Life Will Find a Way...

I'm not sure about dinosaurs, but I know this works in many facets of...life.

Man tries to restrict or control the actions of other men, and the other men will find a way.

The Affordable Care Act.

Socialists want employers to be forced to provide a "full time" worker health care coverage.

Desired goal:  Anybody working "full time" will have health insurance.

Problem (I'm not going to say "unintended consequences" because I'm not sure of the motives of the Socialists):

1) Employers limit employees to PART-TIME (...maybe not unintended CLICK HERE)

2) "Health care coverage" plans will drop in quality (goodbye dental CLICK HERE)

3) If employers are forced to cover more people, they will drop those they are not (ie Spouses CLICK HERE)


...the list goes on and on.

It didn't start with Obamacare:

I recall working many weeks in college - 39.5 hours.  Was that enough money? No. Would I have worked more? Yes.  Would I have worked more for the same pay rate? Yes.  But the 40-hour work week law forbid it.

Guess what.  Life found a way.  And so did creative managers. I'm sure we broke labor laws...but I ate well...


**Funny - in the movie, the problems start when the computer guy (Newman) feels that he is not being paid enough.  So, he ruins everything (unintended) by trying to steal company secrets and sell them. 

Memory Lane...

A Honda Trail 90

International Travelall

Airstream

Basset hound on bean bag chair....

....You had to be there.

Unexpected...

h/t Rush Limbaugh

MYTHbusters...

MYTHS that are portrayed in the Main Stream Media - and swallowed as truth by the public - and by MANY of those on the Right.

One that gets my blood boiling every time, is that the Government shutdown of 1995 hurt the Republicans and helped Bill Clinton.  Really?  That is such nonsense!

If you ask the following question:

Who caused the Government shutdown of 1995, Bill Clinton or the Republicans?

You will get the following answer:

The Republicans.



If you ask the following question:

What caused the Government shutdown of 1995?

You will get the following answer:

I don't know?  There was a Government shutdown in 1995?


In the 1996 Presidential election, nobody, not a single person, went into the voting booth and said "Hmm, Bill Clinton or Bob Dole...well, the Republicans are to blame for shutting down the Government that I despise...I'm voting Clinton!"

Bill Clinton won because things weren't that bad, and...well...Bob Dole.

Barack Obama won because he doesn't confine himself to the truth.  He is a popular guy.  That is why he won in 2012.  Watch the scores upon scores of videos showing clueless voters claiming they voted for Obama because of [ insert principle he does NOT stand for ].

John McCain was the reason Obama was elected in 2008 (just ask Sarah Palin).  But it wasn't Mitt Romney that caused Obama to be re-elected:

2008
McCain       59,934,814
Obama        69,457,897

2012
Romney      60,932,152   (+1 million)
Obama        65,889,560   (-3.5 million)


I'm not saying the Republicans do not have to have a strategy...I'm saying the strategy, NO MATTER THE OUTCOME, should be based on the truth.  Lets face it - the Presidential Election is a popularity contest - you have to be more popular than the other guy, and sometimes the truth is ugly, and hard to face.





Interesting:

1988
George Bush         47,946,000
Whats his Name    41,016,000

1992
George Bush       39,102,353
Bill Clinton         44,908,254
Ross Perot          19,741,065  (add even just 75% of those to Bush, and its an EPIC LANDSLIDE)

1996
Bob Dole           37,816,307
Bill Clinton        45,590,703
Ross Perot            7,866,284  (Yes folks, add it to Dole, and you have 45,682,591...President Dole)

The results of Dole+Perot vs Clinton are eerily similar to what we get in 2000 - close to a 50/50 split.  There may have been one or two, but not three, Democrats who voted for Perot over Bill Clinton in 1996.

DON'T FALL FOR THE PROPAGANDA!

"News"...

Coroner:  Hannah Anderson Suspect DiMaggio Shot 'At Least' Five Times

The article describes the results of the multi-day search across several states and into the forests of Idaho for a 40 year old man who had kidnapped a 15 year old girl, after he murdered her mother with a crow bar and burned her 8 year old brother to death.

200 law enforcement officers went into the forest, risking their lives, to rescue the girl.  All you have to do is imagine yourself walking through the woods, trying to find DiMaggio and see him before he sees you.  It ain't easy.  Now imagine that there are 8 to 12 FBI "tactical agents" closing in on his location...and he shoots at them from a rifle (the article says that authorities declined to say if DiMaggio fired the first shot) and that DiMaggio was shot 5 times.

Why couldn't the title of the article read, "FBI Shows Great Restraint, Murderer Shot Only Five Times"?  Because the opinion of the article, and the LA Times, is that he should (or could) have been taken alive, or only shot once...or they could have shot the gun out of his hands.  8 to 12 agents with rifles, probably only a few were in position in the woods to see him and take a shot - I'm gonna bet there were more than double that many shots fired, only that he was hit 5 times.


Finally, an End to the War on Drugs

Libertarians and Lefties unite!  I'm tired of hearing the misuse of that phrase from the 1980s.  "Billions spent every year combating the flow of drugs that can't be stopped, and needlessly filling our prisons with lowly drug offenders."  How much have we spent to stop traffic fatalities? Trillions upon trillions - and 45,000 to 50,000 people die in car crashes each year.  STOP THE WAR ON TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DEATHS!  I can stop all the traffic deaths with one law.  Driving vehicles is against the law.  There, done.

If we stop the "war on drugs" how many deaths a year will we have from overdoses, vehicle accidents (how many drunk and drugged drivers kill people when it is illegal?), and industrial accidents?

The article mentions Attorney General Holder's comment that the United States Attorneys will be directed to avoid prosecuting drug criminals under statutes with mandatory minimum sentences who 'are not linked to violence, or to a larger criminal organization.'  Even if one knows nothing about the federal criminal justice system, isn't it widely known that criminals can plea bargain down to minimal sentences by pleading guilty and "cooperating."  The only thing Holder is doing is taking that bargaining power away from his own prosecutors.  The case mentioned in the article makes it seem like an abused girlfriend with no criminal history was sentenced to 25 years because she was forced to carry drug money for her boyfriend.  I will keep it short, and say: Somebody watches too much television.

Our prisons are full of people who were convicted of crimes, and those people knew it was a crime when they did it.  Lets stop pretending these are political prisoners and call them what they are.

Bet You Cry...

Ever miss somebody so much it hurts?

**UPDATE**

Just Holder On a Minute

In response to Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that he will direct the Department of Justice to avoid "indiscriminate" federal charging of individuals who are NOT connected with drug cartels or 'larger organizations,' or violent gangs - there is word that the FBI released a directive: This changes nothing, since we don't do that anyway.

I could be wrong, though. The lead agency on drug crimes in the Federal Government is the DEA...

But I'm not, wrong.  Even if the DEA (or ATF, or ICE, or USSS) brought a case on an individual that did not fit the criteria Holder is describing - I believe they would be hard pressed to find a United States Attorney to prosecute it.

Bingo, Bono...

@1:00 :  "...of course we know that."

No Bono - you have to sing it, they DON'T get it.

Just Holder On a Minute...

Holder Calling for Overhaul of Drug-Related Sentences

Weaknesses exposed:

1)  If prisons are overcrowded...work on reducing the commissions of crimes, not reducing the punishments.

2)  Holder favors drug treatment and community service programs in lieu of incarceration.  This is already done at the State and Local level (which Holder mentions). Typically, the only non-violent low-level drug offenders in Federal prison have multiple convictions and are not 'low-level', so they do not fit the definition Holder is speaking of.  Further, shouldn't you look at the results of these programs before expanding them to the next level. He mentions they exist, and then misuses statistics to try and prove his case.

3)  Holder is talking about changing DOJ policy regarding what crime to charge.  DOJ already has this discretion.  United States Attorney's turn down more cases than they accept.  What will be taken away is the THREAT of longer prison terms - ie the power of the plea.  Holder wouldn't know this because...he is only the head of the DOJ.  Holder said that mandatory minimum sentences are used indiscriminately...is Holder accusing his own Federal Prosecutors of indiscriminately charging people?

Where there's drugs...there's guns

The Faces of Meth (LINK)

My 2 Cents:

Shorten sentences and make prison hard.  Get rid of weight rooms, segregate populations into smaller more controllable groups.  Selective isolation as punishment for all offenses.  On the State and Local level - same thing, instead of somebody doing 30 days in camp for drugs, 3 days of isolation.


Its funny - Holder mentions convicted drug offenders who have "no ties to large-scale organizations...".  The DRUGS tie them to the large-scale organization.  He is talking about Federal prisoners - so he is not talking about somebody who grew their own marijuana.

Justice...

If you haven't heard...long story short.

Justin Slaby was a US Army Ranger.  He lost his left hand in a training accident. He later applied to the FBI to become a Special Agent.  The FBI Special Agent who oversaw his hiring process put him through all the tests required (requirements are HERE, they include push-ups and pull-ups).  Slaby was able to pass, and was hired.  Slaby was sent to the FBI Academy.  After approximately six weeks, the FBI terminated his training (he now has a job with the FBI as a support employee), and said he was not capable of doing the job.  

Justin Slaby

That is where the 'story' begins.  Slaby passed every test that the other New Agents in Training were required to.  However, he was selected for special tests due to his lack of a left hand.  He claims he was able to do everything he was asked - with the use of a prosthetic.  Ironically, if you are EXTREMELY dedicated, skilled, and physically strong - there is nothing requiring a left hand in FBI New Agent training.  The FBI firearms qualification courses do require shooting from your 'non-dominant' hand, as well as reloading your weapons.  Slaby was apparently able to do this with his prosthetic.  My guess - he outscored many two-handed trainees.  

So Slaby sued.  During the trial, the Special Agent who hired and processed Slaby testified that he made sure Slaby could pass every test that is required.  He said that Slaby was more than qualified.

And then it gets interesting.

That Special Agent also testified that prior to testifying he was called into the SAC's (Special Agent in Charge, pronounced "S, A, C," not "Sack" as in other agencies) office.  He testified that the SAC informed him that he should "come down on the side of the government, that Slaby was unqualified."  So, the SAC was called into the courtroom...and refused to testify.  Further, the SAC was moved from her job as SAC and brought back to FBIHQ, prior to testifying.  (I will say this, I would bet money that she was told to do this by counsel, and she is likely represented by the FBI on this one).

Also during the trial, Special Agents who are employed at the FBI Academy as instructors testified that while Slaby DID pass all there extra tests - they felt he would not be able to do the job.  If the job were to save a life with his left hand...or something.

Also during the trial, Special Agents of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team located at the FBI Academy (who now work with Slaby in his role as a support employee) testified that he was an excellent employee and well qualified.

Yesterday, Slaby won his lawsuit.  He was awarded $75,000.  Now he has to see if the FBI gives him a shot at becoming a Special Agent.  There is precedence...a win in court does not guarantee this.


My opinion:  I can not stand the idea that certain jobs can not discriminate on the basis of physical standards.  I believe Special Agent of the FBI is one of those jobs.  There should be a standard, and if a person can not pass that standard, they can not have the job.  And if they can pass the standard, they should get the job.

The physical standards for the FBI, as well as most police departments, and the United States Military have been lowered to allow women.  Slaby did not ask for the standards to be lowered, he asked to be given a chance to meet the standards.

They're Just Sayin'...

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."
    -  James Madison


"We have to pass the bill, so that you can, uh, find out what's in it."
   -  Nancy Pelosi


"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."
     -  Alexander Hamilton


"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."
     -  Joe Biden

A Different Take...

He was a just a teenager.

He was staying in an area where he was unfamiliar.

He went for a walk one evening to get candy and a drink from the local store.

While he looked young, he was 6'3" tall.

Yes, he was black, but should that matter?

He was shot to death that night.

His parents say he was a wonderful kid, who did not deserve to die.

...and you have never heard of him.






'A Wonderful Kid That Didn't Deserve to Die'

His name was Jett Higham. He was killed on July 2, 2013, in Richmond, Virginia.  As far as we know, he did not smoke dope, he did not steal other people's things, he did not get arrested, he was not kicked out of school, he did not possess a firearm...and he ACTUALLY just went for candy and drink.

And he did not smash anybody's head into the ground that night.

I'm just sayin'...