Sep 052010
 

This is *beyond* sick and wrong:

Toy guns will have to be licensed in Queensland under new firearms laws

ANY ITEM that looks like a gun will have to be licensed under several changes to the Weapons Act being considered by the Queensland State Government.

Even guns made out of materials as unlikely as soap or plastic may have to be kept under lock and key if they could “reasonably be taken to be a weapon”.  …

“We just want to know where they are.”

Unbefrakkinlievable.

 Posted by at 2:32 pm
Aug 262010
 

Gotta hand it to the gun-grabbers, this is actually fairly clever:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480b37fc2

Petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to Ban Lead Shot, Bullets, and Fishing Sinkers Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

It is of course akin to leaving “freedom of the press” intact but banning ink or paper.

Yes, there are non-lead options available for bullets and shot. But not being a reloader myself, I can’t claim to have ever actually heard of reloaders (who cast their own bullets) who reload with much of anything *but* lead.

I don’t know if this will get anywhere, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it does. If there’s one the the government – and that includes the EPA – loves, it’s to grow in scope, power and reach. And banning lead ammo would fill that need niceley: hundreds of millions of American citizens would be left with ammo that they’d get arrested for firing.

 Posted by at 10:09 am
Aug 252010
 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is well known for being stocked with leftist whackos, exactly the sort of judges that rightwing whackos scream about. Well, there’s something new to scream about: the 9th Circuit has determined that the police may track you at all times without a warrant.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

Awesome.

Now the questions is… if you discover a GPS tracking device on your car, what are you legally allowed to do with it? Obvious suggestions include:

1) Remove and destroy

2) Leave it alone, and drive only where you want the authorities to know you’re going

3) Remove and place in garbage

4) Remove and place on random civilian vehicle

5) Remove and place on long-haul freight truck

6) Remove and mail to Hong Kong

7) Remove and mail to cops

8 ) Remove and send to FBI via strip-o-gram

9) Remove and sell on ebay

10) Remove, disassemble and use as part of an autonomous aircraft guidance system. post videos to Youtube, be sure to thank authorities for the free donation of the electronics that made it all possible

11) Remove and place on police car (slightly risky)

12) Remove and attach to helium-filled weather balloon 

13) Remove and attach to sewer rat

14) Remove and “clone” so that there are, say, fifty of you running around

 Posted by at 9:30 pm
Aug 102010
 

Representatives and Senators should never be allowed to pass a bill they haven’t bothered to read. This should be obvious enough. But still they vote away for things they don’t understand, and in fact can’t be bothered to understand.

It has now gotten so bad that they vote for bills they haven’t even bothered to name.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2010/08/08/senate-passes-the-______act-of____-no-foolin/

Take a look for yourself. Down toward the bottom of this page in the Congressional Record, it says, “SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “_______Act of______”. (The Library of Congress’ Thomas reporting system picked that up as the “XXXXXXAct ofXXXX,” so that’s how it shows up on our site.)

Well, THAT’s the amendment they brought up and passed, so the new name of the bill is the “_______Act of______.”

image.jpg

 Posted by at 1:07 pm
Aug 052010
 

This is one of those stories where it appears that everybody involves needs to be slapped around.

Fact 1: Family names their kid “Adolf Hitler Campbell.” They have other kids, “JoyceLynn Aryan Nation” and “Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie.”

Fact 2: Clearly, the parents are douchebags.

Fact 3: Child protective services took the kids from the parents, and the courts have decided to not give them back.

Fact 4: The story does not give any reason for this action, other than the parents being douchebags and some vague mention of “domestic violence,” which is left undescribed.

… the hell?

If CPS can take kids from parents who are kinda dim racists, imagine the power the government will have with another 6 or so years of everybody and their brother decrying everyone else as a “racist.”

I *hope* there’s more to this story, but I’m just cynical enough to believe that the government thinks it’s just fine to take children away from people for dumbass reasons like this.

 Posted by at 7:16 pm
Jul 262010
 

http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

 EDIT: Another link (not sure why the first worked earlier but not now):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

H.R.5741 — Universal National Service Act (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 5741 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5741
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.—————

Guess who introduced this bit of Fasicsm? Yes, that’s right, that moral paragon of ethics… Charlie Rangel.

It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title….  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

Bite me, Chuck. I signed no such contract; therefore I’m under no such obligation.

 Posted by at 1:40 pm
Jul 262010
 

From the Daily Mail out of the UK:

Lyne Featherstone, new Liberal Democrat “equalities minister” said that women “must not be made to feel inadequate by stick-thin models staring out of advertising billboards and magazines.”

 Well, sure. That sounds good. Let’s face it, those overpaid, underfed bags of antlers are not only virtually impossible role models, they’re not (in my view) all that damned attractive, either. So, great! Don’t idolize the size zero models! Who, instead, should women see as their ideal, the figure they should aspire to emulate?

Yeah. You got it…

Christina Hendricks.

Good luck with that.

 Posted by at 1:50 am
Jul 252010
 

Medicine is a great thing. Western medical science is one of the truly amazing success stories of the human race, improving and extending lives that would otherwise have been short and miserable. But with these benefits come distinct problems that society has not made much of an effort to deal with. To wit: people are getting old.

It’s a fair point that (from a certain point of view) people today do not necessarily live much longer than they did centuries ago. Someone making it to 84 today is doing pretty good. And yet when Ben Franklin died in 1790, he was 84 years old, and hardly the oldest man on Earth. Thomas Jefferson made it to 83. John  Adams made it to 91. What we have managed to change does not seem to be the uppermost age a person can reach, but instead we’ve improved the chances of any random person making it to that maximum age bracket.

On the one hand, that’s a good thing. Who can argue against extended lifespans? On the other hand… well, it’s perhaps not such a good thing on the whole. If people were living to be hale and hearty up until their 90th brithdays, economically productive that whole time and drawing minimally from the common welfare, and then simply keel over peacefully, things would be just fine. But what’s actually happening is that people are living for decades past their productive years… and decades past their savings. To put it bluntly, they then become burdens on the rest of society.

Not so long ago, the medical problems of the elderly could not be handled by medical science. You got old, you died. It was just that simple, and people accepted it. Of course, there was also a time not that long ago when Granny’s body was put in a simple pine box, displayed for a day or so in the family home, then buried out back. Now, we bury the dead in hermetically sealed bronze time capsules complete with lace and pillows, out in community cemetaries. And it’s probably *illegal* to have the viewing of the body in the home. Might traumatize the kiddies, who we try to shield from even the concept of death lest their tiny little minds snap under the strain.

Now, there is no medical problem that cannot be extended via the application of terribly expensive medical technology. And the problem is… now that the technology exists, people seem to univerally think that they are owed the complete and unfettered use of that technology, and generally at the financial expense of others.

Britains National Health Service may well be the canary in the coal mine here. Britain has a lower birth rate compared to the US, and more extensive “universal health care.” The result is a graying population that is demanding more and more for longer and longer, being funded by a proportionally smaller and smaller workforce. A recent article on the subject says this:

With the baby boomers reaching retirement, one in five of the population will be over 65 by 2026. This means that over the next 20 years, there will be another 1.7 million citizens that need care, and that spending could soar to £26 billion.

Many people are obviously unhappy about the prospect of being landed with such a bill. They claim – often quite aggressively – that they have worked hard all their lives, they have saved and paid their taxes. Surely they can expect the state to provide for their old age?

The fact is that, no, they can’t.

In the United States, one of the last remaining remnants of FDR’s disastrous “New Deal” programs is Social Security. When it was passed in 1935, Social Security’s job for the elderly was basically to help keep them from *dying* of poverty, and only covered the primary worker in the family (the man, in other words, not the presumably unemployed wife). Today it is seen as a retirement plan. When it was passed, the age at which you could start drawing from it was 65… while the life expectancy for a man born in 1930 was estimated to be 58 years. Today the life expectancy is pushing 80 years. In other words… statistically most people wouldn’t draw from Social Security when it was originally passed; today people can expect to draw from it for a decade and a half.

And of course the birth rate in the US has also dropped substantially, with much of our population increase being due to immigration. As our economy continues to tank and America slips from first-world status, you can expect immigration to slack off noticably. But people will keep getting old, and will keep demanding to be taken care of.

The hell of it is, everyone who has worked honest jobs since FDR is getting screwed. If some miracle happened and Social Security was declared unConstitutional and ended tomorrow, this would be fantastic news for people younger than myself… an instant 15% raise. The non-existence of Social Security decades down the line would not bother them, as nobody really expects it to be there anyway. But it would be bad news for people older than myself… they spent their whole working lives with Uncle Sam’s hand in their wallet, drawing out 15% from every paycheck. If Social Security were to end, this would be simply money pissed away.

Of course, simple math shows that it would be best to end it now. Yes, the current oldsters would get robbed and screwed over. But that would be a one-time issue. If Social Security and similar programs continue to exist in perpetuity, their economic impact lasts forever. Simple math… screw over a finite and countable number of people now, or an uncountably large number of people for the foreseeable future. Basic ethics also demands the immediate end: just because Person B got robbed to pay Person A does not give Person B the right to rob Person C.

However it goes, there’s the problem that no government program can support a growing population of old folks in the way in which they want to be supported. The economics simply does not support it, as the ratio of recipient to taxpayer continues to grow. So, some form of health care rationing will have to be instituted. If you have X dollars, and ten people each want 0.5X dollars worth of care…. they can’t all get it. So, how to ration it?

1) Get government out of the health care business entirely. It is now no longer the governments job to ration a damn thing. Health care can now be purchased by the individual… or rationed by private charities and institutions. What, you think they’d do *worse* than government bureaucrats? As it is, you’ve got the government, and that’s pretty much it. Get governmetn out of the picutre and private charities will bloom. Now there will be a whole raft of organizatiosn to appeal to. Hell, the Catholic Church could start selling off their bling, and could make one hell of a positive impact.

2) A lifetime government expendature of, say, $1 million dollars per person, adjusted for inflation. If someone is a serious mess at a young age, they could easily blow through that million bucks in a hurry. At which point… it’s time to find some other option. Bake sales, mortgages, charities, whatever.

3) Standardize the *level* of care at “state of the art, 25 years ago.” Rather than the latest and greatest meds and scanners and surgeries and whatnot, if you go to the government for care, you get the equivalent of the latest and greatest that was on the market a quarter century ago. This puts them well past the patent expirations; generic versions of drugs should not be available. Instead of the machinery being advanced, expensive prototypes, it’ll be time tested and mass produced. If you’ve got your own money, go ahead and buy into the more advanced stuff. As with all good, new technologies, the rich get there first, and that’s just fine. You won;t see too many people driving Tesla Roadsters… but if enough rich folk decide to buy ’em, you’ll soon enough see mioddle class folk driving Tesla minivans based on the same – but developed – technology, and then sometime after that, perhaps the “Tesla Yugo” will come along for the poor folk. 

4) This’ll be popular: “You suck, you don’t get anything.” Use a series of standardized criteria to determine who is actually worthy. Spent time in prison for rape and murder, and now you’re old and decrepit? Screw you, there’s the gutter, go die in it. You spent a life of invention, productivity and advancing America/mankind via science, hard work, economic innovation, art, whatever and now you’re old and decrepit? Here, have a seat, we’ll be right with you. You spent a good life and are a great guy, but your body is a total wreck, your mind is essentially burned out, and all we can do is keep you a drooling vegetable for the next two or three decades? Here, watch this film of deer in green meadows while Beethoven’s Symphony #6 plays in the background.

 None of these may seem too thrilling. But what option do we have? Medical science will continue to advance, people will continue to live longer, and will continue to demand to retire at 65 and be taken care of. The birthrate will continue to slide, and the number of younger workers will decrease. Thus the ratio of unproductive to productive will increase, which means an increased burden on the productive. At some point it collapses. One good strike could bring down the whole system. A true war between the age groups could result… if some 25 year old worker was told that 95% of his paycheck is going to the government, and 80% of that to take care of old people… how long before he gets the idea “fewer old people means less expense… how do I go about making fewer old people?”

Time is not on our side here. Difficult choices must be made.

 Posted by at 2:07 pm
Jul 232010
 

It’s coming, and will be administered byt the IRS. Joy unbounded.

http://www.pgnh.org/obamacare_s_hidden_gun_control

Effective January 1, 2012, the national healthcare legislation passed by Congress contains tax provisions that will require gun dealers to report to the IRS purchases and sales of guns and any other goods valued over $600. IRS 1099 forms will have to be filed, reporting the sale/purchase. This reporting will be required for purchases from either individuals or corporations. The new IRS provisions apply to all goods and services.

Looks like it also means that if you, Regular Joe, decide to sell your $601 hunting rifle to your neighbor, you’ll need to fill out the IRS paperwork… or you’ll go to federal prison.

 Posted by at 11:00 pm
Jul 192010
 

This is pretty remarkable. Not that the story told happened, but that the government official admits so openly to blatant racism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/19/breitbart-hits-naacp-with-promised-video-of-racism/

Show this to all your friends/relatives/co-workers who are convinced that the Tea Partiers are the racist ones.

UPDATE:

Been lots of news on this story. To sum up, I’ll simply cut-and-paste from a response to an email about it…

> According to the NBC News report, the story in question actually occurred 20 years ago — when the speaker, Shirley Sherrod, was not yet employed by the Department of Agriculture — and was being used Sherrod as part of a larger tale of how she eventually overcame her racism.

Yup. Been following the story through the day. Imagine that… someone gets accused of racism, and it turns out that the story is incomplete/out of context. I wonder how many Tea Partiers empathize with that?

>She was nonetheless fired by the DOA, which preferred to put the fire of controversy the Brietbart article created.

Yeah, that’s the weird part. After the Obama administration went out of it’s damned way to let black racist criminals off the legal hook with the “New Black Panther” voter intimidation case, they went out of their damned way to throw this woman under the bus. My guess is that it’s in order to help create more “victims of the conservatives/Tea Party.”

The ones who really seem to be in a twist now are the NAACP, who have made a *lot* of blunders recently. They started with their politically motivated attack on Tea Partiers, based on charges of endemic racism that have long since been proven to be fraudulent, and now this. Weird.

The NAACP has added a video of the full speach to YouTube. Far better audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk

The story seen in the earlier edits starts at about 17 minutes. There’s an odd edit at about 21 minutes where something got chopped out. On the whole, Sherrod seems to come off fairly well out of the speech (NOTE: On *this* topic. She comes off like the stereotypical brain-damaged Leftist as she trots out the usual libtard talking point that the reason why Republicans are opposed to Obamacare is because they’re racist). You know who doesn’t come off well? The NAACP. At about 17:25, she says “… I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.” Audience reaction? Laughter and approval.

 The NAACP needs to look at its *own* racist membership before they start attacking other groups for having racist members.

UPDATE: She ain’t none too damned bright, or she is at least pathologically stuck on the “if they disagree, it’s because they’re racist” meme:  And on CNN, Sherrod said that people who had interpreted her comments to be racist were themselves racist.

 Posted by at 11:56 am