June 29, 2008
Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers. They have fiercely resisted even minimal restrictions on sales and have simultaneously washed their hands of responsibility for this "collateral damage."
Possibly because it is the fault of criminals and shady dealers? Most guns that are used in crime are stolen or bought by a straw purchaser, there's no way to stop straw purchases unless you're planning on creating a police sta...oh, I see. Nah, we're not buying. Anyway, here's the half-baked scheme the LA Times columnists have cooked up,
We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as "performance-based regulation," we would deputize private actors -- the gun makers -- to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.
Essentially, they want the government to try and somehow force gun companies themselves to lower the murder rate, then I think they demand a unicorn.
I think I see the game plan here. They want to punish gun companies that see their guns used in crime more frequently, and we all know, common firearms (the ones the Nanny Staters swear they don't want to take away) are the ones used the most in crime.
When the inevitable penalties come down, the price of basic firearm companies like Remington, Mossberg, Ruger, Smith&Wesson and any other traditional firearms manufacturer skyrocket and the companies will suffer immensely. Fewer people would be able to buy firearms, particularly younger people interested in shooting sports or hunting. Makers of budget firearms would quickly fold as well. Criminals would then inevitably go to eeeevil assault weapons, and those manufacturers suffer, and lose new shooters to the skyrocketing costs.
This plan would ultimately leave any manufacturer for common folks destroyed. It would ultimately be done through the combination of federal penalties and making gun ownership such an expensive, miserable hassle it makes it prohibitive to new shooters and in the long term destroys American gun culture.
Further, they propose a cap and trade scheme, which would allow gun manufacturers to sell I guess what you could call chalk outline credits, which would have a similar effect as the penalties would. Again, the costs would go to the buyer, and costs would skyrocket, which would again keep younger people away from taking up shooting sports or hunting.
They reveal themselves here, this is all fascist gun control by other means,
How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition -- rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.
Translation: We can't impose fascist bans and regulation on the public, but we can force you gunmakers to do it for us!
This dance never ends.
reprint another story about my years living in moonbat central, which was first published here. So, with a few edits and without further ado, I present another 100% true Berkeley story:
Let us hearken back to a more innocent time. Namely, August of 1994. Those halcyon days of external modems which could be cut off by a phone call. That was when I left the SoCal roost of my parents' home and headed north to the Bay Area with my clothes, my CD collection, a newish computer, and a hot pot, to move into the dorms in Berkeley. My folks helped me to move into a newly renovated dorm room, and then I was anxious to see them out of town so I could begin experiencing college.
Now, the first week there, before classes start, is called "Welcome Week," and it's primarily meant to help the impressionable freshmen to acclimate to life in the dorm system. The residential staff tell the wet-behind-the-ears newbies about how the dining halls work, offer to take them on fun-filled excursions around the campus and the SF Bay area at large (avoiding Oakland, for the most part), and explain the rules for living in the dorms. The latter included stern lectures about how drugs and drinking would not be tolerated inside the dorms. Well, drinking would be, but only if you were 21 or older. And not many of us were.
Did that deter us? Of course not! The word was that one night, a guy named Alonzo was going to have a bash in his room with plenty of booze, and about forty or so kids showed up, myself included. I don't really know where Alonzo got all his liquor (the rumor was that his dad had provided it) but we got a nice party going. I was chatting up a good-looking girl when there was a knock at the door.
Now, since we were stupid kids, we hadn't figured that about forty people in a room that was supposed to accommodate two would draw the attention of the Resident Assistants (RAs), but it did. And one of them, Jeff, was at the door. Alonzo got everyone to hide their drinks, and when Jeff came in to shoot the shit, we thought everything was cool, since he didn't ask us if there was any alcohol in the room. Some of us (myself included) had even engaged Jeff in conversation. Which, having been drinking lightweights at the time, was a bad idea, in retrospect.
But Jeff left, and the drinks came out again, and the party continued. The good-looking girl moved on to talk to another dude, who later became one of my best friends, and I continued drinking. Although I was a little bitter about having the hottie distracted by some jerk, I was still having a good time.
That's when there was another knock on the door.
Alonzo went to the door again, looked through the peephole, and told everyone that Jeff had returned with another RA, Bill, who seemed less cool than Jeff. Everyone hid their booze again, and the RAs were let into the room.
Bill took charge, saying that he knew there was drinking going on in the room, and that the party would have to be broken up before he called the Fire Marshal, who would come down on us hard (because of occupancy laws) if we refused to disperse. Bill and Jeff took down the names of all the students who left the room, checking their student IDs.
Later, there were hearings about whether or not people were drinking alcohol at the party, and I learned a valuable lesson from those hearings. I'd always been told that "honesty is the best policy," but I found out that was a bunch of bullshit. You see, I was one of five people out of the huge group who admitted to drinking that night, and the rest got off scot-free. The five of us who did the right (stupid, in retrospect) thing were forced to put on a "Substance-free program," which ultimately consisted of renting a tape of "Bright Lights, Big City," showing it in the lounge, and telling the people who showed up (many of whom had sports bottles full of vodka) that drugs and alcohol were bad.
I'm sure you're wondering what the hell you've been reading this for, since it's a story about a bunch of eighteen-year-old idiots getting drunk in a dorm room. Well, like Paul Harvey's listeners, you're about to hear "the rest of the story." For, you see, I've tucked the true identity of Jeff below the fold...
However, I've never thought that I knew the Constitution better than the people who wrote it:
No, we don't suppose [repealing the 2nd Amendment]'s going to happen any time soon. But it should.You see, if only they had been clearer about the need for Chicago's city police to steal the handguns of every citizen, this could have all been avoided. But forget that, Chicago is the official home base of Hopenchange. Who are we to judge his Masterful Works? But let's continue reading this garbled crayon-scrawl of an op-ed:
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms."You see, the main problem with Scalia's majority opinion is that it spend too long talking abotu what the "right to bear arms" meant. You originalists and your silly explanations of historical truth. Don't you know that the Constitution is a living, breathing, hoping, changing document?
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
Also, what "new evidence" did Justice Stevens require? If you can't use the words our founding fathers wrote as evidence, what other evidence would have compelled him to think differently?
But, I think we are forgetting the most important point of all this. The Chicago gun ban has been wildly successful:
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.You see, we must keep our restrictive gun laws. Yes. They ones that don't work. Don't questions us. It's for The Childrentm.
The hits just keep on coming: Starting July 1, Kentucky will collect another 1.5 cents tax on each gallon of gasoline, adding a bit more to prices that have held at $4 or higher in Louisville for much of the past month.But I guess I shouldn't worry about it. Why?:
Kentucky's gas tax, which goes toward the state road fund, will increase to 21.1 cents, and the diesel tax will rise to 18.1 cents, according to Jill Midkiff, spokeswoman for the state Finance and Administration Cabinet.
Kentucky's gas taxes -- which will total 40.9 cents after July 1, including state and federal taxes and a fee to cover cleanup of underground fuel tanks -- remain relatively low compared with other states.Well, that makes me feel much better. I guess I really shouldn't start complaining until the gas taxes get up to California levels, eh?
But at least I can take some comfort in knowing that I'm not hurting caribou, polar bears, or any other retardimals live up there in there in ANWR.
June 28, 2008
(Via pw comments.)
No fried chicken. No fried catfish. No fried green tomatoes. No fried okra. No fried anything.
In promoting healthy eating habits, the Democratic guidelines say every meal should be nutritious and include "at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, purple/blue and white."
"It's the new patriotism," says Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the driving force behind the greening of the Democratic convention.
I get that the Democrats' "new patriotism" involves green and yellow, but where does purple fit in?
He may be proof that political wisdom can grow when not polluted by the mindless partisanship and seductive careerism that contaminates Capitol Hill.I think (know?) that all this talk about Bob Barr ruining the GOP's chances of retaining the White House are more wishful thinking than anything.
An anti-drug warrior in the Reagan Department of Justice as well as in Congress, Barr now supports medical marijuana rights and questions neo-Prohibition. The author of the Defense of Marriage Act while in the House, he now opposes the federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage and advocates states’ rights on the issue. A supporter of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act, Barr now publicly regrets that vote.
Perhaps most remarkable for a man made famous as one of the House managers in the Clinton impeachment, the anti-Iraq-war-Republican-turned-Libertarian recently gave this answer to MobLogic.tv interviewer Lindsay Campbell when she asked him to choose between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton: “Why you doin’ that to me?” he sighed. But he quickly answered, “I’d have to go with Bill Clinton. Bush has done such damage to freedom, liberty and privacy.” Wow.
As a libertarian Democrat (there are about six of us, I think), but also an Obamamaniac, I certainly appreciate all the support Barr can provide in helping to thwart a third Bush term.
One of the only things that has drawn anyone in the GOP to McCain has been his stance on the Iraq War and other national security issues. Barr is now running as Ron Paul with Less Overt Craziness, on an anti-war, anti-FISA, pro-drug legalization platform. Now, if he had chosen to frame his campaign around issues like the First Amendment, runaway spending, etc., he may have had more of a chance. I doubt that anyone who has a huge problem with the Iraq War was planning on voting for McCain anyway.
While conservatives are none too pleased with John McCain, I doubt many of them agree with Rep. Barr that President Bill Clinton has been a better president than George W. Bush. To Barr, how good one is as a president is directly proportional to how many terror attacks were ignored under their watch.
All of this, combined with the fact that Barr will have to run against his entire career as a Congressman, will keep Barr from being a Nader-like spoiler. After all, John Edwards had to do the same thing. How'd that work out?
June 27, 2008
Now, there's an easier way.
A leading Obamic scholar today condemned comic John Stewart, saying that the Daily Show host had “trampled on the dignity of Barack Obama” and warning that any further transgressions would be “dealt with in the most strenuous possible fashion.”
“It is not allowed to demean the dignity of the most high,” Joseph Palermo, one of the Obamic scholars at the Huffington Academy said. “He must be treated with the respect due an incarnation of greatness. It is never acceptable to mock Obama, may his election be guaranteed.”
Palermo said that Stewart’s comment that it was all right to laugh at the candidate was wrong, and a misreading of Obamic law. “It is never acceptable to laugh at Obama, may his election be guaranteed. There are forces of darkness, called Republicans, who stalk the land seeking to discredit the Ordained One. No believer must help them, and they must be shunned wherever found.”
“Stewart has helped these dark forces, and he must pay penance and seek forgiveness before he can be considered one of the faithful again," Palermo added. "I am glad that he is on television, because all supporters will know him, and how to find him, if Obamic justice must be administered.”
Anti tar sands rhetoric is possible violation of Hate Speech laws.
The Canadian Human Rights Council confirmed yesterday that it has opened an investigation against Democratic nominee Barack Obama regarding his “anti-Canadian” comments, specifically his recent denunciation of oil extracted from tar sands.
A spokesperson for the HRC said that “several Canadians have complained that Mr. Obama’s reckless disregard for NAFTA and his specific denigration of the Tar Sands have led to feelings of abandonment, disillusionment, and general hurt feelings. This is incompatible with what it means to be Canadian; namely, our belief that all discourse should be bland and neutral.”
Aides for Obama called the issue a distraction. “When he said Tar Sands, he didn’t realize that this phrase was a special code word for the Canadians. What he meant to say is that greater pollution from fossil fuels in the US will not be tolerated, but the continued purchasing of Canadian oil is indispensable for our economy, and Barack knows that. He has nothing but respect for our unassuming neighbors to the north.”
Some workers in the Tar Sands industry, though, rejected the apology. “After the HRC is done skinning Mark Steyn, I want my reparations, too!” insisted one local worker. “My feelings are bruised beyond repair, and every morning I wake up feeling like a climate criminal thanks to him. If he can afford to spend millions of dollars to pay off Hillary Clinton’s debts, then he can throw a few thousand my way. I know my rights!”
Norquist dropped by The Times' Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama's liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan."Grover goes on to say that he thinks (sigh) that Gov. Bobby Jindal would be a good choice for vice president.
Since Norquist isn't running for anything, he can get away with such remarks; we doubt McCain will be incorporating the line into his speeches anytime soon.
His work, as The Joker, will absolutely be nominated for an Oscar, and at this point in the year, Ledger is also a hands-down favorite to win it posthumously. Ledger offers perfect pitch, perfect tone, his Joker hits all the right notes. 'The Dark Knight' is among the better super-hero movies of all time, and Ledger is THE BEST villain in a super hero movie of all time.I hope this is an actual, honest assessment and not a way for Hollywood to use a fallen actor to pat themselves on the back, as we recently saw with the media after Tim Russert's death.
(Oh, and be sure to poke through the comments at the KTLA link. They include instant classics like "i think keith is playing dead to get the sympathy vote." Nice.)
I'm putting excerpts from the first review (from Rolling Stone) below the fold, as I have found that my definition for what a spoiler is differs from the views of others. So be warned, this may qualify as a minor spoiler.
*and by morning I, of course, mean 2pm. I'm second shift, what do you want from my life?
Others worry about safety. Red-light cameras are supposed to make us safer by discouraging people from running red lights. The trouble is that they work too well. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.
Well, the town in this video got rid of red lights, stop signs, yield signs, one-way signs, do-not-enter signs, crosswalks, and all other manifestations of proper traffic authority. And where is this magical land of disobedient scofflaws? Why, that famous hotbed of freewheeling rule-breakers ... Germany.
Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Reynolds:
The only question remaining is whether Heather MacNaughton, chief kangaroo of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, will convict Maclean's. The "jurisprudence" is there; Maclean's surely is "guilty" of "likely" "exposing" someone to "hatred or contempt". Everyone's guilty of that; so the only question is who gets charged.
Levant and Allah have this right, this isn't over, the various Human Rights Commissions of Canada are likely to lay low for a while and try and pick off lower profile people until they get to where they can take out bigger fish like Steyn, Levant, publications like Maclean's and all the Canadian conservative bloggers they're going after.
They're only declining to pursue these cases for now because they can't get away with it, politically speaking. I wonder if they may well take out some conservative bloggers still, they might think they can get away with it because they don't have the clout of a Levant, Steyn or Maclean's. Don't let them be right, Canada.
It is imperative we keep this type of blight on free speech in the Western world from spreading into the US any more than it has already.
Just in case you were wondering just how retarded school administrators are:
It's the case of the nonexistent ninja. Public schools in Barnegat were locked down briefly after someone reported seeing a ninja running through the woods behind an elementary school.
Turns out the ninja was actually a camp counselor dressed in black karate garb and carrying a plastic sword.
Idiots. Everyone should have known immediately that it wasn't a real ninja because he was spotted in the woods.
You can't see ninjas, duh!more...
You see, the other day, my brother and I were discussing the feminine pulchritude (i.e. big tits) of various Los Angeles area teevee news personalities, when he mentioned that the local NBC station had a weather gal on their early morning news show by the name of Elita Loresca who had to be seen to be believed.
Now, since I'm what you might call a Gentleman of Leisure (i.e. the kind of guy who's hung over a lot) I rarely, if ever, catch the early morning news. But in this age of wonders we have Google Images, which brings you the following likeness of Ms. Loresca, below the fold.
Oh, and before you click, there's a bit of a NSFW Content Warning. But you knew that.
61 queries taking 0.1405 seconds, 181 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.