Jul 292014
 

Why Hoboken is Throwing Away All of its Student Laptops

Why? Put simply… because buying terribly expensive distracting electronics for clumsy, absent-minded, flighty, malicious and devious adolescents is a *stupid* idea. Millions of dollars flushed, not only in direct expenses, but in lost opportunities (you put a laptop in a kids hands, what do you think he’s going to do with it in class? Classwork? Pfah!).

If you, as a school district, want all the kids to have laptops, there’s an effective way to get it done: issue a directive to the parents: “If you want your kid to graduate, make sure that he/she has a functioning laptop or netbook or Ipad or what ever that can run the programs listed on the next page.” That’s it. Thus if the kid breaks the laptop? Not the schools loss. If the kid uses it to download porn, or has outdated security software? Not the schools responsibility. If the kid forgets it, loses it, sells it for crack? Tough titty toenails.

“But what about the poor parents,” you ask? A few simple solutions:

1) Send an official to the petitioning poor families home to talk to them about options. If there is, say, a flat screen TV on the wall… why, right then and there, offer up a direct trade. Beer, smokes, bling: if they got ’em, they don’t need assistance getting a $300 computer for Junior.

2) Hold a bake sale or something.

3) Does the school have an athletic program? Boom. Right there. There’s the money you need to provide loans to “underprivileged” families to help ’em buy a laptop at the nearest pawn shop. If not by cutting back on athletic program funding, then by the simple act of charging $10 admission for everyone who wants to see Junior play basketball or football or whatever. Look askance at anyone who claims they need assistance getting a laptop yet is willing to pony up $10 to watch some of the worst sports in the world.

 Posted by at 6:33 pm
Jul 092014
 

At some point, “silly” turns into “sad” which turns into “tragic.”

British Film Institute tells filmmakers to tick new diversity targets or miss funding

In order to score funding from the BFI (honestly, I don’t know how important that is for the British film industry), it is proposed that new Britfilms must have two of the following three features:

at least one lead character must be “positively reflecting diversity”, with the story more likely to receive funding if it “explicitly and predominantly explores issues of identity relating to ethnicity or national origins, a specific focus on women, people with disabilities, sexual identity, age and people from a socially disadvantaged background”. … It will ask filmmakers to ensure that at least 30 per cent of supporting and non-speaking characters are also “diverse”.

Off-screen, at least two heads of department must be from diverse backgrounds, as well as a range of “key creatives” including the director, screenwriter, composer and cinematographer.

The third category requires companies to offer paid internships and jobs to “new entrants from diverse backgrounds” and to help them progress.

One wonders what exactly is meant by “diverse. Does this mean that a film about, say, King Henry the 8th  can get away with having an Irish character? or must it be a blind black lesbian single mother who has courageously struggled against domestic abuse and alcoholism?

On this same page there is a link to a piece about a new BBC series:

BBC goes for Game of Thrones audience with new Saxon vs Viking drama

Now how the hell are they going to shoehorn 30% “diverse” actors into a story about Scandinavian white people fighting Germanic white people in a world populated almost exclusively with white people? Or are they going to make a third of these dark-age warriors gay cowboys eating pudding?

assholeebf

‘Mocking accents should be a crime’ says linguist, Dr Baratta

I’ve no idea who this goober is. Likely a nobody, apart from being a professor of Something Or Other at Manchester U. But making speech a crime? How does this merit anything other than mockery and derision? Anybody know what exact accent he has, so that it can be mocked? Really, there’s only one reply to this sort of idiocy.

 Posted by at 5:56 pm
Jul 032014
 

For the past few years, a lot of people have gotten their knickers in a twist over the Supreme Court and others equating corporations with people. The recent Hobby Lobby decision, the Citizen United decision, Mitt Romney pointing out that corporations are people, etc. The thing is, though, that this isn’t some recent bizarre conclusion, but settled law. Law that was settled a century and a quarter ago via the Dictionary Act of 1871 which defined “person” in Federal Law:

dictionaryact

This wording can now be found in the US Federal Code:

1 U.S. Code § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

At this point, complaining “but corporations aren’t people” is pretty much exactly the same level of intellectual dumbth as “but evolution is just a theory.”

the-more-you-know

 Posted by at 3:01 pm
Jun 252014
 

From England, home of the National Health Services (NHS), a “universal health care” system often touted as what the US should strive for:

Patients waiting 2 WEEKS to see GP as doctors see up to 60 people a day

“GPs are seeing record numbers of patients, 40 million more annually than five years ago, the greatest rise in any NHS sector,”

Yowza. The problem with free health care is the same problem with free anything: people like free stuff, and will take it whether they really need it or not. The guy with a busted leg, the woman with the suspicious lump and the feller with the non-stop headache have to compete for the doctors time against the kid with the boo-boo and the dork with the sniffles. If there was a price tag on an office visit – say, a nominal £40 office visit co-pay payable at the time services are rendered – you will see a whole lot of people decide that maybe they should just take an aspirin. And realistically, that’s about all a lot of people really need.

Additionally: the flood of patients is:
1) Driving some doctors out due to overwork
2) Disincentivizing young folk from becoming docs in the first place
3) Jacking up the suicide rate among doctors.
 Posted by at 8:19 am
Jun 122014
 

The claim is made that the maker of the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” video that ticked off the Islamic world – and was incorrectly blamed for the jihadist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi – is not a Coptic Christian as has been long reported, but instead is a self-professed Muslim:

Filmmaker ‘Behind The Benghazi Attack’ Found To Be A CONFIRMED MUSLIM Agent Who Worked With US Government

Take it with a grain of salt. The site seems kinda… well, let’s go with “slanted,” and the evidence slim, especially with the claim that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula made the film in order to rile up the Muslim world in sort of a “false flag” operation to let the Obama regime make criticism of Islam a crime.

Can I see Obama *wanting* to pull a scheme like this? Maybe. But as the last five years have shown, the guy’s just not *competent* enough to get even this far.

 Posted by at 4:39 pm
Jun 112014
 

Babies pay for Detroit’s fall with mortality above Mexico

Infant mortality in Detroit (15 deaths per 1,000 live births) in 2012 was higher than in China (12), Mexico (14) and Thailand (11).

One of the more interesting lines was this:

Men in the city are “out of control. Most of them don’t have jobs, most of them couldn’t provide.

I believe a valid question is: in a place where things are so bad that infants are dropping dead at a high rate, if an adult doesn’t have a job and they can’t provide… why are they not starving to death?

 Posted by at 10:52 am
Jun 022014
 

Teen Unemployment in Major U.S. Cities Tops 50 Percent

Neat. Well, this will certainly help: by making low-end, no-skill jobs cost so much due to minimum wages and such, low-end, no-skill jobs are simply going away, replaced by automation and increased efficiency. And thus a lot of low-end, no-skill younguns will simply not be able to find a first job. And without a first job, they won’t find a *second* and better job.

And thus the Great Society Circle Of Life rolls on.

 Posted by at 9:45 pm
May 312014
 

No, really. You be the judge. Anybody would be better than the judge in this story:

Cancer patient: ‘If I’m found guilty, I’m a dead man’

Short form: a guy in Long Grove, Iowa, was arrested with 71 marijuana plants. Why did this nefarious villain have this much Evil Weed? Because he has cancer, and the oil he extracts from the plants is apparently all that’s keeping the cancer from eating him alive.

OK, if it’s not bad enough that the police are arresting people for simply having a *plant,* and if it’s not bad enough that they are arresting cancer patients who needs said plant in order to have any sort of quality of life, there’s this to consider:

a Scott County District judge has ruled he won’t allow Mackenzie to use his ailment as a defense.

“I’m not allowed to mention anything,” Mackenzie said Thursday, the day Judge Henry Latham’s ruling was filed. “I’m not allowed to give proof why I was using. Now, there is no fair trial.”

The patient/defendant makes a damned fine point here:

“If I’m to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the court doesn’t let me tell the truth, they’re making me a liar”

But hey, at least the cops didn’t use a grenade to blow a baby’s face off during the initial raid, so there’s that.

The defendant here looks to be dying. If he’s convicted, he’ll get three years, and he doesn’t expect to survive it. So… why not jump up (as much as he can jump) during testimony, show the jury the bleeding tumors, and explain as quickly as possible just what’s going on? What’s the worst that can be done to him? A contempt citation? Please. If he does that the judge will likely instruct the jury to ignore it. Someone should then blurt out to the jury the concept of “jury nullification.”

 Posted by at 2:26 pm