Pay attention.

These people get it.

For reasonable people who believe in equality and safety for all, it is easy to condemn Boissoin’s hurtful and inflammatory language. Furthermore, the temptation is strong to want to silence such an angry diatribe which might find an audience of people willing to join his war against equality.

While it is difficult to support Boissoin’s right to spew his misguided and vitriolic thoughts, support his right, we must.

If Boissoin was no longer able to share his views, then who might be next in also having their freedom of expression limited. Traditionally, the LGBT community’s freedom has been repressed by society and its laws.

Plus, it is far better that Boissoin expose his views than have them pushed underground. Under the glaring light of public scrutiny, his ideas will most likely wither and die.

The BCHRC should pay attention.

h/t Ezra Levant

(You know, I really don't know much aboutwhat Ezra thinks about a lot of things; I'm just not that familiar. But I agree completely with his opinion regarding so-called Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. There are courts for real grievances.

Commissions and tribunals are insults just by their existence; they are designed specifically to control people politically as opposed to control acts of aggression or fraud.)

What Mark Steyn and Macleans are putting up with in BC is both absurd and frightening; the Commissioners are acting like ideological thugs--but the Alberta Human Rights Commission order against Rev. Stephen Boisson is so dementedly juggernautish in it's bullying, the reasonable mind staggers.

As Mr. Levant (properly) puts it:

It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.

I'll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:

In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward...

That's insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.

Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.

So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints -- and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh -- and for his "suffering". Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but "as a result of his complaint". People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint -- as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who's going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?

There's more--and it's not pretty. Go Read. And pay attention (and, no--as it happens I don't agree with the good Rev one tiny bit...but that's not the point).

Wal-mart in Peace River Alberta

Check over at QandO for a neat article on Wal-Mart.

We have a Wal-Mart coming to Peace River (Alberta) really quick. I mean, it's already here, it just hasn't opened. I couldn't be more pleased. Middle of June.

I work in a small, family-owned business here in Town and there's some competetive crossover with stuff Wal-Mart carries. So: we're gonna have to work to keep customers happy, and that's great because it means that--besides making business more fun, more challenging--every other small retailer in town is gonna have to up it's game, too. The best way to do that is to treat customers better than Wal-Mart does...and that's not easy. Wal-Mart is really good at what they do.

Customers have *all* the power in Wal-Mart territory.

That's a good thing (fun link).

Hmmmm....

If voting doesn't work to lower taxes--and it never will: "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else". Bastiat/1850--there's always this:

Fuel protests herald grim times for European green policy

After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England yesterday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe's ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.

While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along.

Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper launches a European tour today to persuade leaders that Canada's greenhouse-gas policies are acceptable, he may find the gaps between their views have narrowed, as formerly ecologically assertive leaders react to rising voter backlash against green policies.

The guy who wrote the headline doesn't get it.

These aren't fuel protests; these are tax protests.

The protesters quite sensibly aren't targeting the private companies. They're targeting the government. One can only hope this really means more folks are finally catching on.

--By the way, when you think of "Big Oil" you might have the wrong folks in mind anyways.

As The Economist points out:

...the national oil companies (NOCs) [are] owned or controlled by the governments of oil-rich countries, which manage over 90% of the world's oil, depending on how you count. Of the 20 biggest oil firms, in terms of reserves of oil and gas, 16 are NOCs. Saudi Aramco, the biggest, has more than ten times the reserves that Exxon does.

Check this Federation of American Scientists publication, the 2007 report to Congress titled: The Role of National Oil Companies in the International Oil Market (PDF--and, by the way, Foxit Reader, which is free and scum/malware free, works better and faster than Adobe Reader IMNSHO).

From the report:

Every firm in the top ten reserve holders, with the exception of Lukoil, in both 2006 and 2000 was state owned. Among the major international oil companies, Exxon Mobil is ranked fourteenth, BP seventeenth, Chevron nineteenth, Conoco Phillips, twenty-third, and Shell is ranked twenty-fifth in 2006. These five firms hold only 3.8% of world liquid reserves, and their major holdings are in the United States and Canada.

In contrast, the top ten firms listed in Table2 hold 80.6%of the total world liquid reserves. The top ten companies in 2006 in Table 2 have an average reserve to production ratio of 78 years, with INOC, the Iraqi National OilCompany, the highest at 173 years and Lukoil, a privately held Russian company,the lowest at 24 years.

H/T SDA

Please, someone tell me...

What are the good and honourable reasons leftists/socialists would be against secret ballots anytime?

Secret Ballots May End in [American] Union Elections If Obama Becomes President.

...[U]p until now, a worker could placate union supporters and sign a statement saying that he wanted a union and then vote against the union when he was protected by the secrecy of the voting booth.

While the Bush administration promised to veto the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act,” Obama has made his feelings about the legislation very clear. Last year, Obama promised, “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of 'if'; it’s a matter of 'when.' We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”

I think the reason is that union activists/supporters want their intimidation targets more easily identified, but if anyone has a better, non-thuggish reason, I'd love to hear it.

After all, maybe I just don't understand.

Rules are not meant to *replace* thinking...

Grapevine student with top grades won't be valedictorian (Dallas News)

Anjali Datta's GPA of 5.898 may be the highest in the Grapevine High School history, but she can't be valedictorian and get a one-year scholarship from the state because she graduated in three years instead of the usual four.

Rules are not meant to *replace* thinking. Or honour.

That's something this shining light (Shadle Park (Spokane) High School's Andrea Nelson) understood at the 3,200-meter Washington state championship race.

The awards ceremony took place, then Nelson got off the awards stand, walked over to Cochran, removed the first-place medal from around her neck and draped it over Cochran's.

"It's your medal," Nelson said to her, the Tri-City Herald reported. "You're the state champion."

Later, said Nelson: "She totally deserves it. She crushed everybody."

There are *no* principles involved.

from CNN: Sources: Dems could meet Florida, Michigan half way

Clinton and her supporters have been pressing for a compromise that seats as many delegates from the two states as possible. Clinton's Web site encourages people to write to the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

"There is one number that we are going to be satisfied with, and that is 2.3 million people having their votes counted," Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy said. About 600,000 people voted in Michigan and about 1.7 million in Florida.

Understand this: if Clinton thought she'd lose in those states, she would be fighting every bit as hard to ensure those 2.3 million people wouldn't get their votes counted.

Principled bahaviour isn't her strong suit.

Not that I have a dog in this race anyways; Clinton, Obama or McCain...jeezuz, you poor Americans. That's your top 3 for President???

There's always Toronto...

...and the mayor is an idiot.

Miller aims to ban handguns, shut ranges

Mr. Miller has pushed for a national handgun ban and for tighter controls at the U. S. border, and said yesterday he made no apologies about banning sport shooting [in Toronto]. He pointed to the shooting death of bystander John O'Keefe on Yonge Street this year by a legally registered handgun.

"After John O'Keefe's tragic killing, I don't think there's any defence for sport shooters any more," he said. "It's a hobby that creates danger to others.… Guns are stolen routinely from so-called legal owners."

"Do we as a society value safety or do we value a hobby that creates danger? And nobody can deny that that hobby directly results in people being shot to death on the streets of Toronto."

Does this reasoning make sense?

Well, try substituting automobiles for guns, and stolen or street racing car accidents for shooting deaths. If it makes sense for the one, it oughtta make sense for the other.

Let's ban cars and motorcycles while we're at it, then.

Miller may love his children, wife and his dogs--but he's still a shallow-thinking twit. I'm sure the criminals will pay a lot of attention to the ban. Don't they always?

H/T SDA

Leading Edge Nanny Statism...

I wrote my last post about Zero Tolerance, and Mike asked me:

Honestly Ron, where do you find this stuff...it would be funny if it weren't so common.

OC noted:

"This is the stuff of life. Greasy-pated, microphallic bureacrats, strutting around trying to impose their tiny, little wills."

Yup, and Britain's Daily Mail is one prolific source of examples. After all, Britain is leading edge these days when it comes to nanny-statism.

Like this one: Health and safety zealots tell youngster her 2ft paddling pool needs a lifeguard

For nearly a quarter of a century, Lourdes Maxwell has celebrated the arrival of summer by putting a paddling pool in the garden. This year, however, her two grandchildren and the children of her neighbours may have to find another way to cool off in the heat.

Miss Maxwell's local council has decided that the pool - which is only 2ft deep - needs a lifeguard.

The 47-year-old divorced mother of three has also been told she must have insurance before she can inflate the toy outside her house in Portsmouth.

The health and safety edict came after she wrote to the city council asking for permission to put a bigger pool in the communal garden outside her home.

Not only was she told it was too dangerous, but the council told her to empty the existing pool.

After her MP intervened [emphasis mine], the local authority softened its stance, saying Miss Maxwell could have a pool if she paid for insurance and ensured supervisors were on constant watch...Miss Maxwell, who is a full-time carer to her son Aiden, said yesterday: "It is absolutely pathetic. I have had a paddling pool outside the front of my flat every summer for 24 years, ever since Aiden turned one year old.

"Neighbours' children would come and enjoy the pool and I would give them ice lollies. It was always a very social occasion."

She added: "Now suddenly I'm not allowed.

"I asked around for insurance and they just laughed at me. No one offers insurance for paddling pools.

"I'm always there to supervise but they're trying to tell me I need lifeguards for a kiddies' pool as well - it's crazy."

Nigel Selley, Portsmouth Council's neighbourhood manager, defended the ruling yesterday.

He said: "We did not have sufficient assurances that the risks associated with providing such a facility would be well-managed.

"We have since spoken to Ms Maxwell and she is aware of our concerns for child safety and the risks associated with drowning."

Oh yeah, she's certainly aware of your concerns, Nigel.

Zero Tolerance means "Zero Thinking"...

Teenager, 16, fined for littering ... after letting balloon go at charity event

Newcastle Council said it had a zero-tolerance approach to littering.

Stephen Savage, director of regulatory services and public protection, said:

"We believe pursuing action against offences like this sends out an uncompromising message that litter dropping in the city will not be tolerated."

Yeah? Well, understand this, Mr. Director of Regulatory Services and Public Protection:

I *will* protect myself from *you*.

Fresh from...

...the Hugo Chavez School of Economics, comes Maxine Waters (D-umbass, California) with this remarkably honest (albeit totally inept) bit of threatening at the recent United States Congressional Hearings on oil prices.



Well, it's nice to see that she's honest enough to flat out state that "liberal" and "government take over" are pretty much synonymous, while still progressive-ly dishonest enough to want to backtrack big-time when she forgets herself and trots out the very accurate, but totally useless for propaganda, "S-word".

S'okay, Maxine. We absolutely understand.

h/t Two-Four

Oh gimme a break...

California mulls steep tax on adult entertainment

The last time I remember this ridiculousness being floated (in 2005) it was:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, characteriz[ing] her bill introduced last week as a way to make the Internet a "safer place" for children. The bill would impose a 25 percent tax on the revenue of most adult-themed Web sites.

Yeah right.

It'll make the Internet a more profitable place for cash-sucking bureaucrats and professional moralists, and a lot less safe for anyone else with a wallet is what it'll do.

Note that *all* the sponsors of that 2005 legislation were Democrats, not fundie right-wingers.

Other Senate sponsors of the legislation--all Democrats--include Thomas Carper of Delaware, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. (CNET)

Anyways, this time it's Democrats again, in California (Yahoo News)--and the same magical 25% target.

California. Well, yeah...bank robbers rob banks 'cause that's where the money is. Even if Willie Sutton didn't exactly say so.

And, what???...do politicians think that 25% sounds enough like stealing a measly quarter or something?

Anyways, I LUVVED this quote from the ABC article on the subject of California's "efforts".:

College students who were lobbying at the Capitol Monday to push for fewer education cuts want any way to boost state coffers, even if the money came from a questionable source.

"When you're going for a greater cause, it doesn't matter where you get the funds, as long as it's a legal source of funding and it's going to improve the future and the economy," says college student Bridgette Dussan.

Ah, so all you gotta do is write law that makes it legal, *then* take it.

Because she "think[s] it's going for greater cause" is what makes it all right.

Yeah, I love modern educations.

In the meantime, Assemblyman Charles Calderon (Democrat dontcha know...) claims he's doing it (...sniffle...choke......) for the poor porn workers, and the caring folks who have to, you know, help them pick up the pieces:

"there is something wrong with the porn industry. The workers don't usually have a long career and California taxpayers end up footing the bill at a time when the state is broke".

"When they come out, they come out with no skills. They come out unemployed. Many come out addicted. If they go on unemployment or on welfare or Medi-Cal, that's a cost to the state."

Oh, Chuck, you're *so generous*...with someone else's money.

Angry Studies Departments...

Bumped into the phrase "Angry Studies departments" at Small Dead Animals, in a post by Vitruvius.

I'd never encountered it before, but it evidently stems back to a post by someone named Jim, I gather relating to the old Duke affair..

Anyways...what a perfectly appropriate description.

Find of the Century: Wisdom.

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

9 An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet.10 An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

The lolcat Bible Translation Project.

Here's a mixed-up story...

...Christian group appeals human rights violation CTV/CP

TORONTO -- A provincially funded Christian group is appealing part of a tribunal ruling that found it violated the rights of a worker who had to quit after revealing she was gay.

Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal ordered Kitchener-based Christian Horizons to compensate Connie Heintz and to end a code-of-conduct agreement for its 2,500 employees.

The contract, which all staff must sign, forbids workers from cheating on their spouses, having pre-marital sex or homosexual relationships, using pornography, and "endorsing" alcohol or tobacco.

The group says it will no longer require employees to sign the agreement, but it will be appealing the remainder of the tribunal's order.

The evangelical organization is funded almost entirely by the province and operates more than 180 residential homes in Ontario for people with developmental disabilities.

Just exactly *how* did the Christian organization violate the rights of the worker involved? After all, it was the worker who actually signed and then broke the contract.

So, lets sort out this *some* of the right and wrong in this story:

1) a Christian group ought to be able to demand its employees uphold what it sees as "christian" standards. That's a no-brainer; after all, people can freely choose to work for the organization, or not. I guess it's also perfectly OK if they decide they don't want employees to sign such a contract, too--but they equally ought not to be forced into that decision.

2) The government ought not to fund religious organizations, for any reason. That's a no brainer, too; religious people can fund religious organizations if they want them enough. In the same vein, why should (for example) atheists be forced through taxation to support religious organizations? Why should, say, gays be forced to support organizations that don't like them (and wouldn't choose to hire them)?

3) Not that The State ought to be in the charity business in the first place, but it still remains that if I hire someone to do something, I accept their standards or I don't hire them in the first place. That's a no-brainer, too. Why was the government hiring an agency whose ethical (as in hiring) standards were at odds with its own standards?

4) Any agency, religious or otherwise, equally, ought to accept the standards of its employer, or it ought not to work for them. The religious organization in question knew full well it was accepting a secular task, on behalf of a nominally secular government--and it knew the sort of HR practices that are part of that package. The religious organization was fully free to try to help disabled people on its own terms without being hired by the government, without accepting the State's payments.

5) The religious organization had an employment contract that an employee freely signed. The employee then broke the terms of the contract. Instead of faulting the employee for breaking the contract, the so-called "Human Rights Tribunal" of Ontario instead ruled that the organization owed the contract-breaking employee some compensation.

6) Why would a gay person choose to work for a homophobic employer...and lie to do it?

So what we have is a lovely mish-mash of unprincipled behaviour on pretty much everyone's part. And the result?

The result is that now religious organizations don't even have the right to insist that their employees meet their moral standards.

In other words, the result is stupid.

Sad. Just sad.

Rich Nikoley over at Honestylog.com also writes (well) about this. I've got something to say, too, because this is just sad.

The so-called DC Madam (actually the human being, Ms.Deborah Jeane Palfrey, an honest and discreet business woman) killed herself.

Here's why:

I cannot live the next 6 to 8 years behind bars for what you and I have both come to regard as this 'modern-day lynching' only to come out of prison in my late 50s a broken, penniless and very much alone woman

Who did she hurt? No one. Who did she betray? No one. Who did she steal from? No one.

Evidently there must are...people...(I guess that term still applies)..that think--that must think--somehow her death was necessary for "the common good".

Read what she wrote.

There are so many laws that cause this kind of real damage, all in the name of some hideously abstract "common good". Please stop putting up with them.

1000% classy.

Opponents carry injured hitter around the bases to ensure her first-ever home run

Central Washington players help a Western Oregon rival, hurt rounding the bases, to touch 'em all.

I think I have something in my eye...

This *is* curious...

According to Jonathan Kay at the National Post, Denis Lemelin, the National President of CUPW (Canadian Union of Postal Workers) responded to Mr Kay's query about CUPW's boycott of Israeli made products this way:

Re: Jonathan Kay asks: Now that CUPW is boycotting Israel, will Canada Post deliver mail to the Israeli embassy? April 28.

[small portion edited]...Unlike the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinian mail, CUPW has no plans to block mail to and from Israel as of yet. [editing and emphasis mine]

The curious part:

Is the "as of yet" part just sloppy (as in: heat of the moment) writing, a veiled threat to refuse to deliver such mail in the future, or (maybe??? I would hope not) an indication that blocking mail for partisan political reasons has been a CUPW tactic in the past?

You can read what Mr. Kay posts as Mr. Lemelin's full response at the link given above, but--as does Mr. Kay--I think that's a very curious thing for Mr. Lemelin to write.

I wasn't aware that CUPW had the authority to determine which mail will or won't get delivered. Actually, I wasn't aware that CUPW would even imagine they had that authority. My reading of the Canada Post Corporation Act would seem to indicate that any such authority rests with the Canada Post Corporation itself, in other words: with management (or, obviously, the Federal Government), not with the Union.

My reading/understanding of the Canada Post Corporation Act, PART II: GENERAL POSTAL MATTERS/Offences and Punishment:

Abandonment of mail

49. Every person commits an offence who unlawfully and knowingly abandons, misdirects, obstructs, delays or detains the progress of any mail or mail conveyance.

[and]

Delay of mail

50. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, refuses to permit or delays permitting any mail or mail conveyance to pass on or use any road, ferry or other route or mode of transport access to which is under his control.

would seem to indicate that doing so would be a direct violation of the Act.

(For some possibly relevant insight into how Canada Post itself generally views a refusal to deliver mail, see this 2006 article at LibCom.Org regarding a past decision by a postal worker who refused to deliver some mail.)

Me (as Grammar Nazi) and the new Sonata ad...

...A well dressed guy in a tux (obviously a sort of Redford/Indecent Proposal clone) says to the fella standing by the Sonata: "I'll give you a million dollars to spend one night with it."

Evidently making a judgement on what a night with the Sonata would be like, the fella says "No."

Or is that not what the ad intended ;-)

If you can't build it...

...steal it.

Chavez is at it again still.

"If they don't want to reach an agreement with us, I'll sign an expropriation decree. I'll take immediate control."

Well, you wanted to know...

...if Obama was smart enough to be a decent President.

Jury's in. Nope. He's the same old clueless when it comes to economics.

And this proves it.

"I don't want somebody to save essentially 25 bucks -- that's what the savings would yield for the average driver -- and now they're potentially driving over an unsafe bridge," he said.

It's not *his* 25 bucks in the first place. He's the same old same old when it comes to understanding that, too.

Read the link for more stoopid details.

Lord Lloyd-Webber:

"In dress rehearsals, she was flawless."

Class.

I'm impressed.

The almost automatic leap of stupidity:

I'm doing my daily stroll at FARK and I run into a post about prostitution busts (actually "john" busts, it seems) in Memphis.

Then it's over to the comments, where I find a unit named fiegel07 getting perilously close to common sense:

I've never really understood why prostitution is illegal. If people want to pay to have sex, then who are we to stop them? Legalize it...

Now, I'm sure feige107 means well, but, yup, he follows immediately with the ever-so-common leap of stupidity:

...and tax the transactions.

We all see it everyday whenever the subject of so-called "legalising" some so-called sin or other comes up: "legalize it, tax it".

All I've got to say is that a "sin tax" is nothing more and nothing better than a bribe paid to governments for permission to do what isn't their business anyway; it's just protection money.

It's Good News Week...

Blind homeowner captures intruder(IndyStar.com)

A blind homeowner used the wrestling skills he learned more than 30 years ago to overpower an intruder and hold the man at knifepoint until police arrived this morning.

“I just kind of panicked and just kind of went crazy after that,” Allan Kieta said. “I’ve wrestled all my life. My dad’s a Marine; he taught me some stuff. You’re thinking in your head all this survival stuff.”

Fun read.

"Cowardice does not make you safe. It makes you a safe target.
D.Amon at Samizdata.

Global Warming: What Common Sense Sounds like...

OSU climatologist [George Taylor] vacates hot seat (Lake Oswego Review)

You didn't think they'd stop at cigarettes, didja?

Punish all drinkers for crimes of drunks, say health chiefs.

Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: 'Third-party damage from alcohol is much greater – in terms of violence and the damage to unborn children, the first sexual experience and the percentage of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.'

Is it painfully obvious to you yet that these bozos started with cigarettes knowing that what they really wanted wouldn't fly until the principles had been put in place by going after smokers?

They won't stop with booze either.

I read something like this...

...Public spaces sold to the highest bidder...and I don't know where to even start.

So how about:

Yeah, it was ever so much more pastoral when governments just stole enough money to build the things, wasn't it.

And spare me the twaddle about mom and pop stores...obviously a whole bunch of folks have decided not to keep shopping at 'em. Grow up. Life's like that.

H/T to LFR for a great, fun to read, post.

Let Freedom Reign

"Thoughts on Gun Control" by Dinosaur. Read it (police officer comments on the gun registry.)
Most are older comments, but still relevant, although it's is good to remember that it ain't properly anybody's business who owns a gun in the first place--any more than it's proper to know who owns a kitchen knife.

Wal-Mart has every right to store video...

...and record purchases of firearms at its locations (link to Yahoo News).

Wal-mart is a private company, and potential gun-owners are free to shop elsewhere, they are free to not shop at Wal-Mart if they choose.

Now, the NRA (with whom I generally have little quarrel) says:"

I view it as a public relations stunt that stigmatizes law-abiding firearms purchasers exercising their freedom under the Constitution," said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.

Actually, I doubt that's what it is. A person's "freedom under the Costitution" doesn't include "the right to purchase arms under personally-desired conditions from any seller".

Who knows, there are probably lots of willing capitalists available to fill the niche market Wal-Mart has abandoned and I sincerely--and I mean this--wish them very, very well. And, actually, I trust Wal-Mart way more than the government with the information, anyways.

Just so you know where I'm coming from:

• market solutions with no politicians involved: always the best policy
• I absolutely support private gun ownership,
• I am opposed to government registries, and
• criminals who use guns oughtta pay a very high price.

A co-founder of Greenpeace...

...supports nuclear energy.

From Newsweek:

Reporter:

What about the issue of nuclear waste?

Patrick Moore:

As is now planned, I'd establish a recycling industry for nuclear fuel, which reduces the amount of waste to less than 10 percent of what it would be without recycling.

How many Americans know that 50 percent of the nuclear energy being produced in the U.S. is now coming from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads?

The environmental movement is going on about how terrible it will be if someone does something destructive with these materials. Well, actually the opposite is occurring: all over the world, people are using former nuclear-weapons material for peaceful purposes—swords into plowshares. This constant propaganda about the cost of nuclear energy—that's just activists looking for the right buttons to push, and one of the key buttons to push is to make consumers afraid that their electricity prices will go up if nuclear energy is built. In fact, it's natural gas that is causing [energy] prices to go up. [emphasis mine--RG]

Another case of expediency over principles...

Toronto Police Chief Calls For Forced DNA Samples before a conviction (Citynews.ca).

The problem, Blair says, is the delay between arrest and trial. He said it can take up to three years to secure a conviction, in which time the accused could commit more crimes.

But didn't I read somewhere about a presumption of innocence?

And isn't there something in our wimpy Charter of Rights and Freedoms about the right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence.

My thinking is that The Police Chief's brainstorm would run counter to Section 13 of the Charter as well if the DNA evidence was used to support another case.

There is nothing right about a law that prevents...

...this man from being my neighbour.

The couple talked about the decision for him to return to Mexico in the office of their immigration attorney, Mira Mdivani, shortly before Marquez left last month.

"You don't feel safe in the streets. You don't feel safe anywhere because of a lot of things going on right now," he said. "The police pull you over for no reason."

"I want to be free, to go wherever I want to go and not be scared. In the long run, it will be worth it. We can have a better life and we won't be scared anymore," Marquez said.

When he was in the United States, he worked at construction jobs, doing everything from picking up trash to cleaning sewers and provided about two-thirds of the household income.

Sure, deport people right back home if they cause a problem, and be quick about it. But this guy didn't "cause a problem".

I'm not so afraid of bad people that I think it's better this guy be forced back to slum; that solution just increases the number of the bad creeps' victims.

In the meantime, because it's just false advertising, might as well take the Statue of Liberty down.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Should you trust governments?

From The Times Online: Ten conspiracy theories more ridiculous than the Diana "plot".

Here's one:

2. In 1959, when Francois Mitterrand was already a famous politician, he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt outside the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris. His car was riddled with bullets but he leapt to safety.

When the gunman and the organiser of the attempt were arrested they were able to prove that the whole thing was a fake organised by Mitterrand to win favourable headlines and implicate General de Gaulle. Charges against the "assassins" were dropped. Mitterrand was later elected President of France.

That one is true. Guess about the other nine.

I trust dollars more than votes. The guys wanting dollars but not votes don't force me to buy their stuff; I'm free to do without any of it.

PROOF the west won the cold war.

HERE

Another goal is: do the same with radical Islam.

And the other religions.

Please understand...

...the reason I'm putting this here is absolutely *not* because I think people should vote. I'm no democrat.

I'm putting it here so you'll understand at least a few of the reasons I don't accept that any governmental body has any right to control me just because (or even though) they have been elected.

Oh. Even when smart people vote, it doesn't get any better, or any more legitimate.

This for "left" anarchists who hate right-wingers...

There might be something about the Right that you aren't familiar with, and that's precisely the anti-statism you search for, work for, as an anarchist.

But these days, "the Right" is generally applied to corporate-statist conservatives, as if no other tradition existed.

But an anti-statist Right did exist. And still does to a degree larger than most present day leftists expect, and to a much larger degree than most leftists pundits acknowledge, even as they claim historical competence.

That's the preamble.

For you left anarchists, then, who are not aware of the Right's still present anti-statist cohort, it might help to see what the conflict between big-government, interventionist rightists and right-anarchists looks like in real life. Here's an example found at lowercase liberty, the blog of BK Markus:

a page containing two conflicting obituaries for Murray Rothbard, one by the National Review's William Buckley, and a response by Lou Rockwell.

Read the obits.

Oooooh, is this the wooden stake?

Oooooh, is this the much wished for "wooden stake" in Hillary's candidacy?

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

H/T Two-Four.

(Note re Two-Four: I've been reading Billy Beck's blog for years--and his Usenet posts for more than a decade. I know of no other writer I would give as wide an endorsement. Billy's blog is absolutely, for sure, on my daily read list. I'd fight to defend him, for my benefit.)

Blazing Cat Fur

Right off the bat: I haven't read everything on Blazing Cat Fur, so this isn't a "no qualifications" endorsement of all that you will find there, but it *is* a ringing endorsement of at least one particular post: You have a Social Condition courtesy the HRDC.

H/T Small Dead Animals (again: not an unqualified endorsement, but certainly credit where credit is due).

Note: I was kinda hoping against hope that the BCF post was an elaborate April Fools joke...nope.

Yeah, yeah...

...rules and all that (BBC).

A soldier from the Commonwealth who served more than four years in the British Army, including two tours in Iraq, has been told he can't become a British citizen because he applied on the wrong date.

Rogers Jean-Baptiste was born in St Lucia. He made his application this January, but was told by the Home Office that because on the same date five years earlier he was outside the UK he didn't qualify.

At that time he was actually serving on a British base in Germany.

And, still, folks argue that "bureaucrats and politicians" is the way to go.

Mind-boggling.

Another case of...

gender profiling?

Suspicious conversations with children cause arrest of Folsom man (Loomis Telegraph) h/t Fark:

"It's an odd charge," said sheriff's Sgt. Jim Byers, noting the statute intends chiefly to protect school-grounds neighborhoods. "The family was at the Folsom Borders Books story-telling time, where he (spoke to one of the children), and for lack of a better term, he creeped the mom out. Then, a few days later at the El Dorado Hills Library story time, she saw him again striking up conversation with her children. And then, he does it again. We felt it justified a criminal complaint, she signed it and he was arrested."

And if some woman had spoken a couple of times to her kids at a bookstore, she'da still called the police?

Somehow I just don't think so.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

This link to an earlier post of mine is relevant.

Yeah, well, it occurred to *some* people, Alan.

From: Scrutinizing the human rights machine (National Post)

"Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association...[and] one of the main agitators for the establishment of [the Canadian Human Rights Commission]" stated:

"It just never occurred to anybody that this instrument we were struggling to create would ever be used against the expression of opinion."

Are you freaking serious?????

Exactly what could the Commission ever have handled that wasn't already illegal under the criminal code, except matters of opinion?

They have every good reason to be afraid...

March 24/2008: Tiny Bhutan Will Vote Today to Trade Absolute Rule for Democracy (Agence France-Presse).

...[F]ather and son have traveled the country to explain to its 670,000 people why the nation should embrace democracy.

“The former king said, ‘Today you have a good king, but what if you have a bad king tomorrow?’ ” said Kinley Dorji, managing director of Kuensel, the national newspaper.

He's right, but the solution he's proposing comes with its own huge hazards.

Best wishes, though.

Oh, is *this* where you're confused:

"The government could really do something. That's in the interest of the country — stop him, just stop him," said Hassan Iaeti, who traveled hours from the far south of the country to attend.

He said he believed Wilders is abusing the right of freedom of speech, which he said has limits.

"You can criticize Muslims themselves, but not their religion and not our prophet — that's our belief." (from Dutch protest against Islam critic's Koran film (AP)

No. You've got it wrong.

You can criticize me or my beliefs all you want. You just don't get to touch me, threaten me or shut me up; that's where you cross the line. Understand?

In the meantime, your religion *doesn't*--and your Prophet *don't*--get a "no criticism allowed" status. Period.

And, what??? If the government doesn't stop him for you, you will? That does seem to be your message.

Nice. You just want the government to do your thugwork for you.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." H.L. Mencken.

Canadian housing crash?

Is Canada heading for a housing crash (Canwest News Service) ?

Well, maybe not for the exactly same reasons or to the same degree because Canadian lending practices are somewhat different, but probably anyways. Simply put, a lot of Canadians depend on a healthy American economy for their jobs. As well, demographics alone will likely account for devaluation of stand-alone houses in Canada (supply relative to demand) over the next couple of decades as the "boomers" pass through and on, unless significant immigration keeps the population growing, and things might vary widely from province to province.

Immigration levels contribute heavily to the projected population growth at the national level, as the fertility rate is assumed to remain below the replacement level in all scenarios, a situation observed since the 1970s...According to these new projections, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the only provinces in which more than one scenario projects that average annual growth would exceed the growth rate for Canada as a whole.

Expect a serious financial poop-storm in any case; our next door neighbour, the USA, is going through a serious rough spot, and I can't see *any* structural reasons (and certainly no political reasons) that the recent "recession" won't get much worse for them and us.

Understand this: bad political decisions (by this, I mean specifically government interventions, especially attempts to "make things better") will cause us far more damaging and far more-long-lasting financial pain than any purely business reasons. Mark my words.

Two comments on the...

..."Purported bin Laden message" (quotes from the article at CNN)...

1)

[bin Laden] dismissed claims of free speech in his statement, citing European countries' laws against denying the existence of the Holocaust.

So...all you shallow-thinking, short-sighted supporters of "anti hate speech" laws can thank yourself for handing bin Laden that one on a platter.

If you support restrictions on expression because you find some stuff distasteful, then you have nothin' to say when someone restricts you because they find something else distateful. It *is* that simple.

2)

"The laws of men which clash with the legislation of Allah the Most High are null and void, aren't sacred and don't matter to us," he said.

Actually, Mr. bin Laden: The "legislation of Allah" you refer to is null and void, isn't sacred, and doesn't matter to me.

I have my own standards.

Allah might own your life, Mr. bin Laden, and it's your life so give it to anyone you want--but my life is *mine* just as yours is yours, and my life is not yours to own or to hand over to some deity of your choice as you might wish.

Don't tread on me.

Seventeen-year-old accused of assault, fathering child

...with his girlfriend according to the article; they've evidently been sleeping together since they were both 14. That's "quasar stupid", but not as dumb as making it a court case.

Anyways, so I'm reading a comment on FARK in response to a suggestion that, as a convicted sex offender, the young dad wouldn't fare too well in prison, to which the poster, NightOwl2255 replied:

A dude that had sex with his girlfriend, even at 15, would not get a second look in prison. Even prisoners have more sense then the judicial system.

About this situation, NightOwl is right.

There's no shortage of "official" work for professional (as in government paid) busybodies and meddlers--and this is just one more in a never-ending stream of examples.

Seems to me this guy's got it right...

...(from a strictly Constitutionalist perspective)

Found on FARK: Zafler, quoting COMALite J

Most of the earlier drafts of the Second Amendment that were brought before Congress read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” That bolded phrase remained through several revisions, and was finally removed only because it was deemed to be redundant. Everyone at the time knew what a militia was, and who composed a militia. It is most definitely not the National Guard, which wasn’t even founded until over a century after the Bill of Rights.

The term “well regulated” in early 1800s American English also does not mean what you think it does. It means “well-equipped.”

Even discounting that, the first clause of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause, and cannot stand alone as a sentence. The second clause is an independent clause, and can stand alone as a sentence. Basic English grammar, both then and now, states that in a compound sentence consisting of a dependent and an independent clause, the dependent clause is only a modifier or explanatory clause, with the independent clause being the operative clause. The well-regulated militia part is thus merely saying why the Right exists, and is not a limitation on it.

Even the term “arms” had a specific meaning: weapons that could be carried and wielded by hand, and ammunition thereof (so much for the idea that we can ban ammo even if we can’t Constitutionally ban guns), were the responsibility of the militia members. They had to obtain their own. The Government was to supply ordnance (cannon and other artillery, etc.). So much for the “but where do we draw the line? Can people keep and bear Abrams tanks? Missiles? Nukes?” type argument.

If the Second Amendment were written using modern grammar and idiom, but kept the same exact meaning it had when written, it would read:

“Because a well-armed and equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition needed for same, shall not be infringed.”

A well put, clear and fairly succinct (and correct) interpretation.

Oh, and I don't have a personal problem with privately owned Abrams tanks or field pieces either.

History repeats itself...

...unless and until you stop the process.

This:

A night on drugs cheaper than going to the pub (British tax story)

reminds me of back in the 60s and 70s the Vancouver area police and courts were gung-ho busting as many grass smokers as they could find (a friend of mine got 2 years for 2 joints)...yep, the only stuff they left on the street was heroin, speed and acid.

Smart move.

Deja vu.

reference: Frédéric Bastiat (1848),
What is Seen and What is not Seen.

The problem isn't that...

...New York Governor (and anti-prostitution crimefighter) Elliot Spitzer or Tehran (Iran) Police Chief (and "morality imposition officer") Reza Zarei were frolicking with hookers themselves.

And the fact they're both hypocrites is properly only really relevant if you have to deal with them face to face.

The problem is that they, or anyone else, would see themselves fit to actually do the jobs they were doing, which was: pushing consenting adults around.

It won't particularly bother me if and when either of these two "law officers" suffer at the hands of punitive governments. They both have every right to choose that, but only for themselves. After all, they're only getting what they've begged for.

Rich Nicoley, over at honestylog.com, put it beautifully:

It...goes without saying that if a man raises vicious dogs that attack innocent people, destroy their property and fruits of their production, and wreak havoc on the lives of their families, that we should be tickled pink and overjoyed when the same dogs turn on their owner.

H/T to Billy Beck at Two-Four for the Honestly reference.

A "thought police" organization that...

...shouldn't even exist in a free country gets to hide its dirty laundry in a secret trial (HT to Small Dead Animals which referred to Ezra Levant's article).

[I]t should come as no surprise that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing on March 25th -- where human rights commission staff themselves are to be cross-examined on their dubious tactics of anonymous infiltration of websites, entrapment and even the bizarre practice of commission staff themselves planting bigoted remarks on websites -- is going to be closed to the public.

Gee...what could thought police do that they'd ever want to hide?

And, actually, why should they be able to hide *anything* they do? Don't they claim to be working for us???

The American health care system...

...is such that sometimes folks can't get medical care if they don't have enough money.

The Canadian improvement: design a system where folks can't get care even if they have the money (CBC News).

Ehhhhhhhhxcellent.

Identity Politics...

...uber alles in Norway.

Imagine you're one of the 13 men on this all-male board of a large company and are told five of you must go to be replaced by women.

From the article:

The law says a non-executive director has to be experienced, and experience is difficult to find in women in my sector. People have had to sack board members they've worked with and trusted for 20 or 30 years, and replace them with someone unknown. That's hard. (Rolf Dammann, the co-owner of a Norwegian bank)

That's not hard. It's just stupid.

Alberta Election Results...

Frédéric Bastiat noted that:

The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Ayn Rand said:

A mixed economy is rule by pressure groups. It is an amoral, institutionalized civil war of special interests and lobbies, all fighting to seize a momentary control of the legislative machinery, to extort some special privilege at one another's expense by an act of government—i.e., by force.

They're both right.

The news stories note that about 60% of Alberta voters didn't show up at the polls. I'm working to bring that to 100%.

It's high time we stopped pushing each other around with votes.

Another in a spate of recent articles...

...where feminists (this time, older feminists, like from my generation) are choked that voters are choosing Obama over Clinton (Drift away from Clinton frustrates many women/LA Times).

Dammit, even I always understood that voting for a woman because she is a woman is no more sensible (and, really, no different) than voting for a man because he is a man. Why, that'd be as brainless as voting for someone just because they're black. That shouldn't be news to anybody claiming to own a brain.

From the article:

...[Billie Jean] King, the pioneering women's professional tennis player, was dismayed about Clinton's vulnerable candidacy. "I see my whole life going down the drain...A cute young guy comes in and sweeps away all the hard work that the older woman has done."

Evidently, to these people, feminism was nothing more than old-school gender based favouritism turned around in favour of women; in other words, just more cheap, shallow sexism.

Wowie, that kind of "revolutionary" deep thinking can rocket ya all the way from Ian Smith to Robert Mugabe. Whoop-de-doo.

The article noted that Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey got it fairly accurately:

We have our first serious female presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton," said Fey. "And yet women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.

I swear, I can smell the progress from here.

Mike Smith of Dave Clark 5 dies...

...after a few really rough years following an accident--and two weeks before he and the rest of the band were to be inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame.

Mike Smith of Dave Clark 5 dies at 64 (MSNBC)

Sure, the DC5's stuff sounded like just more top quality London beat from the original British Invasion (1964-1965) but Mike Smith was no ordinary quality rock vocalist.

Go ahead, find one or two of the band's classic tunes (maybe Bits & Pieces, Glad All Over or Any Way You Want It, or Do You Love Me or Can't You See That She's Mine...). Turn it up and sing over top of it, and just try to do what he did as well as he did.

A big loss.

DC5 at WIKIPEDIA

Not that I give a shit about...

...baseball or whether or not players use steroids (I'd have no problem with stock, fuel and super-modified teams and sports) but I don't know if I can find the words to adequately understand how revolted it makes me to read an article like Mike Celizik's Clemens should have just said yes (NBC Sports/MSNBC).

Celizik's point is that--guilty or not--Rogers Clemens should have just admitted to Congress he used performance enhancing drugs. MSNBC wrapped the article this way:

Roger Clemens would be a lot better off right now if he would have acknowledged use of performance-enhancing drugs — whether he used them or not — instead of being defiant, writes NBCSports.com contributor Mike Celizic.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Celizik writes:

We’ve reached the point where everyone in baseball is presumed guilty when in actuality no more than 50 or 60 percent — OK, 70 percent tops — of the guys who played before 2004 actually dabbled in performance-enhancers.

Under such circumstances, the only thing a player accused of taking a shot or a pill or a salve is to admit it, whether he actually did it or not. It doesn’t matter if he never ingested anything stronger than distilled water and can prove it. If the accusation comes, he can save himself a world of grief — and maybe his job and future Hall of Fame chances — by just saying yes.

In other words, confess...like the victims of the Gulag, the Gestapo, the Inquisition--you know the list--just confess and move on; the lumpen will love you for it.

But please, for a moment, consider a couple of things:

1. What business is it of the freakin' guvvermint whether or not a baseball player pumped up on whateverthehell? Really. It's a proper concern only to the folks who buy and sell baseball. Everybody else gets an opinion at most and can otherwise properly just piss off.

It's. A. Game.

Nothing more and nothing else. Except, of course, it's also the government pissing away even more money on bureaucratic make-work--and "holier-than-thou" drug-war bullshit make-work at that.

2. What the hell does "defiant" have to do with anything? If Clemens is telling the truth, he ought to be defiant. Anyways, in the article, when Celizik writes:

That doesn’t wash with the public. We’ll accept many flaws in our heroes, but they can’t be washed down with truculence. Give us some remorse, give us an admission of “bad judgment,” grovel a little and we’ll forgive just about anything, including things you may not even have done. Forget what Nancy Reagan said a generation ago. In matters like these, just say yes.

he's just noting that pride, like moral certainty, is kinda outta style these days.

Concealed Carry in Utah schools..

LINK (CNN)

Nick, who asked not to be fully identified so his fellow students wouldn't know he carried a gun, says he has had a concealed weapons permit for more than three years. But it was Seung-Hui Cho's murderous campus rampage that made him take a gun to class.

"Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought 'I'm not going to be a victim,' " Nick said...

"My first thought was 'how tragic.' But then I couldn't help but think it could've been different if they'd allowed the students the right to protect themselves." Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.

His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.

"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.

"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."

Y'know, Griselda...if you feel more safe when ordinary citizens are disarmed, you're a fool.

I'll even grant...

...it was almost a hokey song choice, especially to close out the evening.

But the kid plain nailed it.

David Archuleta: "Imagine" on American Idol.

Is it just me...

or do les citizens de France really have an almost unequalled penchant for trying to regulate *everything* (from language purity to, now, beer websites) through an endless supply of new legislation?

Merde.

No wonder, then, the great Bastiat.

Just so we're clear...

...it would not be safe to be this kind of policeman in any neighbourhood where I lived.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice runs the fearsome religious police, which is charged with enforcing Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic lifestyle. Its members patrol public places to make sure women are covered and not wearing make up, the sexes don't mingle, shops close five times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque and worship.

The police, informally known as the muttawa (literally "enforcer"), don't wear uniforms, but are recognizable by their long beards and their robes, shorter than the ones normally worn by Saudi men. They also shun the black cord that sits atop the headdress worn by most Saudi men. (msnbc)

And if such policemen would be safe in your neighbourhood, you're a chickenshit, plain and simple, and you're fully deserving of any oppression you get.

Make no mistake about it; the only proper response to this type of sanctimonious, meddling bullying is to get them first.

And a good time to repeat one of my favorite quotes, from Samizdata:

"Cowardice does not make you safe. It makes you a safe target."
D. Amon

Anybody who tells you that...

...socialized medicine and the attached idea that you have a right to medical care akin to, say, your "right" to freedom of expression doesn't explicitly make slaves of the care providers is lying.

And this story is the proof.

Nurses who quit face criminal charges

Prosecutors say the nurses' resignations - without notice - on April 7, 2006, jeopardized the lives of children at Avalon Gardens in Smithtown, where some of the patients are on ventilators and required constant monitoring.

None of the patients suffered ill effects, but an indictment alleges the nurses knew their sudden resignations would make it difficult to find replacements. Their trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 28.

It's Gettin' Better All The Ti-i-ime....

Back in March of 2007 I had a big laugh here on the blog, noting that Ontario energy rates were going up because Ontario energy customers had believed the government when they were told they'd save money if they used less energy. Turns out that was a crock because Ontario's energy customers (read: "suckers") used so much less energy to save money that the gummint had to (here comes the laugh....) raise rates to make up for the shortfall--so the result was that Ontario energy users were now paying more for less. Wunnerful! Hilarious!

Today, I'm treated to this: The Ontario Energy Board is allowing Enbridge, an Ontario energy utility, to

charge its Ontario customers a new fee to help pay the costs of an out-of-court settlement [because in] 2004, the Supreme Court ruled against the natural gas company -- for charging unfair fees. (emphasis mine)

OMFGROFL...

Boy, those gummint guys sure do know how to make capitalism run better.

Anybody who knows me well..

...knows that I consider Daryl Hall to be one the great R&B vocalists of all time.

Well, today I get an email invite to Daryl's "Live From Daryl's House"



Go visit Daryl's House; there's a huge amount of fabulous music there. Great new and remarkably casual versions of old classics, new tunes and special guests...all done up right in front of yer face. Top notch audio and video quality.

What a treat.

I know sexism and racism when I see it...

...and this puerile screed by Frida Ghitis is full of both.

The dirty little secret of this campaign season that supposedly marks that death of prejudice is that sexism is alive and well at the voting booth. The secret is quietly revealed in the exit polls that pundits dissect after every primary and caucus, expressing awe at the brave march of white voters across racial lines.

Why are white men giving their vote to Obama over Hillary Clinton?

Were I American and a voter, I'd be thrilled to have a female candidate worth voting for--but der Rodham ain't one of those.

Anyways, I read your article, Frida--and you can fuck right off. This:

It does not take a political savant to understand why Obama, a candidate who has inspired much of America, is capturing almost all the black vote. Women, too, have dreamed of the day when one of their own would have a real chance to become president. Until now, the thought was reserved for science fiction or for ill-fated television dramas.

Women are voting for Clinton and blacks are voting for Obama because we all look for people like us, who think like we do, understand our experience and, once in office, would be more likely to make decisions with which we agree.

manages to insult white men, all blacks and all women (except Hillary supporters) in one fell swoop. What you're saying is that neither men, nor blacks nor women are able to see past basic similarities of race and gender when in the voting booth.

Like I said, I know racism and sexism when I see it. And--specifically given the comments about white men--I know anti-white misandry, too.

Addendum: But Frida can relax. She's not a white male, so there's *no* chance she's gonna lose her job over this. She won't even have to sit down with some male, black or white "leaders" for dialogue and (gag me with a spoon) healing.

Maybe "Open Season for Man-Blaming" is finally ending...

This article written by Dr. Helen Smith regarding many men's current attitudes towards women and marriage (in response to Kay Hymowitz' presumptuous but unfortunately typical male-blaming article "Child-Man in the Promised Land") and most of the comments that follow are a welcome change to the usual current popular fare.

In short, my opinion is that Dr. Smith gets it. Male reproductive rights essentially don't exist, and current child support/matrimonial laws are only the tip of an iceberg of unfortunate but still fashionable insulting, exploitation and oppression of men. Consequently, I don't think many men will be surprised by most of the comments, or by the points Dr. Smith is making. I know many men will be astonished (and very pleased), however, that these types of article are finally being written.

An aside: don't read this as a general slam of Ms. Hymowitz (who can be perceptive on a range of subjects even when I disagree) or of women in general. It's neither.

That's where you're wrong...

"I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination."

Detailed story link (NBC).

No. Actually, free speech means you get to say what you want, and everyone listening gets to think and say what they want in return. Oh, and here's the part you misunderstood: within the bounds of the law (or the libertarian "no instigation of aggression" rule) they also get to respond any way they want--including removing their support of you.

More from the article:

Ann Cooper with the Berkeley Unified School District wants both sides to play nice.

"Senators sitting 3,000 miles away are trying to take food away from the children of Berkeley," said Cooper. "Why? Because the Marines and the city aren't playing nice -- and that's just not OK."

Typical. The kind of mindless moral equivalency that comes when there's not a thought about who started it.

I laughed...

American Armoured Wankball.

Evidently started on FARK, but now a fairly widespread soccer fan description of North American Football (with the pointy "ball").

Sometimes politics is hilarious...

Now we're treated to the spectacle of the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women getting all upset at Ted Kennedy because he supports a black man for President. To quote 'em:

"He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president..."

Not that they'd be the kind of progressive women who can't handle the idea of a black President.

Anyways, lemme get this straight. A bunch of folks who prattle on about how it's sexist if ya treat someone different because they're female is insisting Ted ought to back Hillary because she's female??? Sounds kinda sexist to me.

But, then again, I think this joke is funny:

"I'm a feminist."

"You're a feminist? How cute."

...so maybe I just don't understand.

The blame game starts...

Capitalists are capitalism's most dangerous enemy (Newsweek), and

Our leaders have squandered our wealth (Lou Dobbs)

From Dobbs:

We all have to acknowledge that our problems were in part brought on by the failure of our government to regulate the institutions and markets that are now in crisis.

Oh, fuck off, Lou. There's been no shortage of government regulating the institutions and markets--no shortage at all. Meddling regulators colluding with politically favored fascisto-corporatists (as opposed to capitalists, by which I mean laissez-faire) is not at all the same thing as "a failure to regulate". And you know it, Lou. You've just got different intervention recipes is all.

Oh, "our leaders" absolutely have squandered our wealth (that much is true)--but they certainly didn't do it by leaving things alone.

Instead, pandering politicians and pundits of the left and right, interventionist economists, and business interests favored by the resulting legislations caused this mess. Now those same types are just looking to shift the blame. As usual.

Typical Chavez.

In my last post, I wrote: "On an otherwise depressing day, I at least have my faith restored that a politician somewhere is gonna spew some reprehensible (and, in this case, cowardly) dribble," and I followed with some prattle from a Dutch politician.

But when it comes to classic political spew, though, there's few as arrogant, sleazy and dictatorial as Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez (AP).

From the article:

With the country recently facing milk shortages, Chavez said "it's treason" if farmers deny milk to Venezuelans while selling it across the border in Colombia or for gourmet cheeses.

"In that case the farm must be expropriated," Chavez said, adding that the government could also take over milk plants and properties of beef producers.

"I'm putting you on alert," Chavez said. "If there's a producer that refuses to sell the product ... and sells it at a higher price abroad ... ministers, find me the proof so it can be expropriated.

There's a shorter version, in plain english. Chavez' grand plans have totally fucked up Venezuela's economy and now he's more desperate than ever to force folks to fix his mistakes, as if more of the same is a solution. It won't work; it never does. This is just one more step on the escalator to economic collapse and squalor. In other words, just the typical socialist-interventionist end-game.

Oh, and this:

Addressing his Cabinet, he said: "If the army must be brought in, you bring in the army."

That's just unequivocal warning that he'll kill to get his way. Like I said: typical.

He's a typical megalomaniacal thug.

Really?

On an otherwise depressing day, I at least have my faith restored that a politician somewhere is gonna spew some reprehensible (and, in this case, cowardly) dribble. Today's nonsense:

Anticipating a possibly wildly violent reaction to an apparently inflammatory Dutch film that allegedly shows (in the words of the director) the Koran as a "source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror", Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, stated:

freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend.

Really?

Then what the fuck of any importance would such a "freedom of expression" be fit to protect?

Kevin McCormick

I just got the news that a treasured friend from my early musical days back in the late 60s/early 70s, Kevin McCormick, has passed away after a long battle with cancer.

Nick Springate of GoSeeTV, another long-time friend of Kevin's, has put up a wonderful Life & Times of Kevin McCormick at Typepad, pictures and videos--and a huge number of tribute emails and letters to and about Kevin. Kevin changed people's lives.

Kevin, it's not that you won't be forgotten. It's very much more that you will be often remembered.

There's nothing I could write that would ever really communicate how I feel this morning.

Ezra Levant vs "The Commish"

6 videos.

H/T to FARK and Little Green Footballs, but this stuff can't be spread enough.

I have no idea of Mr Levant's opinions on most things; I've never really paid him much attention. He might be a total asshole for all I know. But he's *exactly* right in his attitude towards the Human Rights Commission.



Freedom of Speech that doesn't protect unpopular speech--all unpopular speech--isn't worth a pinch of coonshit.

Thanks for standing up, Ezra. I'm really ashamed of my country and my province that you had to be there. Ya did good, though.

Instead of a smoke free workplace...

how about a meddler-free workplace?

MSNBC Associate Editor Brian Tracey wrote a small story about a German employer who fired the non-smokers on his staff because they were troublesome to him, constantly complaining. For whatever reasons, the employer prefers employees who smoke.

Tracey got kinda smarmy, writing:

Not surprisingly, the three fired workers are now suing for unfair dismissal.

They may have a strong case because we believe Jensen's policy is too narrow: In addition to being smokers, he needs to also restrict his hiring to people who overeat and get falling-down drunk at lunch.

Actually, Brian, maybe the employer just oughtta be able to choose his employees, and those who wish to work for him on his terms ought to be free to do so. That would, I know, be a disappointment to nanny-staters, and it'd reduce employment opportunities for bureaucrats, but still...

Me, I'm 100% with the employer on this one.

About what I'd expect...

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold. But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics. The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

Complete article by Dawson Bell/Detroit Free Press (worth the read).

...not that I think folks ought to need a freakin' license in the first place...

They have a word for stuff like this:

Newspaper photo coincidence leads to robbery suspect. (with photos/KTVB/Idaho)

Yep. A coincidence.

A really beautiful coincidence.

It's a wonderful world.

Why All the Fuss?

The Mitchell Report (on steroids in pro baseball).

Wouldn't it just be easier, more honest, and waaaaaaaay more entertaining to run Stock, Fuel and Modified? And "Funny"?

Madness Redux

H/T to Billy Beck who points to an illustration of why the madness I describe below exists...

Anyways, here's the link to a NY Times article that states that tax cuts are crippling the economy.

From the article:

From 2002 to 2011, forgone revenue from the cuts will account for 37 percent of the federal budget’s descent into the red... (emphasis mine)

"Forgone revenue"...it will do you well to understand and know that the only way such a term makes sense is if you start with the assumption that the State owns all the money in the first place. That makes "foregone revenue" the money the State could have taken (should have taken from the point of view of the editorial) but didn't grab yet.

But there's a big difference between a dollar lost and a dollar not taken. If you have a dollar and the State takes it, you've lost a dollar.

But, if you have a dollar and the State doesn't take it, the State hasn't lost a dollar in any way shape or form--unless (like the twit who wrote that article) they assume the money was *all* theirs in the first place.

The twit who wrote that article might have chosen to be honest enough to simply say that the government didn't steal enough to pay for a 37% shortfall between revenue and spending (in other words: the State spent money they didn't actually have), but that would be saying something that could be interpreted as "the government spent too much"--and no Statist/interventionist is gonna trot that out when it's spending they want or wanted.

Question to supporters of the Meddler State: this kinda math doesn't make sense in your home? What in hell makes you think it works on a bigger scale?

This.

Powerful Bay Area Lawyers Represent Immigrants For Free

the lawyers [will] vigorously defend the constitutional rights of all people, including undocumented immigrants

Actions like this could get me to tell a few less lawyer jokes because these American lawyers are correct in what they are trying to do, which is: ensure that the government recognizes that (from my own blog on Sunday, November 11, 2007):

Rights are not something governments give you. They are things you have because you are human, period. Now, governments can recognize your rights, or try to suppress them, but that is all.

In other words: rights are not the same thing as mere legal permissions. Confusion over (or simple failure to recognize) the distinction causes all sorts of sloppy thinking, and no end of human injustice and tragedy.

Spokane schools skip Christmas...

OK. Not exactly. It's just that the Spokane Public Schools newsletter for December omitted Christmas while Hanukkah, winter break, Human Rights Day, the Islamic holy day Eid al-Adha, the first day of winter and Kwanzaa all made the list.

Well, the folks who put the calendar together might have been inept, thoughtless, or trying to make some sort of point. Which is it?

"It was absolutely an error of omission," district spokeswoman Terren Roloff said. "In our efforts to be inclusive, we missed the obvious."

All three, evidently.

Uh, shouldn't that be spokesperson...

Jeff Beck w/Tal Wilkenfeld...

Joy.


'Cause We've Ended as Lovers


Big Block

Y' don't see communication like this every day.

The first tune had me in tears. The second had me grinning from ear to ear. It's almost like a chick flick for musicians. Perfect.

Double Standard Deluxe...

Judges decide father has no rights over child, who is now in foster care, because "he was only a one-night stand".

Ah, well...then I'm certain the converse is now true: that "fathers" from one-night stands also now no longer have any responsibility.

Yeah, right.

Immigration laws...

Illegal Immigrant Rescues Boy in Desert

Why would I not want this man as a neighbour?

Yeah, yeah, forgiveness... whatever...

Headline (CP): Top Roman Catholic's appeal for forgiveness dismissed by church critics

Y'know...I could be a lot more forgiving, I suppose, if I thought for one minute that the Church (and not just this one) recognized and understood that the mere existence of the mistakes totally trashes any claim the church has--or ever has had--for obedience.

That's what I want to hear.

Words mean things.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States change their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Privacy doesn't mean "anonymity", Kerr, you meddling, paternalistic, arrogant fuckwit. It means: "none of your fucking business." I don't want the State to safeguard my private stuff, you dolt. I want the State to leave my private stuff the fuck alone. My private stuff is *mine*.

Is that clear enough?

Yeah, yeah...I'm sure you mean well...uh huh.

Credit where credit is due...

A liberal/leftist comes to his senses regarding gun control (except not that we have a 2nd amendment in Canada; we're not near that brave or that principled).

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

My comment for Canadians:

Rights are not something governments give you. They are things you have because you are human, period. Now, governments can recognize your rights, or try to suppress them, but that is all. In other words, you already have the right to individual gun ownership; the fight is just over the legal permission to exercise that right.

Do what's right.

Permission is for children.