...when I was a kid, I delivered papers. When I was a young adult, I delivered pizzas. Now, I'm busy delivering Justice...
(trackers don't put themselves on...though, in the future...)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Holder on a Minute....
DOJ Weighs Supreme Court Challenge in GPS Surveillance Dispute
At issue - should the government be able to use an electronic device to track your whereabouts? More specific to the case, should government agents be able to stick a GPS device (not the Garmin on your dash...) on your car without you knowing it, so that they can track you?
They can. But, without an order from a judge? Don't we need an "impartial judge" from the Judicial Branch to check (or balance?) the Executive Branch's agents.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said yes, the government agents can do it, without a judge's approval. Why? Because a cop can follow you around - surveillance. He can watch you with his eyes - if you are out in public. He has the same rights as any other individual.
But the cop doesn't have to use his eyes, he can use technology. Your car, your highly regulated car...built to government standards, registered and titled by the government, traveling on roads built and monitored by the government, following strict governmental traffic laws...has a lower expectation of privacy when its subjected to so much regulation, and its out in public view. So instead of watching you, the cop can put a device (on the outside) of your car, and watch his computer instead. The Supreme Court has ruled so.
However, the District Court of Washington D.C. ruled differently. So as it has stood since November, law enforcement in the District of D.C. - had to ask a judge. Do judges say no to cops? No. Part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's previous rulings.
Also, any case in which a bad guy's car has a GPS on it, and it passes through the District of DC - you have to jump through some hoops, close one eye, and present your case to a committee.
Do you think cops should be able to do this?
HOLD ON...That is not the point of the article. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, may not even put up a fight on this one.
What side is he on?
At issue - should the government be able to use an electronic device to track your whereabouts? More specific to the case, should government agents be able to stick a GPS device (not the Garmin on your dash...) on your car without you knowing it, so that they can track you?
They can. But, without an order from a judge? Don't we need an "impartial judge" from the Judicial Branch to check (or balance?) the Executive Branch's agents.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said yes, the government agents can do it, without a judge's approval. Why? Because a cop can follow you around - surveillance. He can watch you with his eyes - if you are out in public. He has the same rights as any other individual.
But the cop doesn't have to use his eyes, he can use technology. Your car, your highly regulated car...built to government standards, registered and titled by the government, traveling on roads built and monitored by the government, following strict governmental traffic laws...has a lower expectation of privacy when its subjected to so much regulation, and its out in public view. So instead of watching you, the cop can put a device (on the outside) of your car, and watch his computer instead. The Supreme Court has ruled so.
However, the District Court of Washington D.C. ruled differently. So as it has stood since November, law enforcement in the District of D.C. - had to ask a judge. Do judges say no to cops? No. Part of the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's previous rulings.
Also, any case in which a bad guy's car has a GPS on it, and it passes through the District of DC - you have to jump through some hoops, close one eye, and present your case to a committee.
Do you think cops should be able to do this?
HOLD ON...That is not the point of the article. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, may not even put up a fight on this one.
What side is he on?
Friday, March 18, 2011
2nd Times a Charm....
...or third, etc.
Florida Governor to Sign Teacher Merit Pay Legislation
The Bill was started by Republican Governor Jeb Bush, passed later in the Florida congress, but vetoed by Rino Governor Charlie Christ, after protests by unions and teachers. This time, it passed 80-39 in the Florida State House and 26-12 in the Senate, and Republican Governor Rick Scott will sign it.
Guess that the arguement from the left is? Guess!
Yup..."Democrats...said it has problems including the lack of funding source for the merit pay. They predicted that would lead either to tax increases or layoffs and reductions in the base pay."
No wait, that wasn't what you guessed. Since when do Democrats care about where the funding comes from or tax increases - that's their bread and butter.
"It's amazing to me that the members in this chamber see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the plumbing care of their toilets," said Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando.
Uh, one is a government job, the other is not - THEY DON'T GET THE DIFFERENCE, and these are the people setting the salaries?
Democratic Rep. Elaine Schwartz, though, said merit pay "is just a euphemism for killing unions" and part of a national movement to diminish public employees' collective bargaining rights. This process is a way of making unions useless in the school environment..."
There it is, that is more like what you probablly guessed. Again, they don't get it. Yes we want public employees' collective bargaining rights diminished - they don't have to take those jobs. Yes we want the unions useless in our schools - they have nothing to do with teaching.
Florida Governor to Sign Teacher Merit Pay Legislation
The Bill was started by Republican Governor Jeb Bush, passed later in the Florida congress, but vetoed by Rino Governor Charlie Christ, after protests by unions and teachers. This time, it passed 80-39 in the Florida State House and 26-12 in the Senate, and Republican Governor Rick Scott will sign it.
Guess that the arguement from the left is? Guess!
Yup..."Democrats...said it has problems including the lack of funding source for the merit pay. They predicted that would lead either to tax increases or layoffs and reductions in the base pay."
No wait, that wasn't what you guessed. Since when do Democrats care about where the funding comes from or tax increases - that's their bread and butter.
"It's amazing to me that the members in this chamber see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the plumbing care of their toilets," said Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando.
Uh, one is a government job, the other is not - THEY DON'T GET THE DIFFERENCE, and these are the people setting the salaries?
Democratic Rep. Elaine Schwartz, though, said merit pay "is just a euphemism for killing unions" and part of a national movement to diminish public employees' collective bargaining rights. This process is a way of making unions useless in the school environment..."
There it is, that is more like what you probablly guessed. Again, they don't get it. Yes we want public employees' collective bargaining rights diminished - they don't have to take those jobs. Yes we want the unions useless in our schools - they have nothing to do with teaching.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Source of All Goodness...
Amid Protest, Florida School Stands Behind Tough New Peanut Allergy Regulations
...I went to school. For 16 years. I don't remember any kids not being able to eat peanuts. I remember I did want to buy the school lunch when it read "...and peanut butter pie." I remember alot of kids eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I remember choosy mom's choosing Jif.
This whole peanut allergy thing sounds made up. Until you talk to somebody who thinks their child may die if they smell peanuts.
How did this come about? Is there a conspiracy to be uncovered in the legume industry?
I don't know. I will admit, that until I am physically effected by something, I usually have doubts...even though I have a very low pain threshold. I have a low tolerance for pain. I won't tolerate it. Especially when other people are whining on and on about it.
But you anti-peanutites...I really have doubts. Not that people are allergic to peanuts, but how many are, and how severe each case is.
Are the dangers of childhood food allergy exaggerated?
"The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (who, by-the-way make money off of allergies - I'm just sayin'...) estimates that peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related death. However, there is an increasing body of medical opinion that, while there definitely are food sensitivities, the dramatic uptick in frequency of nut allergies and more particularly the measures taken in response to the threat show elements of mass psychogenic illness, hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the level of danger: "Dr. Christakis points out that about 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts, and even more — 6.9 million — are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents, he writes." Media sensationalism has also been blamed."
Leave it to the MSM to try and thwart the people's access to the Source of All Goodness....peanut butter.
...I went to school. For 16 years. I don't remember any kids not being able to eat peanuts. I remember I did want to buy the school lunch when it read "...and peanut butter pie." I remember alot of kids eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I remember choosy mom's choosing Jif.
This whole peanut allergy thing sounds made up. Until you talk to somebody who thinks their child may die if they smell peanuts.
How did this come about? Is there a conspiracy to be uncovered in the legume industry?
I don't know. I will admit, that until I am physically effected by something, I usually have doubts...even though I have a very low pain threshold. I have a low tolerance for pain. I won't tolerate it. Especially when other people are whining on and on about it.
Are the dangers of childhood food allergy exaggerated?
"The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (who, by-the-way make money off of allergies - I'm just sayin'...) estimates that peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related death. However, there is an increasing body of medical opinion that, while there definitely are food sensitivities, the dramatic uptick in frequency of nut allergies and more particularly the measures taken in response to the threat show elements of mass psychogenic illness, hysterical reactions grossly out of proportion to the level of danger: "Dr. Christakis points out that about 3.3 million Americans are allergic to nuts, and even more — 6.9 million — are allergic to seafood. But of 30 million hospitalizations each year, just 2,000 are due to food allergies, and about 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That’s the same number of people killed by bee stings and lightning strikes combined. About 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports, 2,000 children drown each year, and about 1,300 die in gun accidents, he writes." Media sensationalism has also been blamed."
Leave it to the MSM to try and thwart the people's access to the Source of All Goodness....peanut butter.
 |
| George Washington Carver |
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Why Not?
These are the headlines today:
CNN - Wisconsin State Assembly passes bill that curtails the bargaining rights of most state workers.
MSNBC - Wisconsin anti-union bill passes final test
FOX - Wis. State Assembly Approves Bill Stripping Unions' Collective Bargaining Rights
Why not...
Wisconsin Senate Passes Cost Saving Bill
Wisconsin Law Allows State Employees More Rights Than Federal Employees
Despite Mob Removed by Police, Assembly AND Senate Pass Bill
CNN - Wisconsin State Assembly passes bill that curtails the bargaining rights of most state workers.
MSNBC - Wisconsin anti-union bill passes final test
FOX - Wis. State Assembly Approves Bill Stripping Unions' Collective Bargaining Rights
Why not...
Wisconsin Senate Passes Cost Saving Bill
Wisconsin Law Allows State Employees More Rights Than Federal Employees
Despite Mob Removed by Police, Assembly AND Senate Pass Bill
Monday, March 7, 2011
Contract With America...
...no wait, that's taken. But I was thinking. Actually reading. It was an email that I received, several times over the last couple years. The beginning is different this time, but it ends the same. It has to have gone around the Internet a few times, and somebody changes it, and it goes around a few more. But it got me thinking.
This time, the email was titled Congressional Reform Act. I don't see a member of Congress proposing it. But a Presidential Candidate could run on it (unlikely), or, a President could push it after being elected (still unlikely, but a possibility).
Among the things I liked:
Term Limits - I've heard the argument against, and I don't buy it.
No Pension - get term limits and you've pretty much taken care of this one.
Pay raises tied to inflation - they do need pay, otherwise normal folk won't run.
No special medical - make they pay for the same plan other government employees pay for. And make it against the law for a government employee staffer to do anything, ANYTHING, in assisting with this. Once they find out how hard it is to figure your plan out, see a doctor, change plans, etc., they would work to fix it. (Ohio, Aetna HMO, for a family, Federal Government employee pays 25% of the cost - take that Wisconsin State employees)
The argument often heard from the left for the nonsense in Wisconsin is that they were promised something - the right to negotiate for their salaries, and for their benefits. The argument some on the right make is that when the unions negotiate with the left...there is no negotiation. The union votes left, the left votes union pay and benefits.
The American people did not make past contracts with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
These clowns in Washington (Republicans included) are asking us to sacrifice. I'm ready - for them to lead!
Members of Congress did not receive a salary until 1855. It hasn't always been this way. It CAN change.
This time, the email was titled Congressional Reform Act. I don't see a member of Congress proposing it. But a Presidential Candidate could run on it (unlikely), or, a President could push it after being elected (still unlikely, but a possibility).
Among the things I liked:
Term Limits - I've heard the argument against, and I don't buy it.
No Pension - get term limits and you've pretty much taken care of this one.
Pay raises tied to inflation - they do need pay, otherwise normal folk won't run.
No special medical - make they pay for the same plan other government employees pay for. And make it against the law for a government employee staffer to do anything, ANYTHING, in assisting with this. Once they find out how hard it is to figure your plan out, see a doctor, change plans, etc., they would work to fix it. (Ohio, Aetna HMO, for a family, Federal Government employee pays 25% of the cost - take that Wisconsin State employees)
The argument often heard from the left for the nonsense in Wisconsin is that they were promised something - the right to negotiate for their salaries, and for their benefits. The argument some on the right make is that when the unions negotiate with the left...there is no negotiation. The union votes left, the left votes union pay and benefits.
The American people did not make past contracts with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
These clowns in Washington (Republicans included) are asking us to sacrifice. I'm ready - for them to lead!
Members of Congress did not receive a salary until 1855. It hasn't always been this way. It CAN change.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Shhhhhut Up!
Court Clears Delaware Cinema of Racial Bias in Telling Black Patrons to Stay Quiet
A movie theatre manager made an announcement to the movie going audience to silence their cell phones, and remain quiet while the movie played. Immediately, a patron informed the manager that he did not like the way the manager said it (manager-white, patron-black). Immediately, the manager apologized to the audience and stated it was standard, as the theater was packed.
A woman in the audience informed the other patrons that indeed the comments were racist, and that she represented an attorney. She collected contact information from people who felt offended.
She was not an attorney, she did not represent one. She was the director of the Human Relations Commission for the State of Delaware. She filed a complaint with her own commission, and the State of Delaware Human Relations Commission had a hearing.
***PAUSE***
Clearly, if the State of Delaware wants to do this, have at it. But DOES the State of Delaware want this happening. Tax Payer funded employees on this commission, are hearing a case where a movie theater manager asked people to be quiet. We all know you CAN'T shout 'FIRE'! in a crowded movie theatre, but can you tell people to be quiet?
***RE-START***
The Human Relations Commission...despite the theater company's testimony that the announcement was standard at packed showings, and two witnesses who stated they were not offended...ruled that it was racist, and ordered the theater to pay almost $80,000 to the black people who attended the movie.
The Supreme Court of Delaware overruled the verdict.
My first take - get rid of this commission, after their budget covers all the expenses of the movie theater, ban the commission members from ever holding public office, or receiving a government paycheck again.
My second take - the theater needs to fire their lawyer. How could you lose that?
Google
Blacks and Talking in Movies (I actually found this topic on this post completely entertaining, and non-politically correct. As several pointed out, if you want to enjoy the movie alone and in quiet, rent it. If you want to see a good show, and be entertained, go with a predominantly black audience - its interactive).
A movie theatre manager made an announcement to the movie going audience to silence their cell phones, and remain quiet while the movie played. Immediately, a patron informed the manager that he did not like the way the manager said it (manager-white, patron-black). Immediately, the manager apologized to the audience and stated it was standard, as the theater was packed.
A woman in the audience informed the other patrons that indeed the comments were racist, and that she represented an attorney. She collected contact information from people who felt offended.
She was not an attorney, she did not represent one. She was the director of the Human Relations Commission for the State of Delaware. She filed a complaint with her own commission, and the State of Delaware Human Relations Commission had a hearing.
***PAUSE***
Clearly, if the State of Delaware wants to do this, have at it. But DOES the State of Delaware want this happening. Tax Payer funded employees on this commission, are hearing a case where a movie theater manager asked people to be quiet. We all know you CAN'T shout 'FIRE'! in a crowded movie theatre, but can you tell people to be quiet?
***RE-START***
The Human Relations Commission...despite the theater company's testimony that the announcement was standard at packed showings, and two witnesses who stated they were not offended...ruled that it was racist, and ordered the theater to pay almost $80,000 to the black people who attended the movie.
The Supreme Court of Delaware overruled the verdict.
My first take - get rid of this commission, after their budget covers all the expenses of the movie theater, ban the commission members from ever holding public office, or receiving a government paycheck again.
My second take - the theater needs to fire their lawyer. How could you lose that?
Blacks and Talking in Movies (I actually found this topic on this post completely entertaining, and non-politically correct. As several pointed out, if you want to enjoy the movie alone and in quiet, rent it. If you want to see a good show, and be entertained, go with a predominantly black audience - its interactive).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)