Down Plane With Plastic Hammer
According to the TSA, anyway.
Drew Mandy is 29, but has the mental capacity of a 2-year-old, and he's been carrying a plastic hammer around for, like, 20 years, for emotional security, but the TSA wouldn't let him take it through. Taryn Asher reports for WJBK, quoting Mandy's dad:
Dr. Mandy claimed they asked Drew to place his feet on the yellow shoe line, something he didn't understand. They proceeded to pat his pants down, questioning the padding which was his adult diapers. When the agents asked Drew to take his hand and rub the front and back of his pants so they could swab it for explosives, his dad stepped in and tried to explain Drew was mentally challenged."They said, 'Please, sir, we know what we're doing,'" Mandy said.
The TSA agents saw drew holding a six-inch plastic hammer.
"My son carries his ball and his hammer for security. He goes everywhere with (them)," said Mandy.
However, TSA saw the toy as a weapon.
"He took the hammer and he tapped the wall. 'See, it's hard. It could be used as a weapon,'" Mandy explained. "So, Drew's also holding the ball, and I said, 'Well, how about the ball?' He (said), 'Oh, he can keep that."
Dr. Mandy was told he would need to have the toy shipped if he wanted to keep it, a process which caused them to almost miss their plane, so he pitched it.
"It just killed me to have to throw it away because he's been carrying this like for 20 years," Mandy said.
Best of all, there was this:
The TSA took away one toy hammer, but they were still able to take another toy hammer on board the airplane. How did that happen?Drew's mother, always prepared, had another one in her backpack and that backpack passed through security with no problem.
Via Lisa Simeone
Good On That Basic Psychology!
PARADE magazine comes with my Sunday LA Times. It's not exactly my desired reading (especially since it seems written at about a fifth-grade level and focuses on actors, etc.), but I flip through it because it caters to what the majority of Americans are into.
In this week's PARADE, there was a really dumb bit on teens and the sun:
Eleven heath care groups have joined forces to warn kids about indoor tanning, which increases the risk of melanoma by 75 percent.
Tell kids they'll get cancer and they'll ignore you. Show kids what the sun does -- make you look old and ugly -- and you might win their attention and even motivate them.
Researcher Nancy L. Segal studies twins -- some, identical and separated at birth. This helps her see the influence of environment, for example. For a truly effective ad for teens, show two identical twins, separated at birth -- one of whom was in the sun and one of whom avoided it.
"Might get cancer"? Whatever. "Will look like an old hag"? Now, that's something.
You Can Always Count On Amanda Marcotte To Take The Ridiculous Approach
Dana Goldstein writes at The Nation that Marcotte finds a way to characterize Weiner as the victim of an anti-sex "free-for-all of rooting through politicians' trashcans to make sure their private sex lives adhere to someone else's standards."
Oh. Please.
In Goldstein's words:
But let's face it--any public figure who indulges this particular fetish is asking for trouble. Let's review exactly what Weiner did. Over the course of several years, he repeatedly met strange women online and then proceeded to consensually swap semi-nude photos, sexts, explicit email and Facebook messages, and occasionally engaged in phone sex with them.In the case of Meagan Broussard, the Texas mom who just happened to have ties to an as-yet unnamed Republican political activist, Weiner reached out to her at 3 p.m. on a Thursday; a photo he sent her depicts him sitting at a desk. He seems to have had phone sex from his Congressional office two days earlier with another woman, Lisa Weiss, just before he went down to the House floor to vote on a healthcare bill.
Weiner is a well-known workaholic. I'm not suggesting that he ever failed to fulfill his duties as a representative of New York's 9th district. And it isn't illegal to have phone sex from one's Congressional office. But what sort of mature, adult professional carries on in this manner during business hours, with one's staff just outside the office door? Not one with his priorities in order.
How did Weiner finally get caught? Due to his own stupidity when, on May 27, he miscoded a direct message containing a photograph of his crotch. Instead of sending the photo to Gennette Cordova, a Seattle college student, he blasted it to his public Twitter feed.
At that moment, Weiner lost any tenuous claim to privacy he may have had. (Remember, he was already aware that five women across the country possessed indiscreet photos of him. He was playing with fire.) I'm no fan of our debased and decadent media culture--heck, I usually write about education policy!--but I think that in America in 2011, it is simply absurd to suggest that the media not ask questions about a photo of an erect penis blasted out over a Congressman's Twitter feed.
Not even if you agree with his politics, like Amanda Marcotte says she does.
I get really sick of people giving a pass to others when they do. Oh, and I happen to be for the stuff Weiner is that Marcotte mentions in her piece -- gay rights, choice on abortion, and I support Planned Parenthood -- personally, with my dollars. But, I think Weiner showed wild stupidity unbecoming somebody elected to one of the highest offices in the land. And I don't think we're anti-sex prudes in not keeping mum about that.
For future reference, if you're a married public figure tweeting photos of your dick to a college girl in Seattle, Wolf Blitzer might want to ask you a few questions.
"Trying To Deter Pedophiles With The Equivalent Of A Speeding Ticket"
Two women are ticketed for eating donuts on a bench on a Brooklyn playground while unaccompanied by children. Garth Johnson writes on Gothamist:
Yup, this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor.Tickets for being an adult in or around a playground have been popping up fairly frequently lately--see the Inwood chess players--but instead of giving the offending citizens a warning and urging them to leave, the NYPD's M.O. appears to be to hand out a ticket.
From one of the women's statement at the link:
This cop attempted to be sympathetic. He proceeded to tell us that he was trying to be a gentleman by just giving us summonses instead of taking us in for questioning, because that was what "they" wanted him to do. If he just gave us warnings and told us to leave, he would get in trouble for "doing nothing all day." He went on to say that all he did when he was growing up was "do Tae Kwon Do and go to school." "Are you trying to say that we are bad people for sitting on a bench in a park and eating doughnuts?" I asked him, just trying to figure out where he was going with this. "No, no, I'm just saying that I never got in trouble. Sometimes I play basketball," he said, pointing at the courts behind him. Not in that park, he doesn't. Not unless he has a kid strapped to his back at the time.Finally, we were given our summonses and were free to go. Because we hadn't been drinking alcohol or urinating in public, we do not have the option of pleading guilty by mail. Not that I am planning on pleading guilty. But either way, we have to show up in court or a warrant will be issued for our arrest. My friend does not live in New York and I am out of the country all summer, so this is going to be an ordeal in itself, given that the summons has no information on how to contact the court. Nor do we know how much we owe. Because the cops had no idea about that, either. They were just "doing their jobs," in the most mindless sense of that phrase.
I have three little nephews and I appreciate that keeping children safe is the thinking behind this rule. But this is basically trying to deter pedophiles with the equivalent of a speeding ticket. Meanwhile, in parts of the city with minimal amounts of public green spaces, people are taught that they are being "bad" citizens for sitting on a bench for a few minutes. The regulations are as they are and they were posted, but does the issuing of summonses to people who even the police do not actually believe are posing a danger, with no prior warning, accord with the law's protective intent?
Is It The Beginning Of The End For The USA?
Dmitry Orlov blogs about his prediction of the impending collapse:
First you have financial collapse, which is basically the volume of debt that has to be taken on in order for the economy to continue functioning, cannot continue. We're seeing that right now in Greece, we're probably going to see that in Japan, we're definitely at a point now in the United States where even if you raised the income tax to 100 percent, there's absolutely no way of covering the liabilities of the U.S. federal government. So we're at that point now, but the workout of the financial collapse is not all quite there. We don't quite have a worthless currency but that's in the works.That, of course, is followed by commercial collapse especially in a country like the United States that imports two thirds of its oil. A lot of that is on credit, and if a little bit of that oil goes missing then the economy starts to fall apart because nothing moves unless you burn oil in the United States and, of course, a lot of goods that are sold everywhere are imported again, on credit. And then commercial collapse is generally followed by political collapse because the Congress no longer has the ability to spend money in the fashion to which they have become accustomed. Governments at every level start failing. We're seeing the beginnings of that where fire and police departments around the country are being cut. Right now there's a big fight over the retirement of retired municipal workers. Retirements are basically being looted in order to paper over these giant gaping holes in the finance scheme.
Ben McGrath writes about Orlov in The New Yorker:
Orlov's 2008 book, "Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects," identifies the ingredients of what he calls "superpower collapse soup"--a severe shortfall in the production of crude oil, a worsening foreign-trade deficit, an oversized military budget, and crippling foreign debt--and argues that his adopted country, with its "American-style Potemkin villages" and "highly compensated senior lunch-eaters," is not only vulnerable but likely to fare worse. ("Make no mistake about it: this soup will be served, and it will not be tasty!") "Now we're in hospice care," he told me. "The bailouts you see can be viewed as ever bigger doses of morphine for a patient that's not long for this world."
Do you think "doomer" Orlov is right or do we still have a way out?
Via Lisa Simeone
Achievement Envy
I sent this bit from a Classically Liberal blog item to a classy friend who's being attacked by a small and malicious person:
I recently wrote a one line comment accompanying a video, "When life seems like a load of crap, when the world seems inside-out, when justice is nowhere to be found, I take refuge in the talent of others."...One thing an old friend, Bob Sheaffer, taught me in his book Resentment Against Achievement, was that any achievement big enough to be noticed will be big enough to fuel resentment and envy. Envy is a pernicious and evil emotion. It isn't what many now think it is, it isn't admiration for something, but hatred of it. It is a hatred based on someone else having what you desire. Ayn Rand was spot-on when she said envy was hatred of the good for being the good. She said: "It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue that one regards as desirable." It is a wholly negative emotion.
Aesop once told a tale of two neighbors, one filled with avarice, the other with envy. The gods decided to punish them and so promised that whatever the one wished for, the other would receive doubly. The avaricious man want a room full of gold. But seeing his neighbor with twice that turned him bitter and angry. The envious man, after thinking about it, decided he wanted to be made blind in one eye, thus knowing his neighbor would be made blind in both. Envy doesn't lift the envious, it tears down others instead.
The Difference Between Asshat Democrats And Asshat Republicans
The Republicans' photos are somewhat primmer than Democrats'.
The most disturbing thing is that elected politicians in the public eye could be this fucking stupid.
"Regal Bearing, Common Touch"
That's how Gregg described Margo Martindale, who was on stage for the LA Times "The Envelope"/Elmore Leonard's "Justified" discussion and screening, and then who we got to talk with in the green room afterward.
Well, that is, I talked. Gregg sang. It was the most amazing thing. He knows a lot about music, and he's also a huge George Jones fan. Margo comes from "George Jones country," as Gregg called the part of Texas where she's from. One of them brought up Melba Montgomery, or as Gregg referred to her, "the female George Jones."
Well, Margo started singing this duet by Montgomery and George Jones, "Let's Invite Them Over Again" (about wife-swapping), and then Gregg started singing along -- it was a truly unforgettable moment.
I can't really do it justice here, but the experience reinforced an experience I've had over and over, since I was back in New York and I used to stop by and eat with the character actors (like Harry Goz and Bill Nelson) at the old Edison Hotel Coffee Shop.
If you want to talk to somebody really interesting who's an actor, I think it's generally best to avoid the big superstars. (Typically they're egos in search of a landing pad.) Talk to the character actors. They are, not surprisingly, the truly interesting characters.
And, if you haven't seen "Justified," on FX, you should. It's phenomenal, and Margo is especially, as evil mama Mags Bennett. Walton Goggins, who was wildly great in The Shield
Fear Of Heights? Don't Let That Stop You From Being A Bridge Worker!
As I tweeted to @evolutionarypsy about hang-gliding:
I tend to avoid any sport where there's some likelihood that my head will end up looking like salsa.
I've likewise managed to avoid careers of that ilk.
By the way, I get carsick from my own driving (let alone others' -- Gregg was very good-natured when I got carsick and threw up when he was driving us around D.C.!) I also get nauseated on plane landings and when there's more turbulence than that you'd feel with a car going over a small speed bump. Yes, I'm a fragile little canary in some ways.
Luckily, I recognize this as reason to not become a delivery driver, airplane pilot or flight attendant -- not as reason to get a job doing one of those things and then sue the airlines or Fed Ex for expecting me to fly or drive.
Not so in Illinois. Walter Olson blogs about an ADA-related Seventh Circuit Court decision that said a bridge worker with fear of heights can proceed with his suit "contending the Illinois Department of Transportation should have done more to accommodate his wish to work only on those bridge maintenance tasks that did not leave him in an overly exposed position."
But, what if everybody who gets employed by the Illinois DOT starts to contend that they have a fear of heights? Do we just let the bridges crumble while all the bridge workers fearful being of high places play cards?
Anti-Gay Marriage Grandpa's Got A Gay Granddaughter
Erica Diaz, 22, is the lesbian granddaughter of New York State's most outspoken gay-marriage foe -- state Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. She's also the girlfriend of Naomi Torres, with whom she has two sons. They're pictured at the link. She tells the New York Post:
My grandfather, state Sen. Rev. Ruben Diaz, spoke about marriage equality on a Spanish radio station in April. He was joined on the airwaves by a priest who said, "Gay people are worthy of death."Papa didn't say anything. I was shattered.
I am the gay granddaughter of Albany's most outspoken marriage-equality opponent. Until now, out of love, I closeted my feelings about my family's patriarch, who has so vehemently denounced gay rights.
But my grandfather should know that as he continues to skewer the marriage-equality bill on the radio, television and in newspapers, I am listening and reading. And I've finally conjured the courage to stand up for what is right.
...When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz.
This fight is personal.
My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.
And my grandfather has witnessed our love. At Christmas he lovingly played with our children.
But as he continued to ratchet up his rhetoric, something in me snapped. I decided to show up at his rally last month on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse so that he could face a person he loved, a person who was gay, as he spoke against us.
Again, as she writes: My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.
Absolutely right.
Crazytown, D.C.: Solicitor General On How To Avoid Health Care Mandate
If you don't like the healthcare mandate, just earn less money! Philip Klein writes at the Wash Ex:
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center.
... "...The minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income," Kaytal said. "So it's a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It's not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn't need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at..."
Sutton interjected, "That wasn't in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don't like it is make a little less money."
The so-called "hardship exemption" in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.
What if we're already earning "less money," thanks, in part, to Obama's prioritizing his health care boondoggle over the economy?
Culver City: Nice Place To Visit, But You Wouldn't Wanna Leave There
More on that in a moment -- on how, in Culver City, Hotel California is now Parking Garage California ("you can check out but you can never leave...")
This is the view from the parking garage where I left my car before having drinks with a bunch of libertarian friends at the Culver Hotel. Great place, nice music (if loud for conversation), nice waitress, very interesting discussions, and a truly enjoyable evening.
And then I went to get my car.
I was on the third or fourth floor of the parking garage and it took me over a half an hour to get out of the place. I was just sitting there in a stopped line of cars all that time, taking in all the automobile fumes. In the first 10 minutes, I didn't even move half a floor.
It's so amazing when people work so hard to make a place nice -- and they have done a fantastic job on Culver City -- and then don't work out the details like this that make me never want to go back there, and make me tell anybody and everybody I know (and like) to avoid the place lest they fall into the parking hell wormhole.
Oh, and to add insult to poisoned by car fumes and irate about the wait, they of course charged me for the time I was sitting there in the parking garage. I didn't want to make a fuss about it since there was a huge line of cars behind me, so I waved the dollar I didn't really owe them goodbye, and drove home.
Executives in charge of anything really need to make sure they try their product -- or their city -- to make sure it works. Culver City is broken.
What's Next? Sue The Donut Shop If You Get Diabetes?
The New Jersey Supreme Court says that if you get injured driving drunk you can sue the establishment that served you. Kathleen Hopkins writes at the Asbury Park Press:
In a 5-2 decision, the state's highest court said Frederick Voss, 47, of Brick is not barred by state law from suing Tiffany's Restaurant on Route 37 in Toms River, where he had been drinking on Nov. 9, 2006 before being injured in a motorcycle accident on Hooper Avenue in Toms River. The ruling upholds a decision issued last year by the state Appellate Division of Superior Court.Voss' attorney, William A. Wenzel of Manasquan, said the message is that intoxicated drivers and licensed liquor establishments will be held accountable. Two justices and an organization seeking to curb lawsuit abuse disagreed with the decision.
"Today, drunk drivers can evade personal responsibility for their actions and sue restaurateurs in New Jersey for serving them drinks," said Ann Marie McDonald, spokeswoman for the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance. The alliance had filed a brief with the court, siding with Tiffany's.
So...personal responsibility these days comes down to your responsibility to find a good lawyer to stick responsibility for your behavior on somebody else -- and then make them pay?
Via Walter Olson
Barbara Corcoran On Success
Rod Kurtz and Ben Craw write on AOL about New York real estate's self-made success, Barbara Corcoran (how she " took $1,000 and took on the titans of New York's legendary real-estate industry"). Corcoran's thoughts on what makes a salesperson a success:
"What every great salesperson has, that is always underestimated, is not their ability to hustle so much. It's their ability to get up after they've been hit. Handling rejection is 90 percent of what sales is all about, and the better you are about getting up quickly, and not spending too much time feeling sorry for yourself, that's what determines who are the superstars."
I think this applies far beyond sales.
"Go Shit In A Hat And Pull It Down Over Your Ears"
Loved that saying. From a blog post by Eric Turkewitz. Via @WalterOlson.
Your fave punchy insults?
Who Wears The Pants?
Maybe somebody who got 'em at 60 percent off. Deal Of The Day
And thanks to everyone who supports my work by buying through my Amazon links and through Amy's Mall Amazon links. (I get a kickback -- usually of 6 to 7 percent, and it costs you nothing.) If you want to buy something through Amazon that I don't list, just go to Amy's Mall and click on the "powered by Amazon" link at the top left.
These are tough times for earning a living as a writer, and especially when I spend a good bit of time answering advice requests for free that will never make my column, so I truly do appreciate all these purchases.
"Total Cholesterol Is An Outdated Concept"
Via Dr. Eades, Dr. William Davis at Heartscan blog sets the record straight on cholesterol numbers:
What does a total cholesterol reading of 220 mg/dl really mean?
There's a good chance your doctor still goes by the outdated thinking that the total cholesterol number matters -- meaning if it's high, you're about to die. Mine thinks that way. I ignore her ideas on diet and exercise and just use her for tests.
More from Dr. Eades on the bogus science underlying "the lipid hypothesis."
Brilliant Turn By MI6 (In Chocolate And Butter-Cream)
It's "Operation Cupcake"! Duncan Gardham writes in the Telegraph/UK that Brit intelligence hacked into an al-Qaeda online magazine and replaced bomb-making directions with a cupcake recipe:
When followers tried to download the 67-page colour magazine, instead of instructions about how to "Make a bomb in the Kitchen of your Mom" by "The AQ Chef" they were greeted with garbled computer code.The code, which had been inserted into the original magazine by the British intelligence hackers, was actually a web page of recipes for "The Best Cupcakes in America" published by the Ellen DeGeneres chat show.
Written by Dulcy Israel and produced by Main Street Cupcakes in Hudson, Ohio, it said "the little cupcake is big again" adding: "Self-contained and satisfying, it summons memories of childhood even as it's updated for today's sweet-toothed hipsters."
It included a recipe for the Mojito Cupcake - "made of white rum cake and draped in vanilla buttercream"- and the Rocky Road Cupcake - "warning: sugar rush ahead!"
It'll blow your burka off!
via Kate Coe
Obama Team Unveils Exciting Federal Logo To Make You Fat And Unhealthy
Bonus picture of fatty Surgeon General! (LA Times' Top of the Ticket.)
Govt. food plate corrected for health/taste @AlecSKHenderson Complements of @RuthBourdain http://t.co/BnyQywx
UPDATE: Loved this one, from @SDbaconCarroll, from this post by Julianne at Paleozone Nutrition.
Are you following me on Twitter? I'm @amyalkon.
Adam Gadahn Urges American Muslims To Answer The Call Of Islam
Gotta love those silly "COEXIST" bumper stickers, which include Islam in among the other religions, despite the fact that Islam's mission (per the Quran and Hadith) is not "coexistence" but the conversion or death of all who do not believe as they do.
I have no problem "coexisting" with anybody who believes in anything -- even the silliest anything -- as long as their belief system doesn't command the murder of anyone who doesn't believe as they do, or of gays, or women who commit adultery.
More on what Islam's all about from thereligionofpeace.com. Educate yourself, will you?
The Myth:Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism. It is against Islam to kill innocent people.
The Truth:
Islam does prohibit killing innocent people. Unfortunately, you don't qualify.
...In fact, the definition of "terrorism" in Islam is ambiguous at best. And the definition of an "innocent person" in Islam isn't something that Muslim apologists advertise when they say that such persons aren't to be harmed. The reason for this is that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law.
...Even within the Islamic community there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt - greater even than the average non-believer. These are the hypocrites, or "Munafiqin," whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms. A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only. They are distinguished either by an unwillingness to wage holy war or by an intention to corrupt the community of believers (by befriending Christians or Jews, for example).
When Muslims frequently kill Muslims in the name of Allah, they usually do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers). This is actually a part of Islamic Law known as takfir, in which Muslims are declared apostates and then executed. (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine).
Frack To The Future
New thinking on fossil fuels in a very interesting piece for Salon by Michael Lind:
As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable "shale gas" or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.
The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable "tight oil," thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.
If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.
Salon's commenters were apoplectic that such views would even be given space there. More about issues and confusion about fracking here in The New York Times.
Here's Andrew Leonard's response on Salon to Lind:
While there may not be a meaningful scientific consensus as to whether the fracking process results in significant greenhouse gas emissions, I defy anyone to read the New York Times' massive, exhaustively reported series on pollution problems associated with fracking and still not be concerned with threats to the nation's drinking water supply or the multiple failures of our regulatory system. There are clearly reasons to be concerned. Just this week, Texas -- Texas! -- passed a "fracking disclosure" law requiring oil or gas well operators who perform hydraulic fracturing "to disclose the volume of water and the chemical ingredients of the fracturing fluids used." Also this week, in New York, state Attorney General David Schneiderman announced he was suing the federal government for "failure to study 'fracking.'"One can argue that we just don't have enough data to judge the full ecological imprint of fracking, but it seems premature to wave away any potential negative externalities. And yet that kind of blithe dismissal seems to be a theme of Lind's treatment of other hydrocarbon technologies. He notes that "there is enough coal to produce energy for centuries" and touts "tight oil" -- the use of fracturing technologies to extract crude oil from old wells, along with oil sands, as encouraging sources of additional hydrocarbons. But generating energy from coal, "tight oil" or oil sands isn't "clean" by any definition. Lumping them in with natural gas makes no sense, since burning oil and coal will continue to exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
Oh well, if climate change really is a problem, argues Lind, then we'll just have to forget about all those hydrocarbons and engage in a massive nuclear power buildup.
I'm pro-nuclear power, but very interested in seeing us get off the teat of Arab oil
The Digital Dick
How many of you ladies would be aroused, thrilled, or otherwise happy to have a man you're seeing or thinking of seeing send you a photo of his Representative Weiner?
Does erect or non-erect make a difference?
Mr. Toad's Wild Insulin Ride
Via @AlecSKHenderson:
Children's diabetes research never tasted so good...barf http://t.co/3JQQKv2
Some Fairness For Men Duped Into Daddying Children Not Theirs
Fathers and Families' Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks write in the LA Daily News of an attempt, in California, to right some some paternity fraud abuses -- those where men are duped into paying for a child that is not theirs -- through a bill recently introduced:
Currently the only person who can be held legally responsible to support the child is the mother's then-husband, who is presumed to be the father because the child was born into the marriage. Judges routinely (and at times apologetically) saddle such "duped dads" with stiff child support orders.... In some cases, a divorced man must pay child support for the child of his ex-wife and her paramour- and pay it into the household where the paramour and the ex-wife, the two biological parents, now live! In others, there's "father shopping" - if mom can get more child support out of her ex-husband than her ex-boyfriend, then he's "dad."
The most common scenario is this: a husband does not learn that the child of his marriage is not his child until after the limited window for challenging paternity has closed. After the couple divorces, the mother minimizes or withholds visitation, sometimes citing the father's non-paternity as a justification. Yet dad is still forced to pay child support - for children who are not his, and with whom he is not allowed to have a relationship.
DNA testing is cheap and widely available - why do we still employ archaic legal presumptions to determine paternity? Moreover, we respect women's biological ties to their children, as hospitals make substantial efforts to ensure that newborns go home with the right mother. Why shouldn't men's desire to ensure biological ties be similarly respected?
Getting the biological parentage wrong can have serious and damaging medical consequences for children. Current California law declares that there is a compelling state interest in determining paternity for all children. SB 375 would instead declare that there is a "compelling state interest in determining biological paternity for all children."
The Appropriate Way To Respond When Sexually Assaulted
Whether by a government worker violating your Fourth Amendment rights or a stranger in an alley:
Listen around 4:25 when a man is shouting at someone back in the "secured area." Good for the woman's son, who refused to be denied his First Amendment rights.
I love the notion by a cop at 9:32 that the airlines might not want to let her fly "in that condition." And what condition is she in? The condition of someone who's been sexuall assaulted. So, rape victims are persona non grata on planes -- or is that a tactic of authoritarian assholes to keep people in line?
And P.S. It's the Feds, not the airlines, who are in charge of the grope process at the airports, which I believe is targeted at making us better sheeple, more willing to give up our rights without a fight.
I'll have more on this as soon as I can -- a call to action, plus the story on my experiences the last time I flew. I've been writing pretty much day and night lately, and I need to take a breath and get in touch with a Constitutional lawyer or scholar with some questions before I can write it up.
via Lisa Simeone
Rude Your Way To Jail
Inconsiderate loser, shouting on the phone in a motel room, not caring who else had to listen to him, got his. From WBALTV:
Deputies said guests there heard a man yelling during a phone conversation that there was a warrant for his arrest and called police.Richard R. Vermalyea, 32, of Rehoboth Beach, Del., was arrested and ordered held on two open warrants in Cecil County, Md.
Forget who sent this to me -- was a bit of a trying day on Wednesday -- but thanks!
"God Saved Me, But You Suck"
Heather Mac Donald blogs at Secular Right about "the solipsism of faith" vis a vis people who thank god for saving them when disasters strike, like in Joplin, Missouri:
One doesn't want to deny survivors of cataclysm whatever emotional succor they can find during a period of undeserved loss. Still, it is always puzzling to me how believers can attribute their escape from calamity to God's protection without feeling compelled to explain why God did not extend that protection to other people not clearly less deserving than themselves. If God was capable of working a "miracle" to prevent you from death by tornado in Missouri or Alabama, why didn't he work that same miracle to save your neighbors? (We will leave aside the added puzzle of why God would allow the natural cataclysm to proceed in the first place and confine himself to piecemeal, after-the-fact efforts to mitigate its effects for a select number of survivors.) The implication of attributing one's own good fortune amid a wave of misfortune to God is inescapable: God cared for me more than for the deceased victims. Yet only rarely does this implication seem to break through into a believer's consciousness.As the devastation from the March Japanese tsunami was grimly mounting, an Iowa pastor claimed that God helped unseat three Iowa state justices who had voted to allow same sex-marriage.
...However important an Iowa judicial recall regarding gay marriage may be to God, you would think that saving over 10,000 Japanese innocents from death and hundreds of thousands of Japanese residents from total upheaval would also be worth a certain amount of attention. But if Pastor Mullen has ever considered why God stopped by in Iowa City but not in Fukushima, he doesn't let on.
Pole Dancing
Trash-picker's rig, Los Angeles.
Weinergate? Smells like Bullshitgate.
Neither a Democrat nor a Republican (I'm a Neither - fiscally conservative, socially libertarian), and I've been uninterested in Weinergate...but I just heard him on CNN.
Sorry, but how is anyone UNSURE of whether a particular bulging penis shot is of them? Has Representative Weiner taken so many bulging penis photos that they're all getting hard to keep track of?
"The Best Thing On The Internet Today"
Via @krempasky, This Guy Has My MacBook. (Check out the perp's weird Eastern Bloc Goth furniture.)
Have You Improperly Trimmed Your Trees?
If you live in Charlotte, North Carolina, it could cost you $100 per branch.
Via Jessica Lalli, a Charlotte church has been fined $100 per branch for improperly trimming trees on their property! Brittany Penland writes in the Charlotte Observer:
"We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.
"I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."
The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.
...Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said.
Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence.
"The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees," Johnson said. "Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees. When we take down trees, we need to replace these trees."
Individuals who would like to trim their trees should call the city foresters to receive a free permit to conduct the landscape work.
Foresters will then meet with the person receiving the permit and give instructions on how to properly trim their trees, Johnson said.
More insanity at the link.
Note to Charlotte: Here's how it works without laws, and without government spending. It starts with those people hissing about proper tree trimming in the comments over at the Charlotte Observer. Like Chastity Spurrier Roberts:
I am so happy that they are doing something about the "crape murder" that goes on in Charlotte. I worked in landscaping for years and it is disgusting to see what people do to these trees because they are ignorant. If you don't want a tree to grow 15' tall, then don't plant a tree that grows 30' tall! I've seen it so many times: people buying plants and installing them incorrectly, then butchering the plant like it's to blame. The plant does what it's meant to do - grow. Learn a little beforehand and these issues will never occur. It's called READING, people. You should try it sometime.
Chastity (and pardon my laughter at the fact that your name is, effectively, "Woman Who Does Not Spread Her Legs"), if you are concerned about proper tree trimming, you should feel quite free to spend your Saturdays campaigning for it, and creating an organization to help teach people how to do it the right way. Of course, it's much easier to just post hissy comments supporting public funds being used to attack people financially through yet another unnecessary and burdensome (and pretty disgusting) law.
Too Safe Leads To Sorry
An expert warns that children's modern, "plastic-fantastic" play equipment is too safe for kids' own good. Kate Jones writes in Australia's Courier-Mail:
PLAY equipment designed by "safety nazis" doesn't allow children to learn from risk-taking, an expert has warned.More kids aged two to seven were getting injured in playgrounds because they didn't know how to take calculated risks.
The commenter (SD) who sent me the link said it well:
I'm fifty-four; we had monkey bars installed over asphalt and knew that It Would Hurt if we fell. This is no longer being taught.
Forehead Tittaes
Funny. Marion Cotillard stars.
via Lisa Simeone
The Entrepreneur Grant
Love this. Marcus Wohlsen writes for the AP about San Francisco tech mogul Peter Thiel's scholarship given to two dozen bright kids. But, it's not a college scholarship, but a non-college scholarship:
The recipients are being paid not to go to college.Instead, these teenagers and 20-year-olds are getting $100,000 each to chase their entrepreneurial dreams for the next two years.
The description of one of the scholarship recipients at the link pretty much describes me in high school -- and throughout my life:
Instead of paying attention in high school, Nick Cammarata preferred to read books on whatever interested him.
His "gift for coding" got him into Carnegie Mellon, but he'll be self-schooled instead, thanks to Thiel's gift.
The Religion Of Peace And The Israelis Who Pick Themselves Up And Go On Living In Its Wake
In a 2004 piece, Matthew Rosenbaum writes in The Jewish Journal about a Jerusalem cafe he visited:
The next night, on Tuesday, Sept. 9, a suicide bomber ripped Cafe Hillel apart, killing seven and wounding dozens. The gut-wrenching images from the scene flashed across the television screen, and I struggled to keep my eyes open. The explosion had reduced the cafe's chic exterior to rubble. Israelis do not censor news footage; I could see blood on the walls and the outlines of bodies on the street. While I could barely watch, the paramedics did not flinch; they had witnessed similar scenes many times before.I ate at Cafe Hillel the night before the bloodshed, but the night of the attack I was miles away. Others were not as fortunate. Dr. David Appelbaum took his daughter Nava to dinner for a father-daughter talk the night before her wedding. But there was no wedding the next day. Instead, there were two funerals.
...Two months later, after a time of relative peace, I had pushed thoughts of the bombing into the back of my mind. Like the Israelis who surrounded me, I learned to move on. I went out to town again and, as I was about to hail a cab to go home, my friend, Noam introduced me to a girl: "Matt," he said, "this is Shira."
She said "hi," smiled, and we talked for a minute or two. It was a chance encounter, and I thought nothing of it.
As we walked away, Noam whispered: "You know who that was, right?" I shook my head.
"That," he said, "was Shira Appelbaum. The Appelbaum."
At first, I didn't believe him. The girl I had just met seemed so cheery and carefree only two months after losing her father and sister. This is the numbing effects of terrorism, and this is how it reached into every Israeli household, forcing an 18-year-old to act like everything is fine only weeks removed from losing the foundation of her family.On Oct. 9, 2003, one month after its destruction, Cafe Hillel reopened its doors to the public, and more than 100 people braved a long line to get inside. The cafe was packed, full of stubborn Israelis celebrating the resiliency of the human spirit.
But it isn't just Israelis Islam leaves in its wake. From thereligionofpeace.com:
Monthly Jihad Report April, 2011
Jihad Attacks: 152Countries:
19Religions:
5Dead Bodies:
907Critically Injured:
1603
Got jihad?
Oh, and if you want to blame the violence against Jews (among all the others) on the existence of the state of Israel rather than where it rightly belongs -- in Quranic commands and the ensuing urgings of Muslim clerics -- think again.
Israel became a state in 1948. 70 years ago was "Iraq's Kristallnacht." From Jihadwatch, a piece by By Robert S. Wistrich:
Seventy years ago, on June 1, 1941, the most dramatic and violent pogrom in the Arab Middle East during World War II took place in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Known in Arabic as the Farhūd, this devastating pogrom left approximately 150 Jews dead, hundreds more wounded, and led to the ransacking of nearly 600 Jewish businesses. The grim events of June 1-2, 1941 were the Iraqi Arab equivalent of the mass violence on Kristallnacht, which had taken place some two and a half years earlier across Nazi Germany. The anti-Jewish riots were mainly led by Iraqi soldiers (bitter and frustrated by their defeat at the hands of the British Army), some members of the police and young paramilitary gangs, swiftly followed by an angry Muslim population that went on the rampage in an orgy of murder and raping.
Rosenbaum via Robert Werner
