My Point, Made

I've been hearing for 8 years about how important it is for me to hold my nose and vote for the assclown with the 'R' after his name, if for no other reason than to assure that the Supreme Court isn't taken over by "dangerous" Liberal elements. My principled stand has been that voting for anyone whom you truly believe to be a bad choice is worse than not voting at all. What was needed was a test case to show I was right.

Today I was proved right.

Republican George W. Bush -- for whom I was told to hold my nose, shut up, and vote -- appointed alleged "conservative" John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during his reign of error. And it was Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote that made the Constitutional horror show that is Obamacare the law of the land.

Do not EVER again tell me to vote for a candidate who doesn't reflect my vision of what this country should be "to protect the country from a Liberal Supreme Court" -- or for any other reason, for that matter. In fact, do yourself a favor and stop voting entirely. All you do by voting is to lend legitimacy to the charade.

A government that can force you to buy health care is a government that can force you to do anything. We have officially passed from citizens to serfs. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Fox News wants us to be upset because the number of deaths of law enforcement officers increased by 17% this year, from 48 to 56. Meh.

Understand, I garner no joy from the death of a police officer. Many have families. Many are good people trying to do the right thing. Not all cops are flaming assholes, though I would submit that the majority -- particularly campus and traffic cops -- are.

But I can't get too worked up over 56 police deaths when you compare it side-by-side with the statistics of those killed by police officers.

Between 2003 and 2009 (the most recent statistics on the interwebs), 2,844 people were killed by police officers. Of that number, 2,684 were shot dead by the police. That's 406 deaths per year, 383 of those shot dead by the police.
You don't have to be a math whiz to figure out that 406 > 56.

"Come on, Vulture! You can't equate criminals being shot in the commission of a crime with law enforcement officers!" You're quite right. I wouldn't for a moment claim that there weren't some -- hell, maybe 90% or more -- of that number who desperately needed killing and whose shootings were 100% legit.

But what if 10% of those killed by police were innocents, people in the wrong place at the wrong time. People mistaken for someone else. People like the guy shot because a cop mistook his lighter for a handgun. People killed during the execution of a no-knock warrant who weren't involved in any crime.

Hey, Fox News. If you want me to care more about police deaths, how about you hold the police accountable when they bash in grandma's door and gun down grandma and her sleeping grandkids during a no-knock raid where some puke informant gave them the wrong address. In fact, how about you simply get behind the cause of abolishing blatantly unconstitutional no-knock warrants.

When the police start to behave like peace officers instead of law enforcers (trust me, there's a big difference), then I'll be more sympathetic when one of their number is killed. In the meantime.....meh.

New Tizona Post

New Tizona post - Will TSSA parody become illegal?

Did I mention that I'm right?

Piling on more "I told you", I cite another source certain that creating law under the influence of emotion is a bad, bad idea.

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to change the jury system entirely.

Even as DNA testing continues to exonerate wrongly convicted people, including people who were nearly executed, it's this rare case -- in which a jury recognized that there was no physical evidence linking Anthony to her daughter's murder -- that has America questioning its justice system.
[...]
Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version of the law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

These excerpts just scratch the surface of Mr. Balko's arguments. Please read the entire article. He makes the best case imaginable to avoid making Caylee's Law a reality.

I hate being right

In my last post, I wrote about my dread about bad law resulting from a knee-jerk reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict. I hate being right.

Michelle Crowder of Durant, Oklahoma is calling for Caylee's Law, a piece of legislation that would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a missing child to law enforcement. And people are listening. Important people.
[...]
This won't help Caylee directly. But it will help America's kids.

It will help the quarter of gay teens who are kicked out of their homes by their parents simply for admitting they love someone of the same gender, kids whose parents leave them to rot on the sidewalks. As it stands, parents CAN kick their kids out, and with rules that don't require they report them missing, abdicating their duties to love and protect their children isn't a felony.
[...]
Caylee's Law, or whatever you call it, would help us make sense of how a system will punish a parent with child abuse charges for leaving children unattended for a long period of time (and rightly so!) but let a parent skate for not reporting a child missing. It can't be one but not the other, America. That's why we need a law.

Did I not tell you? Yet another law "for the children". Ye gods!

But the law of unintended consequences always rides shotgun with these kind of emotion-laded knee-jerk laws. Exhibit A: your 16-year-old daughter runs away with a musician after trying to poison you for the insurance money. You want this back in your life? You figure, "Eh, goodbye and good riddance." But if you don't report your daughter missing and take her back with open arms when she is returned by the cops, you're guilty of child abuse. Of course, if you do take her back, you'd better sleep with one eye open.....but I digress.

And where did this statistic about one quarter of gay teens being kicked out of their homes come from? Sounds fishy to me. I'd wager they're including "boy toys" who ran off with an older man who promised them goodies in exchange for butt sex in that obviously embellished tally. But that "leaving them to rot on the sidewalks" line? Priceless.

Emotions and law make bad bedfellows. But politicians pandering for your vote don't care. They'll pass whatever ridiculous law you tell them you want.

And you wonder why you are less free every day.....

Trial by Media

Deadeye watched the Casey Anthony trial with rapt fascination over the past six weeks. I would venture that there is no one out there as knowledgeable about that case (outside of the attorneys, that is) than Deadeye. When Casey Anthony was found not guilty on all charges except lying to police yesterday, Deadeye was dumbfounded. She has officially lost all confidence in the jury system.

While I would tend to agree with her the the cumulative evidence should have led to a verdict of guilty, I'm less concerned with the verdict and more concerned about a growing trend that became apparent during this trial. Call it what you will, it boils down to trail by media.

The worst offender was Nancy Grace, of course. Were it up to Ms. Grace, Casey Anthony would be dead already. Nancy Grace has spent the past three years proclaiming the guilt of "tot mom". I thought that the "not guilty" verdict might elicit some sort of contemplative pause from her. As if! She said in response to the verdict that "the devil is dancing tonight". On her show last night, she spent an entire segment excoriating the defense team for having the audacity to celebrate their victory. Claiming "I never did that as a prosecutor", she heaped derision on Casey's attorneys. Being ever cynical...and knowing Nancy's predilection for playing fast and loose with the law during her career as a prosecutor...I would guess that the reason she never celebrated was because she didn't want to draw too much attention to her tactics.

If it were just Nancy Grace acting this way on the airways, you could dismiss this is as one bitter crank amid a sea of babble. But it's not just Ms. Grace. It's Jane VOLUME-Mitchell. It's Vinnie Politan. It's the hosts of In Session on Tru TV. The babble from this Tower of Babel is not just harmless words. If you listen to the comments of people around the country, they are convinced that the jury flat out blew the case. They're convinced that Casey Anthony is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY. And the reason they're so convinced is because they've been harangued for three solid years by people selling sensationalism for ratings.

Still not convinced it's all that dangerous, Vulture. Okay, indulge me for a second. What happens when a sizable segment of the populace is worked up into a frenzy about something or other? Answer: laws get passed. Bad laws. Laws that make us less free and more susceptible to unwarranted incarceration. THIS is what concerns me. THIS is what I see as the danger.

Here's hoping that the Casey Anthony verdict does NOT have the effect of giving politicians a premise for abolishing or negating trial by jury.

Vulture Droppings: "Check your bag, sir?"

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

Not content to merely annoy and harass, the TSSA (you can't spell Schutzstaffel without the double S) has moved on to actual assault.  Their new policy - submit to the nudie ray or get groped - has a lot of people in high dudgeon.

The Germans staged an innovative protest of the scanners -- you wanna see me naked?  I'll come to the airport naked!

Vox Day has opined.  So have Will Grigg and Ye Olde Journalist.

Now it's my turn.  This edition of Vulture Droppings is brought to you by the letter "G", as in "grope"

---

"What's the big deal?", I hear some so-called "conservatives" ask.  We NEED the government to keep us safe in the airports.  Even if that WERE true (I believe wholeheartedly that it isn't), how is groping 13-year-old girls for sport keeping us safe?  Yeah, you read that right - only children over the age of 12 get groped. Bet that makes all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters happy.

"You don't HAVE to get groped!  You can go through the scanner, you know!"  Yeah.  Not any better.  The scanner shows everything God gave you in graphic detail.  Think I'm kidding?  Check this out - not only can you see dude's junk, you can tell that he's not circumcised.  Again, the question to all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters -- you want your little girl leered at by Tommy TSSA like she's some sort of common whore just because she's flying to see grandma?

---

"But the pictures are purged after they've been viewed! The embarrassment is only temporary!"  No, no they're not - at least not all of them.  Body scan pictures are starting to crop up in various places; one courthouse in Florida (figures!) has over 35,000 saved images!  Now, fathers, ask yourself this: how would you feel about scanned images of your hot 15-year-old daughter showing up on the internet?  Are you STILL a supporter of the scanners?  I can't see how.

---

TSSA, naturally, stands by the scanners and their new grope-down procedures.  They deny that any groping is going on, notwithstanding the growing number of complaints from the molested (see here, here, and here also).  Nor are they too happy with those who protest against being scanned or groped - this guy faces possible criminal charges.

---

The issue is apparent. So is the solution, IMO. Abolish the TSSA. Let the airlines handle their own security. You may not feel safer, but you'll feel less violated.  And you'll get back the freedom you once had to enter an airport without being molested.

Of course, if you like that sort of thing....in which case, I say - TO THE AIRPORT WITH YOU!

---

Great idea enforced via coercion

Coercion.  It's the statist way.

First, let me back up and set the table for the topic of this post.  Anyone who has lived in California for an extended period of time -- like, say, the 20 years I lived there off and on from 1967-1987 -- knows that when it comes to rainfall, there are only two seasonal variations: drought, and OMG flooding.

Unfortunately, it seems that drought happens way to often, resulting in water rationing.

I've long thought that the way toilets are designed is inherently flawed.  One flush fits all.  But why does it have to be that way?  Couldn't you have a lesser flush for No. 1, and a greater flush for No. 2?  Wouldn't that make more sense?  Wouldn't that be a great way to conserve water in those drought years?

It turns out that some inventive type has come up with a commode that meets that exact criteria.  But in New York City, letting the market introduce this wonderful innovation into common use just won't do.  No, NYC is going to use government's favorite (only?) tool and force its use.

Under a law passed by the City Council today, new toilets will have to be high water efficient or "dual-flush," which allow users to choose between a high pressure flush for solid waste, and a low-pressure flush for liquid.

The law, which significantly changes the city plumbing code starting July 2012, applies the same strict water efficiency standards to plumbing fixtures like showerheads, urinals and sink faucets.

The package of water conservation bills also requires water fountains have separate spouts for drinking and for filling water containers; commercial buildings install alarms and sub-meters to detect water leaks; and limits the use of "once-through" cooling systems, such as those used to cool ice-making machines, walk-in coolers and older medical x-ray and laser equipment.

OMG. Is there anything else you want to throw in there? Like, how many gallons of urine an individual is allowed to produce per week?

Council member James Oddo sums up what should be every freedom loving American's reaction to this government overreach.

When does it stop? Does it stop when we micromanage every minute facet of our lives?

Great question.  When DOES it stop? At what point do the sheeple wake from their torpor and ask that question?

God only knows.

Disregarding the people's wishes

xfloggingkylex sent me this via email.

Link

This is a pretty interesting read, especially since Oct 1 these laws go into effect in MD. Looks to me like government doing what it does, a view that contradicts their views gets presented and is then criticized, and government keeps on doing its thing. I can't believe the guy is calling the study flawed just because it goes against his campaign... actually I can.

xfloggingkylex is absolutely right: this is government being government.

Are texting bans working?

Road deaths due to texting behind the wheel, a topic widely reported on in recent months, has taken a new twist.

In a report released Tuesday, the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that texting bans are not reducing crashes.

The claims that the anti-texting laws do not reduce crashes touched a nerve with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who responded harshly to the report, calling it misleading and flawed.

“Last Thursday, I blogged about misleading claims from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) disparaging the effectiveness of good laws and good enforcement in our campaign to end distracted driving,” LaHood wrote in his blog “The FastLane,” this morning. “Unfortunately, they're at it again today with another misleading ‘study,’ ” LaHood continued. “There are numerous flaws with this ‘study,’ but the most obvious is that they have created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist.”

The question needs to be asked: WHO is it who has "created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist"?  Seems to me that it's the folks seeking to ban text messaging and to force the use of hands-free devices in order to use your cell phone in the car who have done so, NOT the IHS.  The nanny state WILL tell us how to behave, and we WILL like it!

But that's just Vulture being Vulture.

Vulture Droppings - catchup

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

Given that it has been nearly a week since I last posted (my, how time flies when you're having hell!), I thought I would "drop" a VD to catch up with what has been going on in the world.

The first two items are courtesy of xfloggingkylex.

---

This comes from an article on a study by UC Berkeley computer scientists.

A new security threat revealed by computer scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, may be enough to drive some people away from their computer keyboards and back to pen and paper. The researchers show that a simple audio recording of those keyboard clicks can betray the text you just entered, from passwords to secret love notes.

The researchers were able to take several 10-minute sound recordings of users typing at a keyboard, feed the audio into a computer, and use an algorithm to recover up to 96 percent of the characters entered.

So the question becomes: is this REALLY a cause for concern? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that the contents of a document or email can be trapped for nefarious use. No for the fact that the software cannot really differentiate the control, alt, or shift keys...at least not yet. But, as the article states, the utility of typed passwords is rapidly drawing to a much-deserved end.

"There are different forms of authentication that could be used, including smart cards, one-time password tokens or biometrics," said Tygar.

Please, make it so. If I have to change one more password, I'm gonna go mental.

---

This one causes me great ambivalence.

I have told this trick to several friends and it has lead to instant dismissal from the courtroom each time. By the end of this article you’ll understand why it works guaranteed 100% of the time. Knowing will not only empower you, but also disturb you. Judges and prosecutors are wary of the common excuses. Who knew that court turned so many people into racists, caused people to forget the English language and trigger sudden terminal illness! Once you’ve been picked to serve on a jury and the trial is about to commence, the judge informs the jury of its duty. Duty – singular.1) The jury must decide the facts of the case.It should actually be duties though – plural.2) The jury must decide on the law in question.Judges do not inform juries of their 2nd responsibility and if you come into court for the voir dire process aware of it - you will be dismissed from the court.

A jurors right to veto the law is probably the best kept secrete of the court system and is what separates democracies from republics

What disquiets me about this blog post is that the type of person who believes in the concept of jury nullification is EXACTLY the kind of person who NEEDS to be on a jury.  This is NOT the person who need to be skipping out on jury duty.

For the record, I'm a huge fan of jury nullification. There are laws that are, quite frankly, nothing more than excuses for Leviathan to stick its nose into our business; those laws NEED nullification.

---

Last week those aligned in opposition to the anti-freedom agenda of Il Duce had what they thought was a huge victory in the form of a vote in Missouri to prohibit Big Brother from enforcing the mandatory parts of Obamacare. It was a short celebration.

Just hours later, a Federal Judge threw out the result of the Proposition 8 initiative. This proves, once again, that our ruling class doesn't give a rat's ass what we the people want. They'll get what they want, one way or another. Our "votes", inasmuch as they align with the goals of the ruling class, will be honored; inasmuch as they collide with their goals, an avenue will be found to negate those results.

So Missouri can celebrate now, but their victory will be every bit as short lived as that of the Prop 8 voters.

---

Elena Kagen was confirmed. Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm] For those of you in the "Vote Republican" crowd, take note that 5 of your team voted to confirm this patently unqualified Harriet Miers clone with a decidedly authoritarian worldview. Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]

---

Hopefully life will slow down a little bit for me and I'll be able to blog more frequently. This Summer has been one for the ages. And "age" is what I've done.

The Imperious Maryland State Police

I wrote previously about the Maryland State Police and their "attitude" problem.  A more imperious group of a-holes you'll never find, not in any law enforcement or non-law enforcement group, not ever.

Now, it seems, they've decided that the act of recording them while arresting you is illegal.

Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off.

A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.

"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.

Get a load of the 'tude displayed by the MSP spokesmouth! It's exactly what I've come to expect from those tools.

First, Mr. Spokesmouth, you are wrong.  The law which you cite involves SECRETLY recording a person.  When the asshole officer is aware of the recording being performed, there is no secret.  Given the recent spate of brutality on the part of police in Maryland, it's a very good idea to record any contact with them around here.

Second, if it isn't legal to record the particulars of an arrest, how to you justify dashcams in cruisers recording...wait for it...people being arrested?

What we have here is an arrogant group of bigger-than-the-law jerks throwing their weight around in an attempt to intimidate.  If the State Attorney General doesn't step in and put a stop to this patently unconstitutional activity on the part of the MSP, it will show him to be in accord with the MSP's thuggish behavior.

Which wouldn't surprise me.  Not one bit.

They needed a study to figure this out?

File under "incredible grasp of the obvious".

A conservative think tank and criminal defense lawyers are forming an unusual alliance to try to get Congress to quit writing criminal laws so loosely that they subject innocent people to unjust prosecution and prison.

They're just now noticing this? Where have they been for the past 40 years?

Next thing you know they'll be telling us that many of the laws Congress has passed are patently unconstitutional.

When it comes to a grasp of the obvious, no one beats Conservatives.  No one.

Feeling like a jackass

Once upon a time a community of wild mules, donkeys, burros, and jackasses roamed free.  They lived in complete freedom.  But there were problems.  They were susceptible to predator attack.  There were no rules preventing mules from abusing donkeys (or vice-versa).  There were no protections against feeding ground encroachment.

So they formed a Pact.  This Pact established common defense against predators and rules to protect against abuses and feeding grounds violations.  Most importantly, the Pact gave assurances to each and every one of the assembled that their freedoms would never be violated.

The Pact established leaders who would represent the animals.  These leaders would have a special wagon to be pulled by the other animals from place to place so that the leaders could perform their duties.

At first, because the wagon was small and the leaders and wagon workers few, it took but a few of the beasts to pull the wagon.  This responsibility was shared by all.  The burden was light, and the demands few.

But over time the leaders started to feel that the Pact restricted them too much.  They became convinced that they could do "amazing things" if those limits were, well, limited.  They were engulfed in an awful hubris.  The "amazing things" they wanted to do were more important to them than the freedoms promised by the Pact.

The leaders were shrewd.  They knew that any overt attempt to break the Pact would result in rebellion.  So over time, bit by bit, the leaders chipped away at the Pact.  By making rules that bordered on violating the Pact without actually doing so, the leaders set precedents that made other rules that DID violate the Pact seem okay.  It was an incrementalist approach.  It was brilliant.

The leaders engaged in a "divide and conquer" strategy.  A number of the new rules were designed to create "favored" classes.  Mules had been greatly wronged in the early days of the Pact.  The leaders used this fact to make rules that allowed many of the mules to ride in the wagon with them.

Then animals without sufficient grazing lands were deemed a "favored" class and were beneficiaries of rules that allowed them to ride on the wagon as well.

The new rules required making the wagon bigger - a whole lot bigger.  Now there were large numbers of animals on the wagon - leaders, wagon workers, and "favored" classes - and many animals were required to pull the wagon.  No, required is too nice of a word.  They were compelled to do so.

Some of the animals - particularly the donkeys and jackasses - began to resent the leaders and the demands placed upon them.  They were branded as uncaring, bigoted, and evil by the leaders.  Those on the wagon certainly agreed.  And, unfortunately, there were enough donkeys, burros, and jackasses who believed the leaders were simply trying to help the "less fortunate" to prevent the donkeys and jackasses from pressuring the leaders to rescind the new rules.

More rules were created.  Some rules limited the amount of feeding ground a beast could have.  Others forced animals to cede some of their feeding ground to animals on the wagon.  The amount of time animals spent pulling the wagon was then linked to the amount of feeding ground they controlled.  More and more animals began to climb aboard the wagon, some as wagon workers, but most as "favored" classes.

Large numbers of burros began to enter the area.  Some pulled the wagon, as had the burros who had been there at the start of the Pact.  But some cried for "favored" status, and were granted seats on the wagon.  Many - WAY too many - simply took over feeding grounds and avoided pulling the wagon.

Over time the situation worsened to the point that there were nearly as many animals on the wagon as there were pulling the wagon. 

Most of those pulling the wagon were jackasses.

What prompted this little parable?  This.

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Wait, it gets better.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Feel like a jackass yet? If you don't, you're probably part of the problem.

Vulture Droppings: Health in the balance

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

As I write this, the hinges are being torn off of the gates and the barbarians are storming the Bastille.  No, wait, that's what we have to look forward to in about 10 years.   Right now, our Noblesse Oblige government is going through the motions of a parliamentary ritual designed to fool the sheeple by giving them the impression that the process is on the up-and-up.  Hint: it isn't.

---

Here is the latest.  The House will vote on the original Senate Health Care Reform Bill Takeover Bill as-is.  This bill includes the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kick-back, and other bribes yet to gain the infamy of those first two.

The House Pro-Life Democrats have been assured that no federal abortion funding will be part of the legislation...even though the bill specifically mandates it...because Il Duce promised to sign an Excecutive Order prohibiting federal spending on abortions as part of the Health Care bill, thus proving, as we have long suspected, that Rex est Lex in the Obama administration.

There are problems with that little scheme.

1. There's no Constitutional provision for such an action.
2. The President doesn't hold the keys to the national purse.  Congress does.
3. Why do we even BOTHER with a legislature if Il Duce can simply sign a paper and - voila! - it is law?

Then, once that steaming abortion of Legislative assault against what was once a free, sovereign people, has passed, the House will vote on the "corrections" to that legislation - the Reconciliation.  After all, they had to shine that turd and make it nice and pretty for the folks back home serfs so that they will have some prayer of being re-elected.  Once the steaming Fascist takeover bill has passed, the Reconciliation bill has passed, and Il Duce has signed his little Executive Order and the Legislation itself, there will be dancing in the streets.  Yeah......dancing.

---

There's just one itsy-bitsy problem with that scenario.  It's illegal.  The "Limitation of Changes to Social Security Act" of 1985 prohibits Reconciliation for any bill that impacts Social Security funds.

What does that mean?  It means that we've been presented with a bait-and-switch.  What we'll be left with when all is said and done is the Senate bill, complete with the Louisiana Purchase, etc.  And, knowing Il Duce as we do, who's to say that he won't go back on his dubious Executive Order once the Reconciliation Bill hits the fan?

It's the worst possible scenario.  It's a horrendous bill that make health care worse and cedes individual freedoms to the complete control of government bureaucrats.  With the passage of the Senate Bill, we will have officially made the transition from citizens to serfs.

---

Fortunately, it's not really over once the legislation has passed.  As I posted a few days ago, Idaho, Virginia, and perhaps as many as 35 other states plan to sue the Federal Government on the grounds that several provisions of the legislation are unconstitutional.  Several?  Try the whole steaming mess!

Whatever.  As long as there is some hope that this corrupt, freedom-ending nightmare can be shot down, there is still hope.  But I wouldn't get too exited about those prospects.  Remember, one of the key bribery tools in Il Duce's bag of dirty tricks is the appointment of Federal judges.  I'll be amazed if this hostile take-over is interrupted, rolled-back, or otherwise deterred in any meaningful way.

Welcome to Amerika!  Now take a number.  You might get sick soon.

---

Maryland, my Maryland

What is it about my adopted home state that it attracts so many.....odd.....people? Or is it just that they're of a collectivist mentality? After all, Maryland has two of the ten most liberal Senators according to the National Journal. I mean, it's not like we got that pair by accident -- they were elected by people who, apparently, like collectivist policies and the loss of personal freedoms they precipitate.

But this is a new low, even for the People's Republic of Maryland.

How far out of touch with reality are women legislators anyway? That’s exactly the question being asked by citizens (women and men) regarding a proposed bill in the Maryland General Assembly, that would restrict men’s rights to use dating sites to meet foreign women and will likely spur copycat legislation in other states.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Vice President of the women’s caucus is leading 35 other delegates (all women) on a campaign for passage of HB 65, that would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their fingerprints and other background information before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use an “International Marriage Broker”.

Yeah. It seems that the Cougar population isn't happy that men have options apart from their bitter, sagging asses. And, as is sadly the inborn inclination of women, they want to take away those options, by force of law if necessary.

Vox Day had a field day with this.

Frankly, I don't see why they're starting with what can't even reasonably be described as half-measures. This is pathetically insufficient! What is the point of only making it vaguely difficult for Maryland men to talk to foreign women? Obviously the law should forbid men to date or even talk to any woman without a license specifying what strata of women is permissible for them to have contact. These strata would be set on an annual basis by a panel of women and each community would have its own panel of judges who would interview every male individual over the age of 16 decide what license would be assigned to him. Licenses would require renewal every five years, they would be color coded, and the licensed man would be required to produce it upon the request of any adult woman. And no contact of any kind with foreign women will be permitted at any time; a first violation will result in a fine, the second in the loss of a man's license.*

The insane thing is that at least half the women who will read this will find themselves thinking, "you know, a system like that really would make society a much better place." But they're not fascists. No, not even a little bit. They're just strong, independent, beautiful, intelligent snowflakes who care too much about the planet to permit those bestial American men to oppress and abuse foreign women too.

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO embarrassed.

Of course, it could be worse. I could live in Kahleefornia and have to live down the moonbattery perpetuated by the legislature there...

Zero tolerance = zero sense

It started in the 80's because the "Law and Order" crowd was dismayed at the way that "lenient liberal judges" were "coddling" criminals. They were also upset that small-time offenders were summarily given probation or even a walk. The result was a slew of laws to "rectify" the situation.

To deal with "lenient judges": mandatory sentencing guidelines.
To deal with small-time crime: zero tolerance.

While zero tolerance in law enforcement didn't really catch on, the concept had a certain appeal to other authoritarians of all stripes.

Everywhere you look now, zero tolerance rules are popping up like zits on a greasy teen. Zero tolerance rules in schools have resulted in honor students being expelled for giving Motrin to a classmate. They've resulted in students being suspended for pointing a stick at a classmate and saying "bang". That's not the worst -- one little boy was suspended for the "crime" of drawing a gun! No, he didn't remove a weapon from its holster. He drew a PICTURE of a gun. That's right, an effing picture.

I thought that the suspension for drawing a picture was the biggest example of ass-headed unthinking zero tolerance up until I saw this story on HLN.

A birthday celebration that culminated in a trip to catch the blockbuster movie "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" could land 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach in prison for three years.

The Chicago, Illinois-area woman captured three minutes of the film on her videocamera while taping part of her sister's surprise party at a Muvico theater in Rosemont.

Theater managers contacted police, who arrested Tumpach. She spent two days in jail. Now she faces a felony charge of illegally copying a movie.

"The motion picture industry has encouraged theater owners to adopt a 'zero-tolerance' policy prohibiting the video or audio recording of any portion of a movie," Muvico Entertainment, which oversees the theater, told HLN's "Prime News."

Excuse me. Am I to understand that a young woman could spend 3 years in prison because the motion picture industry "encouraged" theater owners (read: told them in no uncertain terms) to exercise zero tolerance with ANY video filmed in a theater?

In a common sense world, the young woman would be reprimanded and sent on her way. Hell, in a common sense world, the motion picture industry wouldn't be dictating to private business owners and the judicial system how they should handles situations of this type.

The bottom line is this: zero tolerance = zero sense. It permits authoritarian types to throw their weight around like dime store Barney Fifes. Because zero tolerance takes all thought and reason out of the punishment process, mindless, robotic morons, acting in much the same way as a computer running bug-riddled software, simply process the instructions without regard or thought to the fallout or consequences.

It ain't right. It just ain't right.

Vulture Droppings - the question is when...

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

It's been a LOOOONG time since I did a Vulture Droppings. There just hasn't really been anything going on that would merit that kind of in-depth breakdown.

I'm doing something different with this edition of VD. I'm going to address things I'm sick of. Yeah, I know. Not exactly the kind of weighty, issue-oriented post you've come to expect from Droppings. But it's my blog, and my rules. So read it and like it!.

---

WHEN is that sub-90 IQ loser Levi Johnson's 15 minutes of fame up? I know it's chic to put that knuckle-dragging monosyllabic douche bag on TV 24/7 because he gins up more anti-Sarah Palin sentiment, but COME ON! There ARE limits! If this guy weren't such a gold mine of anti-Palin material, there's NO WAY anyone would even know his name, let alone be subjected to his Neanderthal-like puss on virtually every talk show known to man. Enough already! Find a new flavor-of-the-day, please!

---

WHEN is Big Media (the BM for short) going to stop the Kabuki Dance and admit that the Ft. Hood massacre was perpetrated by a Muslim acting in accordance with the precepts of his religious beliefs, NOT a common soldier who "snapped" under the strain of being exposed to the stresses of other service men and women? People who "snap" don't go around yelling Allahu Akbar! as they mow down innocents.

---

WHEN are NFL analysts going to stop with the Brett Fav-re worship? OMG, it's SOOOOOO old! Seriously, there ARE other players making contributions to the Vikings' success this year. Yeah, even besides Adrian Peterson. So...enough, please!

---

WHEN is the American public going to demand an end to the ridiculous "War on Drugs"? It's a complete waste of money, police resources, prison resources, and human lives.

In the case of marijuana, we're talking about a product with proven medical use (Federal "studies" to the contrary are heavily flawed - perhaps even falsified). We're talking about a product that is infinitely safer than, less addictive than, and less likely to lead to criminal behavior than alcohol, yet alcohol is legal and universally available, while marijuana possession is still a felony in excess of 1 oz.

It's the stupidest policy enacted by a government known for stupid policies. It's time for a change. Make it legal, tax the crap out of it, and empty the prisons of everyone prosecuted for any marijuana offense.

---

Last one. WHEN is the NBA going to come clean and admit that they're every bit as rigged as the WWE?

I'm just saying...

---

Wiener of the Week

Last week the WotW took a bye week, just like my 49ers. So this week one would presume that WotW will really take on something important. After all, a bye week is supposed to leave one refreshed and ready to take on the world, no?

Hopefully this item won't disappoint.

A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.
[...]
The measure even has a snappy acronym: the HAPPY Act, as in Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years.

Are. You. Effing. Kidding. Me?

For those of you unfamiliar with the political term "pandering", this is Exhibit A. Seriously? A pet care deduction? We're running trillion dollar deficits, our health care system is under attack, and you want to introduce a tax break for Fido?

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter-R(INO)-MI, you're the Wiener of the Week.

Wiener of the Week

Last week I posted a story titled "Only in Columbia". It detailed the "plight" of a Left-Liberal woman subjected to the "horror" of Fox News Network. I guess Kensington didn't want to be give Columbia the title of Maryland's moonbat haven without a fight. For those of you not familiar with Kensington, it's a hoity-toity suburb of Washington, DC. It's not exactly hurting for money. Which makes this story even more annoying.

Public parks are usually the places where children go to have fun. But the town of Kensington just passed a new rule that bans kids over five years old from playgrounds during the daytime.

"It's like a sad children's story," said Joe McPherson, headmaster of the Brookewood School.

But it's no fable. The girls at Kensington's Brookewood School are banned from using a public park right across the street for recess.

[...]

The town council unanimously passed a resolution this week saying only caretakers with children five years old and younger can be in Reinhardt Park from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Since that resolution passed, Brookewood students have gone elsewhere for recess.

[...]

The town manager says students using the park for recess created maintenance issues and damage. The town council asked the school to pay $4,000 a year to help with upkeep but never heard back.

"Do a clean through trash pickup, lay mulch around the swings -- we could do that," said McPherson. "But pay $4,000? We just don't have it. We just don't have it in our budget."

Brookewood's headmaster tells ABC 7 News it's a public park for all to use but Kensington's mayor disagrees. By phone he said the park is for taxpaying citizens -- not abuse by a private non-profit school.

Okay, if you're from Kensington, I'll try to explain the asshattery of your town's actions as slowly as I can.

• The park is a PUBLIC park.
  
• The children attending the school have parents who, presumably, live in Kensington.
• Those parents pay property taxes to Kensington.
• Much of the money from those property taxes goes towards the failing public schools in Kensington.
• The rest goes towards....wait for it...things like park maintenance.

Epic fail, Kensington. Epic.

Congratulations, Kensington! You're the Wiener of the Week.

Wiener of the Week

Jane Velez-Mitchell has issues. And, no, I'm not referring to the dopey name of her insipid show Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. And it's not just the fact that she SCREAMS throughout here entire show (xfloggingkylex says you can hear her even after you press the Mute button). Nor is it the fact that her show is a formulaic ripoff of Nancy Grace's show, which, itself, after a fine start, gradually because a formulaic stultifying nightmare.

No, the issues to which I refer have to do with a failure to think.

The evening after that loser in Pittsburgh shot up a gym (Deadeye's comment to me was, "See. That's why I don't work out."), Jane hosted a panel of guest "experts" to discuss this heinous, cowardly act.

There were positive moments in the exchange, mostly provided by criminal profiler Pat Brown, who correctly categorized the shooter as a sociopath, NOT a psychopath. And Velez-Mitchell scored a correct answer when she categorized his attitude as "[A] victim mentality...Everybody's to blame but him. OK, he is not to blame."

But the rest? To quote my Jewish brethren, "Oy, vey!"

The following are excerpts from the transcript.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Apparently, he was using -- Jeanne, he was using 30-round ammo clips that were illegal before the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004. And those ammo clips allow you to kill a lot of people very quickly, right?

Translation: 30-round clips - once illegal - make it "easier to kill people", so we should ban them again.

If this statement alone isn't worth of a WotW, I don't know what is! Bringing back the ill-conceived (and unconstitutional) Assault Weapons ban wouldn't have saved those people, you stupid cow!

[Dr. Judy] KURIANSKY: ... then guns are often that kind of a sexual acting out, because a gun is like a sex organ. And when men are extremely frustrating and frustrated, they can end up taking all that aggression out with a gun.

Translation: Guns are a substitute sex organ, and shooting them off relieves aggression just like an orgasm.

Again, a statement worthy of a WotW on it's own merits. This is quack pop psychology at it's worst.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Brad, you`re the defense attorney. Do these women who were injured and the families of the dead have a lawsuit, and if so, against whom?

[Attorney Bradford] COHEN: It`s definitely -- it`s something that they should consider. And it`s probably against L.A. Fitness for some sort of lack of security. He went there once before, and he was fully armed. I don`t know, in terms of what kind of security they have, if there is that kind of appropriate security that`s in place. But I`m sure, believe me, with civil attorneys around, there`s definitely going to be someone who`s going to be filing a civil lawsuit.

Translation: Can they sue? You're damn right! Let's start looking for deep pockets right now!

I thought my head was going to explode at this point. Are you kidding me? You're talking lawsuits? For WHAT?!?!? It's a gym, asshats! You don't have security at a gym! Nor should you! Memberships are expensive enough as it is! And the idea that the gym is responsible for a sociopath shooting up the place is absolute nonsense. This exchange alone is grounds for tort reform!

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know what the bottom line is, Jane? What are we going to do to prevent this in the future? You know, there needs -- we need to spend more money as a society on mental disease and defects. This is something very serious.

Translation: MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!

That's right. We're already blowing out unrepayable debt into the third and fourth generation of our grandchildren. Let's spend some more money on...what? What exactly are you going to do? Screen for sociopaths? Who will do it? The government? Oh, THAT'S not a recipe for persecuting political enemies of Der Staat or anything! Assclown!

SCHWARTZ: We need more -- the insurance companies also...

Translation: Make the insurance companies pay!

Not content with mere government spending, Mr. Schwartz wants to FORCE insurance companies to spend more money on...what? Again, the act of spending more money does not a solution make.

KURIANSKY: No question that in this -- in this whole time of health care...[crosstalk]...we need to pay more attention to mental health care here. And there`s another important issue that`s very psychological that has to do with bystanders. Because there have been real-life bystanders who stand by when people get murdered and don`t want to get involved. And now it`s turned to the Internet and the responsibility that people have to notice what people are blogging about. And who are they going to report to? That`s what we need to pay attention to now.

Translation: Anyone who suspected this act has to pay!

So...if someone read the rantings of this loser prior to him going on a rampage (which, it turns out, wouldn't have been possible, since he posted the entire "diary" just prior to the event), they are guilty, too? What is this, the USSR? We're supposed to rat out people based on rantings?

I've spent a lot of time around teenagers. They go off on rants where they say they're going to do this or going to do that. If you're not familiar with teenagers, you'd be alarmed. If you are familiar with teenagers, you'll shrug. Why? Because it's all bluster. There are exceptions to be sure, like the Columbine teenagers. And that begs the question: if you can't separate the bluster from real threats, and you're "required" to "report threats", how long will it be before every little childish threat becomes a crime?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jane, it does take an intervention. I have had plenty of cases where there have been psychopaths who have had this intervention.

This guy went 49 years without killing anyone. There needs to be an intervention; it does take a village sometimes. And I guarantee you the writing was on the wall. If you sent Tom Ruskin out there to that gym to do an investigation, I guarantee you in five minutes he would find people that would come out and say that the writing was on the wall in this particular case.

Translation: It takes a village. Sing Kum Ba Ya everyone.

No further comment necessary.

Megapoints to criminal profiler Pat Brown for this scathing comeback to an insipid Velez-Mitchell comment.

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: Well, I would agree with you Jane, if I believed that this was actually necessarily true.

But the part about getting help; again psychopaths do not seek help because they don`t think they need any because it`s everybody else`s fault. You cannot help them. They wont -- they will lie to their therapists and that won`t go anywhere.

What we need to do is work with children who are small. To teach them that they`re not entitled to everything that -- the selfishness that they`re being brought up with where they just get everything they want and think they can have everything.

No. You have to bring up children to realize that you have to earn things and that sometimes it takes time. You have to wait for things. And this guy apparently didn`t grow up with that, so he thinks that he should get what he wants and he`s is not willing to do the work.

In other words, he could probably get a lady in his life if he treated them nicely. If he stopped looking for a cheerleader type of 20-year-old instead of perhaps a nice 50-year-old librarian, a little overweight, who he was sweet to. He could have somebody in his life. But he has chosen not to do that.

Pat Brown, you've made a fan of me.

But Jane Velez-Mitchell? You're the Wiener of the Week.