Even With…….

TPaineEven with….. some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Chicago has had 2051 people shot this year, with 388 killed.  How can anyone want gun control?

Even with……a rigged Primary, media collusion and collusion with a foreign government (Ukraine),  Trump still won the election and continues to fight with media collusion against him.  Is it time to change the “media” designation to “activist” designation and remove White House access?

Even with…… post offices in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Nevada giving liberal candidates a helping hand during 2016’s hotly contested political races, violating the Hatch Act, will anyone actually be held accountable?

Even with……having a Majority in both houses of Congress, Republicans are showing clearly that they are no different that the Democrats when it comes to telling the truth.  Is it time for a radical change on WHO gets to run for office and how long they serve?

Even with…..Trump supporters very happy with Trump in all the counties that voted for him (90%+ approval), why do the corporate media polls say otherwise?

Even with……ZERO evidence…….

Russia-Trump-Collusion-1-500x358

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    😎

  2. We defend our President with guns.
    We defend our Congressmen with guns.
    We defend our governors with guns.
    We defend our celebrities with guns.
    We defend our sporting events with guns.
    We defend our jewelry stores with guns.
    We defend our banks with guns.
    We defend our office buildings with guns.
    We defend our fctories with guns.
    We defend our ciurts with guns.

    We defend our children with a sign that reads:

    THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE………and then call someone with a gun when there is an emergency.

    • When logic and proportion
      Have fallen sloppy dead
      And the White Knight is talking backwards
      And the Red Queen’s off with her head
      Remember what the dormouse said
      Feed your head
      Feed your head

  3. Just A Citizen says:
  4. Just A Citizen says:

    Proposed principle for revising govt., taxes in particular.

    Taxes are ultimately paid by the individual Citizen. It is the individual who is the ultimate Sovereign in our Republic. It is the Individual who causes action, good or bad, and thus should be ultimately liable for their actions.

    Therefore, ALL taxes should be imposed upon INDIVIDUALS. Not companies, Corporations, Trusts or other entities consisting of more than one person. This includes USE TAXES like gasoline and park permits.

    If all taxes are not move to the individual Citizens, then they should be totally levied against those who pass the laws which impose the tax. If we will not hold the Individual Citizen responsible then we should hold their Representatives responsible.

  5. Mathius says:

    Even with….. some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Chicago has had 2051 people shot this year, with 388 killed. How can anyone want gun control?

    An interesting conversation re gun control, put a different spin on it than I had heard before. It goes like this:

    A back-of-the-napkin estimate for the number of gun deaths per year is 33,599 (according to fivethirtyeight).

    Of those 21,058 were suicides. In my opinion those should not count. People have a right to kill themselves if they like. (139 were 15 years old and younger – they should continue to count as they do not have agency to make that choice).

    That leaves us with 12680 deaths per year.. per 320mm people. So approximately 4 deaths per 100,000 people.

    Some sources claim that 80% of those deaths are gang related, but I find that hard to credit. Let’s work with 4 per 100k.

    Now, in developed, first-world countries with strong effective gun control such as the UK and Japan, the total death rate “from injury” in 2010/2015 is:
    Japan: 6.4/5.3
    UK: 3.3/3.4
    US: 6.2/6.2

    Now, there’s a lot of noise here. Japan’s population is older. The UK has universal health care. Japan eats healthier. The UK has to live next to France. So just look at them as general numbers.

    We lose 4/100k to guns, but our total injury deaths (which includes guns) are either comparable-ish (Japan) or double-ish (UK). But in no case is it high (Syria, Iraq, Honduras, etc).

    What we can gather from this is that people are violent and will find a way to be violent no matter what. Having a gun could make the difference between the US and UK except that difference is probably better explained by their superior heath care. And, in any event, it wouldn’t explain Japan. Why is Japan comparable to us even though their gun deaths are basically zero?

    The answer seems to be that guns don’t really make a significant difference to the number of overall deaths (excluding suicide). Crunching some numbers, I get something in the wishy-washy vicinity of 2k extra deaths per year from our yee-haw attitude.

    Now, you might be thinking to yourself, 2,000 people is a lot of people to let die so that rednecks can go play cowboy, and you’d be right. But he had an additional point to make.

    30k+ deaths / year would probably be a prohibitive cost for any “right.” That is, it’s just too high a price to pay for most things. Maybe the 1st Amendment rights. But not much else.

    But we’re talking about only 2k deaths. That doesn’t crack the top 50 causes in the US. It’s still less than drownings (#47 – 3,404) and diarrheal diseases (#34 – 9,727.. wow!).

    So we’re not talking about a huge cost here in the greater scheme of things. But still, I hear you screaming, that’s 2/3rds of a 9-11 every year. What could possibly justify that?

    So here’s the case he made. The odds of a totalitarian dictatorship in the US, or of foreign occupation is relative minor. But it is non-zero. But an armed populace is basically impossible to repress in this manner (for perspective, he grew up in the USSR). But the same applies to Germany circa WWII – had the Jews remained armed, rounding them up would have been a lot harder (for perspective, he is also a Jew).

    He thinks (and I agree) that the “because I want to kill deer” or “it’s a cultural tradition” or “defend my home from burglars” arguments are bullshit. But he argues that, net-net, we’re paying 2k lives / yr as an insurance policy against government oppression.

    I don’t totally agree, but it’s an interesting case.

    Anyway, I thought I’d share.

    —————

    Even with….. some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Chicago has had 2051 people shot this year, with 388 killed. How can anyone want gun control?

    Bullshit.

    Stop with the bullshit.

    Chicago can’t stop gun violence because all you have to do to get a gun is leave the city.

    It’s like saying “I can’t get sick because I keep my house germ free” while ignoring that your neighbor’s house is a festering cesspool. And then, when you get sick saying “how can anyone support keeping their house clean?”

    Ban guns nation-wide, or even state-wide, and you’ll see that they are effective at stopping gun violence.

    If you doubt that, go look at Japan. It has basically no gun deaths. Why? Because their laws are tough, enforced, and universal. They don’t, for example, let you buy guns in 99% of the country and expect them to stay out of the other 1%.

    Put another way, the flaw isn’t with Chicago’s laws. The problem is with the rest of the state/country’s lack of a laws.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      A few points of order.

      I don’t understand the summary of the other guy’s argument including references to aging populations or the health care system when the numbers supposedly represent “INJURY” deaths.

      The arguments made about Chicago or other places are only partly BS. Because the people who pass these laws are supposing they have a local impact. So we now know that banning guns in Chicago only leaves bad people with guns. This of course means that when someone claims “regulating” guns will stop unwanted deaths they really mean BANNING GUNS.

      Third point is that we cannot simply compare numbers between countries because there are significant cultural differences. The US could try to ban and control guns like Japan and you would probably get MORE gun deaths. At least for awhile. Japan’s culture is more attuned to the idea that Govt. should control such things. We Americans, not so much.

      I expect someday we will become Europe completely and the number wanting to protect gun ownership will finally be such a small minority we will lose the “right to bear arms.”

      I have always argued that hunting and recreation are not the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was the recognition that an armed public is far less likely to be subdued by Force. It is clear that this is why the right was codified. This is why the linkage to the “Militia” is mentioned as well.

      I do have a general comment regarding any attempt at benefit:cost analysis. It presumes that benefit and cost analysis is somehow relevant. Meaning that somehow Govt. is responsible for determining broad scale benefits and costs to society and then adjusting INDIVIDUAL Liberties accordingly. This concept is within the ideology of the Socialist/Progressive following. But it is not consistent with American Values. Not the ones we used to care about, anyway.

      • Mathius says:

        A few points of order.

        The floor is yours.

        I don’t understand the summary of the other guy’s argument including references to aging populations or the health care system when the numbers supposedly represent “INJURY” deaths.

        It may surprise you to learn that the elderly are more susceptible to death from injury. What might be a minor problem to a teenager becomes “helps I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” to a 70 year old. Thus, for the same lifetime, all else being equal, an older population can be expected to have a higher rate of death from injury.

        Given this, I had to adjust downward the overall rate of injury-deaths for Japan based on their pro-rate performance in specific categories I could line up. Once I had a general sense of the extra “cost” of that vulnerability, I could modify the entire category – it worked out to about an added 0.5 deaths per 100k. I wouldn’t want to publish my results in a scientific journal, but it suffices for general discussion.

        The point is that, even though we’re both around 6/100k, Japan would be, arbitrarily, maybe 5.5/100k given a younger population.

        More or less.

        The arguments made about Chicago or other places are only partly BS. Because the people who pass these laws are supposing they have a local impact. So we now know that banning guns in Chicago only leaves bad people with guns. This of course means that when someone claims “regulating” guns will stop unwanted deaths they really mean BANNING GUNS.

        So should they give up and do nothing? Or should they do what they can and try to push for broader restrictions? Maybe they should set up check-points around the city?

        It’s just a general observation though – people act as if “gun control” doesn’t work when it is only ever practiced in America in a deeply sabatoged fashion. In places where they give it an honest try (Japan / UK, etc), it is very effective at reducing suicides and gun deaths.

        That said, I have no issue with the suicides – if someone wants to eat a bullet that’s between them and their family. And as far as the non-suicide gun deaths are concerned, they would be largely (~94%) replaced by non-gun deaths. Or so it would seem.

        —–

        A better example than my cleanliness example would be this. Cigarettes are bad for you, so you quit smoking even though everyone around you continues to smoke. So you still get cancer. And then you use this to claim that quitting smoking is pointless. I think that jives pretty well with the logical fallacy being employed here.

        Third point is that we cannot simply compare numbers between countries because there are significant cultural differences. The US could try to ban and control guns like Japan and you would probably get MORE gun deaths.

        Perhaps. I’m not talking about the transition, or the social cost of the associated change. Americans could acclimate to being gun free. We city-folk are just fine with it. You’d get there too.. eventually.

        I’m just trying to work my friend’s theory – that guns are just the way Americans hurt each other and that, if they weren’t there, we’d use knifes or slings or box cutters. It seems that, generally, human being are pieces of shit and, for a given level of economic development commit a commensurate level of violence upon each other. Guns, due to their easy-of-use, range, etc, just have a premium cost.

        I expect someday we will become Europe completely and the number wanting to protect gun ownership will finally be such a small minority we will lose the “right to bear arms.”

        Probably.

        Although some parts of Europe have even higher rates of gun ownership… so there’s that..

        I have always argued that hunting and recreation are not the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was the recognition that an armed public is far less likely to be subdued by Force. It is clear that this is why the right was codified. This is why the linkage to the “Militia” is mentioned as well.

        Then why don’t you have to be a part of a “well regulated militia” in order to have a gun?

        I do have a general comment regarding any attempt at benefit:cost analysis. It presumes that benefit and cost analysis is somehow relevant. Meaning that somehow Govt. is responsible for determining broad scale benefits and costs to society and then adjusting INDIVIDUAL Liberties accordingly. This concept is within the ideology of the Socialist/Progressive following. But it is not consistent with American Values. Not the ones we used to care about, anyway.

        Maybe not your American Values ™. It certainly is in line with mine.

        How does one provide for the common defense or the general welfare without, err, breaking a few eggs?

        • I’m with T-Ray here. This is an apples oranges comparison and equal to comparing domestic violence against women in the US with Afghanistan. Again, different culture.

          I forget where it was but I’ve seen it a few times. If you take off the table the firearms murders in six of our cities, the rest of the country is down around Switzerland. Again it is cultural differences.

          We also know that in NY City with an admittedly tough Sullivan Law, murders were brought down from over 2,0000 per year to 300 without new gun laws. One could actually argue that in that same period, national gun control was significantly eased and NY gun crime still decreased even with the given that most NY City guns were brought in from elsewhere. Hence, as I think Chicago proves, it is the enforcement that matters most.

          What you are trying to do is beat the octagon shaped wood piece into the round hole in the puzzle. It will work but it is better to look for the correct piece.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          I conceded long ago that if there were ZERO guns there would be ZERO deaths caused by gun. What is it they call that? A non-sequitur? Don’t remember for sure.

          So this point that eliminating weapons would prevent deaths is irrelevant because that is not what is going to happen. It is useful only in your counter arguments to generalities that are not properly “premised”.

          In Chicago, for example, any discussion about the effectiveness of “gun control/regulation” would have to consider who is doing most of the shooting. Then exactly how do you stop those people from getting guns. Given that most of these are “criminals”, not speculation but widely reported, then where is the leak in the existing regulations. It is not all in the “gun shows”. At least nobody has shown that to be the case.

          I agree there is a logical fallacy being used by the pro gun people. Both sides to often “generalize” their claims, forgetting to couch them in the details that make their statement relevant.

          Re: Europe. You got me there. Caught me using a generalization. Although those parts of Europe which are heavily armed may find themselves following OLD Europe if the EU folks get their way. 🙂

          I never said Chicago should do nothing. But if you admit the bad guys can buy guns somewhere else, then banning guns in Chicago would have ?% effect. I am estimating this at just above zero. So in reality, check points would be the one thing that could make a difference. That and putting armed police on the street corners with the authority to shoot back at anyone who fires a gun in public.

          My key point here is that each situation should be evaluated and solutions based on that situation. Not all problems, including gun deaths, are the same everywhere. And the solutions are probably not uniform either. Except of course for that 100% BAN. But then you have to deal with the “unintended consequences”.

          Re Militia and 2nd Amendment: Because contrary to what left leaning scholars have tried to tell everyone, the right to bear arms was not tied to membership in the militia. The Right to bear arms stands alone. But the 2nd amendment emphasis that this right is essential to having a militia to protect the STATES. Besides, up until just a few years back I was part of the Militia. You are currently a member of the Militia.

          If Govt. limited itself to what was truly the “general welfare” I doubt any eggs would be broken. Although in this day and age there might have to be some broken in order to restore true liberty. Some folks just don’t seem to want to be free. We might have to force it on them. LOL. That was sarcasm generated from a long ago discussion here at SUFA. In case you missed it.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            I’ve lived in Chicago 2X. Once in ’75 and again in ’81. Both times it was important that you did not come up on a police officer in a way that would surprise him or her. You made your presence known to them as you approached them.

            In ’81 I lived right downtown on Michigan Ave in a very high rent district. The gun battles that were very frequent at night was a little un-nerving, even living on the 15th floor of the condo building the sounds of the battles penetrated the walls. The Chuck Norris movies shot in the city were not fiction, they emulated life.

            As as side note the blacks were deathly afraid of being in Chinatown after dark, even taxi’s

    • Re: Japan. Japan is a very homogeneous society hence does not have the societal stresses of different cultures and races. Nor does it have the crime issues we have here.

      Reference the 2K deaths per year: How many lives are saved each year because the victim was armed and defended themselves?

      • Mathius says:

        Japan is a very homogeneous society hence does not have the societal stresses of different cultures and races.

        True. But it has lot of other stresses. Not the least of which are their proximity to Russia, China, and N. Korea.

        Also that their economy is a ticking time-bomb.

        Also that their population is declining (for 6 straight years).

        Nor does it have the crime issues we have here.

        Citation needed.

        From my digging, it appear they have (roughly) the same percentage of stabbings as we had shootings+stabbings. I read that to mean that the same percentage of Japanese people try to kill each other as Americans (America was slightly higher for the above-addressed reasons).

        In other words, things don’t change too much from place to place.

        Reference the 2K deaths per year: How many lives are saved each year because the victim was armed and defended themselves?

        In reality, or anecdotally?

        In reality, not many. You are statistically far more likely to die with a gun in the house.

        Anecdotally, however, 90 year old grannies are defending their homes from hoards of paramilitary gangs left and right.

        I imagine the truth is that people who saved themselves from death by being armed are a rounding error compared to people who got themselves into situations they wouldn’t have had they not been armed. E.g., having a gun in the home makes you more likely to confront a burglar than avoid one. Confrontation increases your likelihood of using your gun or having one used on you. Avoidance is safer.. just not safer for the property that will be stolen.

        For every attempted date-rape that ends with the would-be victim shooting her assailant, there are probably a dozen people who accidentally blow their brains (or lack thereof) out when they forget to check the chamber.

        And, in any event, if no one had guns (eg, Japan / UK), then attackers would all have knives and defenders could also use knives. I carry a knife – it’s very handy – I use it for all kinds of things that aren’t related to violent crime. Getting rid of guns would be a de-escalation.

        The big question I have to address is my friend’s assertion that 2k/yr is a “tax” we Americans pay to insure against dictatorships / coups / etc. I have to work out whether I agree with the cost/benefit. And, if I were to agree, then why stop at guns and not let me have an A-10 Warthog?

        • “then why stop at guns and not let me have an A-10 Warthog?”….Come on down here, Sir…you could probaby find one at any local Gun show.

          Sir Mathius…you said ” having a gun in the home makes you more likely to confront a burglar than avoid one. Confrontation increases your likelihood of using your gun or having one used on you. Avoidance is safer.. just not safer for the property that will be stolen.”

          D 13 chimes in uninvited: I see all sorts of issues here but the biggest issue that really bothers me…..is your statement of avoidance. If you do not wish to confront a burglar in your own home, then I guess that is ok…me…..well, you know what I would do. I would take a picture of my shot group and send it to my friends. Killing a burglar is no different than swatting a mosquito…..in my opinion, of course. But to go on….you are a big society person but it seems to me that you exacerbate a problem by not doing , what I determine, to be the right thing. For example…..if I see a robbery taking place and I am in a position to do something about it absent a police presence, do you not see it as a civil responsibility to help other than take a picture with a cell phone? I would try to help just as I would stop a beating, a purse snatcher, You and I, of course, are very different people. I would not avoid a situation at all IF I was in a position to help. It is not just a police problem, in my opinion, but a societal problem.

          Matuis says: “there are probably a dozen people who accidentally blow their brains (or lack thereof) out when they forget to check the chamber.” D13 asks: Does this not fall in your category of suicide in a sort of weird way? I mean, you say if someone wanted to eat a bullet, why do you care….why would you then care if someone was totally stupid in not checking a chamber?

          Now, under your premise of the numbers you used……or your friend used…it would seem to me that if the idea is to prevent deaths of all sorts…..that automobiles would be a bigger priority than guns…….2015 statsfor the United States per 100k…..10.9 deaths. Are you in favor of eliminating cars and motorcylces? A car is far more deadlier than a gun, it appears. Let’s take New York for example….5.7 traffic related deaths per 100k. Gun deaths in New York per 100K ( 2010 was the last example that I could find ) was 7.4. So, using the theory of saving lives, it seems that eliminating cars in New York wouldl be a higher priority that guns.
          ( That said, the two times that I visited the city….a taxi is far more lethal than a nuclear weapon ).

          Getting rid of guns would be a de-escalation. Getting rid of autos would be a greater de-escalation, no?

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            And this is in a State that has Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy as Senators

            The Vermont Constitution of 1777, dating well before the Bill of Rights to a time when Vermont was an independent republic, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

            The State neither issues nor requires a permit to carry a weapon on one’s person, openly or concealed. This permissive stance on gun control is known in the U.S. as constitutional carry, since one’s “permit” is said to be the United States Constitution. Vermont is the only state where this has always been the case (hence the alternative term Vermont carry[2]). Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry permit-free while in Vermont.

            Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Relevant Statutes
            State Permit to purchase? No No
            Firearm registration? No No
            Assault weapon law? No No
            Magazine restriction? No No
            Owner license required? No No
            Carry permits required? No No
            Notes:Vermont Firearm Laws: May carry open or concealed without permit as long as you are a citizen of the U.S. or a lawfully admitted alien, and not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.
            Open carry? Yes Yes
            State preemption of local Yes Yes
            restrictions?
            NFA weapons restricted? No No Notes:Vermont legalized suppressors on June 17th, 2015.[8]

            Background checks required No No
            for private sales?

          • How many “accidental” discharges or “he was just cleaning his gun” are really suicides? For that matter I remember a cop telling me many late night single car auto crashes resulting in a fatality were too. No insurance problem s for the heirs.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Have an old high school buddy that became a major league baseball player. An armed assailant entered their home and was threatening to murder him and his wife….friend was a quick athlete and was able to get at the assailent before the trigger was pulled. In the ensuing scuffle the gun went off and the assailent was DEAD. Friend was charged with murder, though eventually dropped, the organization fired him. Wound up in Japan for the time allowed for a US player to be there. End of career.

          note: a japanese ball player can come here and play as long as he is on the team. Might be until age catches up or capabilities fall off. In Japan a team is allowed only ONE US player and that tenure was limited to one year, maybe two.

          Try becoming a Japanese citizen and not be genetically Japanese, virtually impossible.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          “The big question I have to address is my friend’s assertion that 2k/yr is a “tax” we Americans pay to insure against dictatorships / coups / etc. I have to work out whether I agree with the cost/benefit. And, if I were to agree, then why stop at guns and not let me have an A-10 Warthog?”

          EXACTLY. How long have I been saying that? There was no limitation placed on what arms we could bear. And in the day when that was written, some men owned cannons. As we argued here on this topic, with Black Flag, modern costs are the only legitimate restriction on weapons ownership. If I want a tank I should be able to have one. The Govt. can prohibit me from driving it down the street without the proper insurance and license plates, but nothing more.

          To add to your “question” you are struggling with let me add something I heard from a Democrat years ago. Turns out he was from Chicago. His claims was:

          “That $5000 per year in taxes we pay for welfare is a cheap price to pay to keep them in the cities.”

          See what evil can seep into a benefit to cost analysis when dealing with basic principles, like RIGHTS. In your case, the mere fact that the people being armed can deter Tyranny in some way is enough. It is a RIGHT that should not be disputable. Therefore the supposed “cost” is irrelevant. Except to those who have to maintain the cache of weapons.

          I expect part of your problem is that because of our history you see little chance of the need for such a revolt. That such a level of tyranny is inconceivable. But your “risk assessment” is largely based on the world where the presence of such arms has cause the Govt. to pause many times. I do not see how you or anyone could assign a meaningful risk factor should the population not be armed.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        After having lived in the UK here are some items to ponder. Yes the population is generally disarmed. Criminals still had guns, as did farmers, shotguns. The average run of the mill criminal did not need more firepower like a gun. They knew who they were going to mug or steal from was disarmed and they used knives and fists and the boot. The people were general programed to NOT resist. While I was living in an area in the midlands the police very publically stated that it was of NO USE to install security systems on your home,,,,,they had no way to respond.

        In Amsterdam, the people who resisted and possibly injured the perp were proscuted, again breeding total passivity. The initial victim was now the criminal and the criminal was now the victim. An old man farmer near where I lived in England was sent to prison for defending his property, inside his house. The perps became victims even though they had previously on numerous occassions entered and beat and robbed the old man. They even won a lawsuit and got rewarded with hundreds of thousand of pounds sterling. In the span of 2 month in Amsterdam living in the historical city center I experienced 4 attempted muggings. None of the perps were dutch, but from Africa or the M/E. Even in 2001 the government would do nothing but go after the native population for speaking out against the immigration policies. Be more tolerant with these poor unfortunate immigrants. But the real fault lay with the EU who targeted the dutch elected officials who dared speak out. The EU would prosecute them for “hate” speech. The european population has been cowed into passivity by the violence or threat of violence perpetrated upon them by the EU.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The police in the shire as I said they had no way to respond by virtue that the B&E’s were so pervasive they could not possibly repond in a timely manner so why bother rushing.

          I belive I said it before, in ’01 in the cities of Manchester and Birmingham the racial riots were massive. They were between Muslims and Hindus, not the native Brits. One night 500 riot police wound up being hospitalized with injuries trying to stop the riots and protect property. Yet it was they who were accused of violence and had to defend themselves in court. The BBC gave very little time to the stories and ran like a loop “Racism in America” deflecting the problems they themselves had at home.

  6. So, you can pick your poison on statistics below. Two for two against. What I don’t like and never has is the inclusion of the word “children” then taking that out to Age 19. Most gang members killed by others or by police are 19 and below and are included in the stats as are people killed by guns used by police. So while us owners may lie, the opposition lies more or, shall I say obfuscate.

    https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

    https://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm

    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html

    https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.WXESK-mQyUk

  7. Mathius got me to looking…..found this. Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2015. Wonder what was used the other 56%?

    • Mathius says:

      Wonder what was used the other 56%?

      They probably watched Fox News until their will to live abandoned them, and their hearts simply stopped.

  8. Calling Dread Pirate…..calling Dread Pirate……Please analyze this statement with regard to Thor’s Hammer……” having a gun in the home ( on the Hammer ) makes you more likely to confront a burglar than avoid one. Confrontation increases your likelihood of using your gun or having one used on you. Avoidance is safer.. just not safer for the property that will be stolen. ( The Hammer being stolen )?

    Calling the Dread Pirate…

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      In the neighborhhod I used to live in, the houses were big elegant historical homes. You’d think that these homes would be targets. In the 9 prior years to me buying there and the 5 that I lived there, there were “ZERO” B&E’s in the district. Why…..most residents were military either retired active or like me did my 6, and we all flew our services flags. Most were Marines. All were armed and knew how to use the defense tools. This district was right next to the poorest section of the city. There you’d hear shots in the middle of the night, sirens then news the next day.

      Downtown the area is chock full of marines from Cherry Point or LeJeune. all know how to deal with any situation with their hands. Nobody messes with anybody because it is a bad bet, so peace reigns. I’ve even seen Grandma’s with open carry and or a nice pistol in their purse, conceal carry…..again peace reigns.

      • Funny you should mention this….I just recently moved outside of Fort Worth to a small town. I live in a gated community. I am just getting around to meeting most of the neighbors. This community has one way in and one way out and we are rural. There are only 80 homes in this community on at least one acre or better. All on well water and not in any city limits. There is ranch land to the north and south that is not open to development and the homes to our east are all on 10 acres or better. Our only law enforcement is the county sheriff and ourselves. What is interesting along your lines is that 50% are retired military and some are current. There are a couple of police officers that live out here. We are all well armed and we all watch each others homes. So we are dependent upon each other for security. No one is going to bother us out here…..they will die. We can leave our doors and windows open and cars unlocked. We have an extensive network of communication with each other and that includes the spousal units. All are intertwined into security. We have security cameras on the gate, which is open from 0600 – 2100 and we know every single license plate that comes in here. Community involvement at the simplest level is what it is going to take to be secure and safe.

        • I asked about security before I decided to build out here and was told that the only problem that there has been…..are builders stealing from each other. Not one single B/E…not even a disturbance of the peace. The builders are not free to come and go as they choose….they must work when the gates are open and they do not know the gate codes.

          • One other thing that you mentioned…..It looks like flag day around here. Everyone flies their flag…..and we have one on the gate.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            In New Bern when you go away for a period of time, just stop by the police headquarters and let them know your time away. they will make frequent security checks of your home. Outside the city the sheriffs dept will handle that. In a neighboring city called Trenton as a resident you can be recruited to help in any situation that the police or sheriffs needs help. Like tracking down an escaped prisoner.

            In my last neighborhood we did have a watch of exactly one person and he made his rounds before heading to his volunteer work at the sheriffs dept. He was a retired Marine sniper. People regardless of race creed or color are generally cordial to each other. Everyone holds doors, yes sir yes ma’m especially if you are older and gray. The countryside is mostly black farmers. They are exceedingly nice the work ethic is strong. Ther are some areas with issues but all in all every one tries to get along. Easter Sunday is always a revelation in the park at Union Point. The diversity is astounding and everyone dresses nice to promenade the walks along the river. This was a major port at one time and the history of the people was always diverse due to the international trade.

            The one thing that you will notice on law enforcement in NC and very evident here in eastern NC. The local police are quite mixed on physiques, much more like likely to see an officer with a pot belly. Get into the sheriffs dept and these men and women are totally put together. Their uniforms are at all times perfect and their physical presence is dominating yet they are always exceedingly polite. Will aways talk to you if they have the time, articulate and well spoken. The State Highway Patrol are the same. Yet I know they have serious artillery in their trunks if needed. The sheriffs dept has a great firing range. For a small donation you can use it if you are a resident

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Even protests are orderly. Noisy sometimes but they go away. I’ll usually brew a pot of coffee and watch from my porch. The city and federal offices are the next block over. However, the protests are against the government not the people. If a protest hits the streets, I have never seen one that does not restrict themselves to the sidewalk, Blocking street traffic is a not starter. I have never seen any police presence ever, but you know they’re around. Do damage and that will end the protest. The park at the end of the street on the water has numerous protest for just about every cause. Just schedule it. And clean up after yourselves, get the trash into the bins.

              The bars and clubs are open until 0200. No reason to drive when you can walk anywhere downtown at any time. At that hour the middle of the street is ok to walk in. The police will patrol but their job is to make sure everyone gets home safely, not make arrests.

              We have NO muslim cab drivers where they will not drive you home if they know you just left a bar or a restaurant that serves alchohol, like in Irvine TX. That used to piss us off when on business trips there.

              • Irving, Texas……..that does not happen any longer. They all lost their license to drive.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                glad the city Fathers woke up…had one cabbie taking me from DFW airport have such a lack of knowledge of the area, thought he went past the only way to my office. He actually stopped on the freeway and backed up. No thought of driving to the next exit and going over the highway or even realizing the next exit just went to the building from the opposite direction. The only other place I’ve seen that was on the Brooklyn side of the east river.

        • Last night about 10 pm, I got a reverse 911 call from the sheriff that a fugitive was on the loose in the area. I secured the homestead and went to bed. About 4 pm today we got the all clear call. First time in 25 yrs I had to worry about anything other than fire.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            or drought

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            I was reading some articles on California politics. What this State law about elections are all suppposed to be non-partisan no political parties, noted and it’s just the top two vote getters in a primary that are in the general election.

            You have got to be an endangered species in CA. They do not need to send you to a reeducation camp, you are not relevent in the State politics. Does anyone talk about upholding your minority rights?

            • The jungle primary is a problem since the Rs have not figured it out. We already have 2 R candidates for governor. If they were smart, they would settle on one before the primary and hope that the multiple Ds split their vote allowing an R to reach the finals.

              The just passed the extension of the Cap and Trade bill which will raise energy costs even more. They need a 2/3 vote to prevent a court challenge since it could be viewed as a hidden tax. Somehow they convinced several Rs to vote for it by either bribery (pork) or with the threat that CARB (CA Air Resource Board) would dictate even higher C&T fees. Now CARB is an unelected body that needs to be reigned in but the legislature will not. My reps did not fall for it. This state is truly a lost cause.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The LATimes article I read with the way elections are held which is exactly like the national elections for president were….the last two standiing with the most votes. Top vote getter was Presisent #2 was vice president. so there could be opposing parties. But CA seems to have taken it a step further and dropped all party nomeclature yet the candidates are known as to who they are affiliated with.

                The article pointed out that there actually is a stifling by this law of opposing ideas. But, just a discusion of how much more or less of the same issue will they enact.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Confrontation increases your likelihood of using your gun or having one used on you. Avoidance is safer.. just not safer for the property that will be stolen. ( The Hammer being stolen )?

      This is absolutely true.

      It is – safer – to simply allow the thief to take your stuff. If you hide under your bed sheets, he’ll take his fill and leave you in peace 99.99 times out of 100 because doing so is safer for him as well. Confrontation is dangerous for both parties.

      That said, anyone attempting to loot The Hammer is unlikely to ever be heard from again.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Pirate,

        All you do is empower thieves to steal more. Nonsense! I’m PA, if one walks into a home uninvited, regardless of reason or lack of weapon, it is legal to shoot to kill the third bastard or bitch.

        The Castle Doctrine actually saves lives as it’s a big deterrent to potential thieves.

        I have in fact confronted a stranger in my home with a high power rifle, loaded and cocked, in Va. An idiot neighbor, totally bombed, walked in wrong house. He lived because I confronted and asked what he thought he was doing. After an explaination, which was later funny, I helped him home, two houses away.

        What isn’t a statistic is how many people are confronted and when a firearm is presented, the perp usually find off. These stories can be found in the thousands each year. So I’m response to your claim……wrong my friend. The facts don’t support your theory.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Sorry for odd words, from phone with a poor auto correct

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          You speak as a matter or policy.

          And as a matter of policy, I would agree, that having an armed and confrontational populace is a deterrence to potential thieves. (Mathius may not agree – you’ll have to ask him).

          However, on a personal one-by-one, case-by-case basis – though the decisions of individuals amount to a greater policy – the decision to confront or hide does not affect the “empowerment” of thieves. To put that more plainly, my decisions are not a deterrent – but the collective decisions of my neighbors and myself may be.

          In the instance that a vandal has invaded my ship, my safest option is to run screaming and call in police from a safe distance. That may not be my decision as a self-respecting pirate, but it is my safest option. Any option involving confrontation inherently involves added risk… individually.

          Now, when it turns out that I am confrontational, and my neighboring ship is confrontational, and his neighbor, and so on… well, (A) the pool of potential thieves gets thinned out and (B) my neighborhood acquires a reputation that then becomes a deterrent. At that point, we’ve reached the optimal solution because thieves won’t invade any ships because of the high likelihood of confrontation (hey, look, it’s herd immunity!).

          But it’s a question of game theory, I suppose. Everyone’s private best option is to not confront, leading to a variation on the Prisoner’s Dilemma wherein the optimal solution (everyone confronts) is not a Nash equilibrium.

  9. Matt, I know I have been through the statistics you quote above before about 3-4 years ago. I do not know if it was on this site or someplace else. At that time I concluded that outside of the major (mostly Democrat run cities) there is not a gun problem in the US. As you noted about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. If someone is hell bent on that solution, there are pills knives, bridges, trains and all sorts of methods to accomplish the mission. The gun is just more convenient. In fact if I remember right, the suicide rate in Japan is higher than it is here. Given the number of guns in the country, our death rate, again excluding the major cities, is world class low. The real problem is gangs and drugs. Eliminate those and the gun problems solve themselves. Gangs and drugs are people problems. Guns are just inanimate tools.

    We could accomplish more by making sure inner city youth have a job. Busy people stay out of trouble. Trump is on the right path and will succeed if Congress will support him.

  10. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Prediction…in Europe in the near future will be a Krystalnacht stiyle night. Instead of Nazi supporters against Jews, it will be Muslims against whites. It will take a twist though. Just like in the late 60’s in San Francisco, which Nancy Pelosi does not remember. The Black Muslims had a rite for their initiates to KILL a whitey. To be a member they’d come over from Oakland and do a drive-by shooting into, usually groups of people waiting for a bus at a corner. Sometimes with automatic weapons…….Charles Manson’s specific goal in LA was to start a race war. The Tate murder was a side show and murders of the wrong people in the rental. The target was someone else, a previous renter and music promoter. . ,

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    #Mathius:

    Re: Other countries vs. the US in regards to gun control.

    Answer: I don’t give a rat’s ass about what other countries do or don’t do concerning gun laws, I don’t live there, don’t plan on living there. My ancestors left Europe a couple Centuries ago.

    But I do have a solution to the “gun violence rate” issue that the anti-gunners always bloviate about. Present them with this and watch their eyes roll.

    Close down all travel too and from the top 10 most violent cities in the US, enact Martial Law and send in the Marines door to door to arrest illegal gun owners, take all the guns not owned legally. Sweep the city, completely. Then open up travel with checkpoints at every entry point and search for illegal guns. By the end of the first month, the US violent crime rate will drop to the lowest level in the world.

    Or……Eliminate Democrats from the political choices on election day. 😀

    • Mathius says:

      I have an alternative solution.

      End the “War on Drugs,” and watch the gangs and cartels evaporate overnight.

      Treat drug addiction like a serious public mental health crisis that it is – that is, free rehab for anyone / everyone who needs it. Increased education. Etc.

      No illegal drugs, no money for gangs, no reason for violence.

      See also: Prohibition.

      • I do not know that it is true. You with “legal” drugs will posit that “You must be 21”. Think about that for a minute. Certain drugs will be banned as being too dangerous not to mention the potential liability for overdose deaths against manufacturers.

        There is a lot to be said for your proposal but it needs to be taken out several steps beyond mere legalization.

        Right now we are dealing with this opioid crisis and doctors who write prescriptions for massive quantities. Will you limit quantities?

        Back when I was in High School during the first Heroin crisis of the 1960’s (Panic in Needle Park era) I basically said everything should be legal, sold over the counter in supermarkets with no prescription and if you OD, tough, merely Darwin doing his thing. If you are cool with this idea I’ll jump on your bandwagon. The idea of making it “legal” and “safe” is idiocy.

      • Repeal of Prohibition did not stop underage drinking, alcoholism, domestic violence, accidental death, alcohol poisoning nor a myriad of other problems. What repeal did was to recognize that the vast number of “users” were none of the above. Now, I guess a good case can be made for repeal of Marijuana Laws (if you have no problems with lotus eaters) but everything else? Not so sure.

        • Gonna have to do some research but I beleive that the Governor of Colorado now says legalization of the weed ended up being no good. Several things went up,,,,crime and accidents espcially but I cannot verufy this…will look at some stats.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            They love it in Colorado………… because TAX REVENUES went way up. That has always baffled me about those proposing legalizing Pot. They always would talk about the potential tax revenue. As it that should have been the deciding factor.

        • Repeal of Prohibition did not stop underage drinking, alcoholism, domestic violence, accidental death, alcohol poisoning nor a myriad of other problems.

          I never suggested it did.

          Alcohol is a mind-altering and addictive chemical.

          Some people are going to abuse it if they have access.

          But restricting access to alcohol (prohibition) or drugs (present) doesn’t seem to stop people from getting them. All it does is turn otherwise innocent consumers into criminals.

          I may have consumed an illegal substance or two in my day – but if I’d been caught, it would have destroyed my life. I would never have been able to get my current job with a criminal conviction in my background. And for what? Getting high and watching Cartoon Network when I was a teenager? Tell me that makes sense.

          ——-

          What’s interesting is that you (the Royal You) seem to believe that a wall can keep out illegal aliens and a drug law can keep down drug use, but a gun ban is ineffectual. The position seems inconsistent.

          Here’s what I think. I think that you cannot defeat a demand problem by restricting supply unless you become draconian.

          Japan got rid of all the gun and imposes and enforces huge penalties for violation. As a result, even the Yakuza prefers to use knives. Think about that for a minute.

          I like the idea of getting rid of all guns in America, but I do not know how it could be done effectively. As long as there is demand for guns, the supply will materialize. Unless we become *ahem* militant about it.

          Same thing with drug. You cannot halt the flow of drugs so long as there is demand. And, oh boy, is there ever demand. So the only thing you do by restricting it is channel money into criminal enterprises.

          I would point out that there is no “black market” for alcohol (outside of, maybe, the moonshiners in Appalachia). Not a penny of my drinking problem makes its way to violent criminals. And there are no armed gangs selling vodka on street corners having shootouts with their rivals.

          Certain drugs will be banned as being too dangerous

          Why?

          I’d argue that *most* people don’t want to get into the harder stuff in the first place. There’s a subset of people who, of course, are just susceptible to addiction. They’re going to find their way into a bad place no matter what. But the research has been pretty resounding that marijuana is not actually a “gateway drug” any more than alcohol or caffeine.

          A lot of people “graduate” to more dangerous stuff like heroine because, shockingly, it’s cheaper. It’s very cheap… to start, anyway – tolerance builds up fast, and what was $20 for a weekend at first is $150/day soon. But that could be mitigated through public policy setting pricing that discourages graduating.

          Cigarettes are expensive, and addictive. But teen smoking is at an all-time low. In other words, inflating the price keeps people from starting. Education helps. (I never smoked a (tobacco) cigarette in my life because I am too cheap to risk getting addicted).

          not to mention the potential liability for overdose deaths against manufacturers.

          How to alcohol and tobacco manufacturers stay in business? I’d be perfectly comfortable giving drug makers immunity with the proviso that they may not market to kids. Also, somehow, stop them from designing new drugs that are more addictive. Basically, put them all in the same category: dangerous, potentially addictive stuff, to be used by adults,at their own risk.

          The idea of making it “legal” and “safe” is idiocy.

          There is no “safe” here. Only Safe… r.

          Safer, not safe.

          Right now, you have no idea what’s in your drugs, what they cut it with, how strong it will be (the cause of a huge number of OD’s), etc.

          Also, again, your money is going to violent criminals instead of corporate criminals.

          The War on Drugs ruins lives through criminal charges that make getting a job harder, break up families (increasing the odds of the next generation having issues), and more. It’s a terrible cycle.

          Breaking that cycle will not make drugs safe. It won’t make society safe. There is no safe.

          But it will be better.

          and if you OD, tough, merely Darwin doing his thing. If you are cool with this idea I’ll jump on your bandwagon.

          Darwin take the wheel!

          I figure, in year one, there will be a lot of deaths. In year two, not so much. Alright everybody, time to thin out the gene pool.

          I’d love to have access to coke (for when Red Bull just ins’t enough). I’d also really like to try dropping acid just to experience it. When I was dealing with severe chronic back pain and Vicodin didn’t work, I’d love to have been able to use some morphine (god, I love morphine!). And if I died in the process, well, that’s my choice leading to my consequence, and it’s not your problem. In fact, it means my job is open, so someone else gets to move up in the world.

          You pays your money, you takes your chances.

          • Sir Mathius……..question……does your current job require drug testing?

            • No. It would be highly unusual in my industry and would probably result in a significant percentage of the employees being fired. I swear, 90% of traders use something or other.

              Here’s a question for you: provided that I am not high while working, why is it any of their business?

              Here’s another: drinking is a similarly risky behavior. Should my job test for alcohol consumption?

              • It is not my business unless you are coming to work impaired. And if you test positive, you are impaired. I do not want you working calculators or driving equipment while impaired and if not impaired, having it in your system. Think of the liability question if one of your employees was involved in an accident or caused some other malfunction and tested positive.

                And to answer your question….alcohol is a drug and we treat it as such.

                but to also answer your question…yes, if you worked for me, you would be subject to random testing….unannounced.

                Even our independent contractors, whom are NOT employees, have in their agreement that I can require a random test at my expense. Should they prove positive, no matter the job being done, they are no longer used and I will report it on a reference if asked. I do not voulunteer the information, but if asked, I will not lie. Now, on the other hand, I am very rarely asked about irect involvement…..but I am asked, ” Would you rehire this person or entity again?” I would say no, I would not and that would be the end of the sentence. Empoyers know what that means.

              • Colonel,

                It is not my business unless you are coming to work impaired. And if you test positive, you are impaired.

                Why am I impaired if I was on drugs over the weekend? If I’m not high, on the job, what I did in my free time should be my business, no?

                but to also answer your question…yes, if you worked for me, you would be subject to random testing….unannounced.

                I don’t do any drugs anymore. But I’m not sure I would submit to your testing on principle.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I always liked the mandatory drug testing in the service, circa ’70’s, enlisted were tested all the time…..OFFICERS were exempt.

                When I worked on destroyers, refitting and modernization, at BIW in Maine. It was amazing the hidden amount of drugs we pulled out……most up on the “O” decks.

            • I don’t know about New York, but down here, the normal test is for 15 ng……Before we went to independent contractors, our drug/alcohol testing was $250….we considered it was worth it because we looked at the initial cost of $250 as nothing compared to health costs and absenteeism, etc.

              Or, are you against drug testing for employment? and unannounced random testing?

              • I am against you testing to see if I do drugs on my own time.

                On your dollar, you have every right to ensure that I’m not a threat to your business for all the reasons you mentioned, and more, but on my time, it’s my life to do with what I wish.

                I am not against testing, per say. But I am against an employer controlling and invading the privacy of my life outside the scope of my job.

                In these part, if you do get tested, which would be rare in my line of work, I have heard of them testing hair samples and firing if you used drugs in the last.. ever. It doesn’t even matter if you were working for them at the time, or even if it was legal where you were (eg, if you take a trip to Amersterdam, and come back and test positive later one). You’d still be fired and barred from the industry. It just makes no sense.

                If you test tests if – and only if – I am high right now, I’ll pee in your cup. Otherwise, nope.

          • Good, we are all on board with “let them kill themselves”, a fine libertarian position I may add.

            But you miss the boat on designer drugs and I fear you are not seeing the depth of the opioid epidemic. We have heroin and we have morphine but we are seeing the stuff deliberately cut with other drugs to make it more potent, to make a better high.

            I’ve always wondered that with all the hoopla over drug education, there is still a large crop of people who annually “get hooked” on the fallacious assumption, “I can handle it”. On FB, I have a number of acquaintances (a large number) who have all lost children to drugs and they have all these counseling and grief groups yet more and more people seem to succumb. Parents are not stupid, neither are the kids but there is this “what the hell” attitude that I guess you and I missed. .

            Cannot really use cigarettes as a fair comparison nor the cost. No matter the brand, there is nothing with nicotine in it that electrifies your whole being like drugs do. Ditto with alcohol. It is a depressant. So, if you were to price (tax) legal heroin to what you think would prevent people from starting, they will just go underground. There have never been any real good studies on cigarette smuggling from the South to the North. Every now or then you will catch a piece on the news about some tractor trailer being intercepted in Brooklyn with the Marlboro’s destined for the local Bodegas but as far as I know, there are no major studies which is too bad. Might give us a clue.

            I smoked a pipe for a good thirty years then switched to cigars for a few then basically gave it all up a dozen years back. My Dad did the same with his cigarettes at 62 when he first had a heart hic-cup. Mom gave them up after open heart and never looked back and the social smoker wife dropped the Newport’s with the first kid and never took them up again. Always felt that tobacco was more the habit than the addiction. Dad’s comment was”I miss them most in the morning with a cup of coffee.”

            I must say I enjoyed the pipe and have told the bride that on my eightieth birthday, they will come out of storage.

            Now Guns, I will somehow have to convince you someday that they are part of the American Culture and not a part of anyone else’s. T-Ray and my point are quite valid. take the craziness of US urban life of of the equation and we are better than Norway. So, I am pointing you to a SPECIFIC problem right out in the open looking for a solution not some one size fits all generic band-aid.

            • but there is this “what the hell” attitude that I guess you and I missed. .

              I didn’t miss it.

              I was too cheap to partake.

              But were it otherwise, and had Darwin taken me, that would have been my issue, not yours.

              No matter the brand, there is nothing with nicotine in it that electrifies your whole being like drugs do.

              Fair.

              Though they sure are addictive…

              So, if you were to price (tax) legal heroin to what you think would prevent people from starting, they will just go underground.

              I don’t know about that.

              People switch, mostly, I understand, because it’s cheaper and readily available.

              I know that if pot were cheap and readily available, I wouldn’t want to switch to something much more dangerous and expensive… but maybe that’s just me.

              Let’s test it and find out!

              Always felt that tobacco was more the habit than the addiction

              Naw.. maybe you and yours were lucky, but it’s sure as hell a serious addiction.

              Now Guns, I will somehow have to convince you someday that they are part of the American Culture and not a part of anyone else’s.

              Well I say drugs are a part of American Culture, too! 😛

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                The neighborhoods that I grew up Hidden Hills and Woodland hills of CA, the kids generally could do anything they wished to do. However, on Monday when, back to school, you’d ask “what did you do this weekend?”…..Oh man, I got some good shit man., yeah but what did you do?….I got so fucked up man……me I had adventures that I still remember 5 decades later as clear as the day I had them. Attended a lot of funerals in High School. Most were drug abuse including alcohol, Vehicular deaths that had their roots in the drug and alcohol section. and 6 were Vietnam casualties.

                People hold up Holland etc as a country that tolerates drug use. Use of illegal drugs is still illegal. They just chose to not prosecute. They do prosecute if you commit a crime in order to obtain the drugs……the people are so numb to the abuse, they just step over the corpses lying in their puddles of puke in the subway stations in the AM. The city will clean it up later after rush hour.

              • Mathius says:

                the people are so numb to the abuse, they just step over the corpses lying in their puddles of puke in the subway stations in the AM. The city will clean it up later after rush hour.

                Even if this were true (I doubt it), it wouldn’t change anything.

                Those people made their choices. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

                Why should you control my life because of the actions of someone else? Does that fact that I might do something bad for myself mean you should get to run my life?

                If so, should we pass laws banning chocolate and requiring broccoli consumption?

      • “Treat drug addiction like a serious public mental health crisis that it is – that is, free rehab for anyone / everyone who needs it. Increased education. Etc.”

        First, I do not believe for a second that legalization will reduce the violence and crime but for the sake of discussion, I will go along…..so….want to legalize it….fine, do that. But do not make it a public health concern and do not support it with tax money. That would be wrong. People want to take in that crap…..ok, let them…..but it now becomes a personal problem and not a governmental problem.

        If I am not mistaken, I believe that legalizing marijuana in Colorado did not eliminate the crime element….but will do some research later today. I do know that it has been a windfall for Texas…..everyone driving to Colorado to get their weed…..and getting caught bringing it back in to Texas.

        • First, I do not believe for a second that legalization will reduce the violence and crime but for the sake of discussion,

          Why not? Do you see a lot of gangs selling liquor out of the back of Buick LeSabres and shooing each other over turf?

          But do not make it a public health concern and do not support it with tax money.

          This is a liberal vs conservative thing, I guess. ::shrug::

          If I am not mistaken, I believe that legalizing marijuana in Colorado did not eliminate the crime element….but will do some research later today. I do know that it has been a windfall for Texas…..everyone driving to Colorado to get their weed…..and getting caught bringing it back in to Texas.

          Colorado is going through some growing pains. They also, I suspect, have an issue with pot-tourism biasing the sample set. That is, the kind of person who travels to Colorado just to get high is also the kind of person who is likely to drive high or commit other crimes. Once the novelty wears off and its available everywhere, I would expect to see this issue come under control.

          For perspective, imagine that only Las Vegas was exempted from Prohibition. Of course the crime rate would increase there. The people who self-select to go get drunk in Vegas would be the most likely to abuse it and get very drunk and do stupid things. But that doesn’t mean alcohol is intrinsically a menace to society or that Prohibition is a solution.

          Let me know what you gather from your research.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Very common in Amsterdam…..stay in a hotel and you do not need to go to a “brown” bar. The smoke rolls under your door from the Brits on their weekend jaunt across the North Sea…
            In ’01 the pubs usually still closed at 2200. In Amsterdam it was 0400 and closed only to restock and clean up. Many Brits never booked lodging but camped out on a park bench. The city would put porta-potties on every corner. These were to at least keep the piss off the building corners and alleys or off the decks of the house barges tied to the quay’s.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        When do I get that new Pickup Truck I have been asking for all these years??

        Why do people who make bad choices get all this free care and I can’t get my damn pickup truck? That just ain’t fair.

  12. Mathius…….fair enough…..BUT, when you hired on, you would have signed a document that was a pre-employment document that you understood and accepted the procedures and understood fully the employee handbook. If you sign it, you gave up your right……voluntarily.

    • But, I do not care if you do your drugs on weekends or get totally wasted on alcohol. Show up symptom free for work. NOw, I do know that hair follicle and finger nail clippings do not lie…especially hair folicle….and we set our tests at 25ng which excludes passive inhalation. If you random test at 25 ng, you cannot claim weekend use.

      • Mathius says:

        Maybe I’m misunderstanding your 25ng testing.. I’m out of the loop a bit.

        Does that only test if you’re currently high? If so, that’s peachy keen by me.

        It’s only if your test checks invades my private life that I have an issue with it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        The key question is whether testing at some X level is actually and indicator of some impairment relating to the job.

        Putting aside the tendency of heavy users to become complacent and constantly late or missing work.

        Just focus for now on whether it truly impacts their job performance.

        I think the threat of lawsuit if an employee has X % is BS because it is also linked to X% which may or may not have any basis in reality. Just like claiming in an accident report that “alcohol was involved”. Put it in to CYA but did it actually contribute? No? To bad, now it is in there it becomes the means to litigation.

    • Mathius says:

      I ain’t signing no such document.

      But also, it’s not really right, just in the scheme of things. You have alllll the leverage as the employer / potential-employer. The little guy needs the job and it’s a buyer’s market.

      Is it right for you to require that he marries who you tell him to and has the mandated number of children, too. That he eats the way you tell him, goes to the gym the right number of days a week, that he files his taxes on time, and drives a pre-approved car? Should he have to get the haircut you think he should get and wear what you want him to – ON HIS DAYS OFF?

      Why is it your – the employer’s – business what he does outside of the scope of your employment? Just because you have the leverage to get him to sign something surrendering his rights, does that mean you should exercise that power over him?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Your forgetting about those actions on your own time which can reflect badly on the employer.

        Granted, this stigma does not apply to all employees and all industries. But it does apply to some. Right or wrong we have stigmatized companies for employee bad behavior.

        • Mathius says:

          I see no reason to hold a business accountable for the actions – that don’t hurt anyone but themselves – of an employee during their private time.

          In fact, I see no reason to hold anyone accountable for anything anyone does ever on their own time except that person, and even then, only when it hurt someone else.

          If you’re going to draw the line at “reflects badly on the employer,” where does that end? If I were gay, should my employer in an ultra conservative area fire me?

          If I work for a hedge fund, and I invest with a money manager at a bank instead, does that not reflect poorly on my employer? (answer: yes, it does). Should I be fired for that? Should my company have the right to demand to know where my money is and also control how I invest it?

          That way madness lies.

          You’re allowing the fact that we, as a society, have bought into the “drugs are bad, m’kay” line of reasoning to grant businesses leave to invade the private lives of their employees. Contracts notwithstanding, it is none of their business.

  13. Great questions on employment law…..

    First to Mathius: Yes sir, the 25ng level rules out recreational users and passive inhalation, which is a common defense.” I was at a party where they were smoking but I did not smoe but breathed some of the air, therefore, I am not guilty.” As an employer, I have a right AND expectation that you come to work not under the influence of any intoxicating or mind altering substance. If you throw a “bender” over the weekend and you show up for work with a massive hangover that impedes you ability to work….(ie> Massive headache, throwing up in your shorts, not clear headed, can’t add 2+2…..)but you are not drunk on the job,,,,,you may as well be.

    Now to JAC and Mathius……I would be very surprised if either of you worked for a company that did not have an employee manual that did not specify behaviour, dress code, and substance abuse. A set of rules to comply with for continued employment. As an employer, we do not have the time nor the inclination to identify your body weight to whether or not you can handle certain things on the job. If you test positive for alcohol or drugs……you are impaired. It may be 1/10 of a second of reaction speed…I don’t care. And I do not subscribe to the theory that some jobs are not as critical as others, therefore, one set of employees can get away with what another set of employees cannot.

    Back to Mathius: Kudos to you, sir, for your statement “I see no reason to hold a business accountable for the actions – that don’t hurt anyone but themselves – of an employee during their private time.” D13 says….if the juries and the courts see it your way, then there is no need for employee manuals and no need to come up with invasive rules. But, if you give out coats or sweaters or hats and you are an employee off duty wearing such…..I have seen cases where companies have been sued for not controlling their employees on and off duty. IT SUCKS, to be sure, but juries are fickle and they enjoy going after companies because they can.

    Why is a bar responsible for a patron after he leaves the bar? Same deal.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Back in the ’70’s here in NC a bar or restaurant did not sell alcohol. They just uncorked the wine and sold the setup/mixer’. YOU provided the alcohol and poured your own. Driving out later in the evening on weekends was a very risky business. Driving while seriously impaired was a major problem. They did eventually changed the law.

    • Mathius says:

      As an employer, I have a right AND expectation that you come to work not under the influence of any intoxicating or mind altering substance.

      Agreed.

      Just to beat the dead horse. I, once again, point out that my objection is only to an employer controlling / invading private behavior outside of work.

      And, I agree, coming to work hung over is not allowable if it impacts your ability to perform. You have a right to control for behavior that impacts your business’ functioning.

      You do not have the right to tell me I can’t smoke a doobie and eat a whole pie while watching Cartoon Network.. so long as I come in clean and sober and functioning on Monday morning.

      I would be very surprised if either of you worked for a company that did not have an employee manual that did not specify behaviour, dress code, and substance abuse.

      Of course we have. Hell, I helped write the one I’m working under now. It says all kinds of stuff.

      By the way, re dress code, I’m wearing sandals, a t-shirt, and shorts, in the office. And I’m not the worst one here. My boss is frequently barefoot in shorts that.. well… they’re unpleasant to behold. I love working here!

      I’d also point out that I’m only supposed to use the computer for “incidental personal use,” not to comment on SUFA (according to the policy I wrote). Yet, here I am!

      And I do not subscribe to the theory that some jobs are not as critical as others, therefore, one set of employees can get away with what another set of employees cannot.

      I don’t see why not. At 17, I interned as a mail clerk pushing a cart around and handing out mail.

      I did it while listening to books and tape because, otherwise, I would have lost my mind (and whose to say I didn’t??).

      But I very easily could have done it with a light buzz at 100% efficiency. I’d probably have been friendlier, too, which is nice for office morale.

      But if I tried to drink even one beer and do this job? No, sir. Not a chance.

      It’s not to say that delivering mail is a non-critical job while mine is important. But it sure as hell doesn’t require the mental acuity.

      I’d also offer up the flip side. As I said, many (most?) traders on the street are one one substance or another. It keeps them buzzing and alert. If you fired them for using, average performance might actually decrease, so what say you?

      Why is a bar responsible for a patron after he leaves the bar?

      Dredges up ancient memories….. I believe this is called the Dramshop Act.

      Yup.. there here is..

      Dram Shop Rule
      n. a statute (Dram Shop Act) or case law in 38 states which makes a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest. To the contrary, California recently passed legislation specifically banning such strict liability. It is often hard to prove that the liquor bought or served was the specific cause of an accident (such as an automobile crash while driving home), since there is always an intervening cause, namely, the drunk.

      You’ll note the important distinction: who servers liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it.

      In other words, if you are no longer competent due to your altered state, and I continue to sell to you, then I am the one making a choice here. You no longer have the ability to make rational choices, but I do. And I choose to facilitate making you more of a danger to society. Thus it is my “fault” and my liability – strict liability (!!) – should you cause harm as a result.

      That said, I’m not sure I agree with this logic, but it does make a certain sense…

      I have seen cases where companies have been sued for not controlling their employees on and off duty

      Citation?

      And did they win? I cannot imagine being liable for my employees actions outside of the scope of their employment.. maybe if they had access to company equipment….?

      That said, even the lawsuit itself is dangerous for publicity and expense reasons, so I get where you’re coming from. But at the end of the day, my actions are my own. If I am not “on the clock” for you, then I am my own man. And if I am my own man, I may do what I will and bear my own consequences. You neither control, nor bear responsibility for, me.

      I have seen cases where companies have been sued for not controlling their employees on and off duty

      “Other people might do something wrong, so I am going to do something wrong to you.”

      Because other people are going after you for the actions of a third party, you are going to hurt that third party to protect yourself? Seems to me you should tell the suer to go f**k themselves.

      —————

      It is interesting to me that you, who has a strong libertarian bent (though not as strong as some here) are fine with an invasive practice so long as it’s a private employer and not the state. I understand the distinction that I have the right to enter into a contract (and leave) with a private company whereas I am forced into the “social contract” of the state. But as a matter of general philosophy, I would expect your views on the two to be better aligned.

      • “It is interesting to me that you, who has a strong libertarian bent (though not as strong as some here) are fine with an invasive practice so long as it’s a private employer and not the state. I understand the distinction that I have the right to enter into a contract (and leave) with a private company whereas I am forced into the “social contract” of the state. But as a matter of general philosophy, I would expect your views on the two to be better aligned.”

        You finally got me figured out? After all this time?

        Please, where is my private employer distinction invasive?

        BUT……to address your other point. Forced vs voluntary. The state is forced….Private employer is not.

        NOw, to your Libertarian comment……..”ahem”…….Do I really have a Libertarian leaning?
        (Going to look up difference….be right back)

        lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb′ər-târ′ē-ən)
        n.
        1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
        2. One who believes in free will.

        libertarian (ˌlɪbəˈtɛərɪən)
        n
        1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc
        2. (Philosophy) philosophy a believer in the doctrine of free will.

        lib•er•tar•i•an (ˌlɪb ərˈtɛər i ən)

        n.
        1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
        2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (disting. from necessitarian).
        adj.
        3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
        4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

        VS

        Definition of conservatism

        1. (a) Disposition in politics to preserve what is established (b) a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)

        Ok, I am back………………Well, I will be horn swaggled. (****walks away, throws cold water in face )

        • Canine Weapon says:

          Please take your face out of the bull’s trough.

          • Hey, I checked before I turned my back……no bull was in sight…………….besides it is 108 today.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              107 heat index today. 97 on the thermometer. Being right on the water that is hot.

              • Mathius says:

                Perfect weather is 115 w/ zero humidity. Like walking around in a blast furnace, but it is beautiful (provided you don’t have to do any manual labor).

                Here, it’s 90 with humidity at 49, so whatever that is, but it feels sticky.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          I’m all for both sets of being a Libertarian and conservative. However. the view of doing whatever you want “free will” should not ever impose on my free and make me pay for your possible abuses to yourself, like drug/alcohol abuse and needing rehab. Or a liver transplant from cirrosis caused by indulging to much. Or cancer caused by smoking. The warning and ill effect whether they were on the pack or not have been well known for longer than I’ve been on this earth,…the costs defrayed by force and violence of the State via taxes. Give voluntarily to a charity that helps people in these conditions especially ones brought on by individual choice and action is ok by me, but taxes to support that is wrong. That’s what family and churches and charities were for. The State had to destroy those entities to gain more control of the PEOPLE.

          Remember during Obama’s 1st term, he was wanting to ELIMINATE all charitable donations as a tax deduction. He looked at groups such as some of the childrens hospitals, all privately funded as being unfair. I remember Trump’s comments on that issue….is the government going to take over every homeless shelter and soup kitchen in NYC, or the nation?

          If I got cancer due to my smoking, which I never have done of any substance and expect Medicare to pick up the tab is wrong. (example)

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Mathius……We always had the incidental personal use of the computer especially when the internet became available. However, download a site like porn and you were GONE GONE GONE. Security obviously had a directory that if these sites were accessed a flag was raised. Doing searches of technical papers was very important. I’d be safe to say that the use of SUFA during work hours as you do would have been grounds for dismissal. You would have been warned, but ignoring the warning would have been bad for you.

        On your own time???? In the Navy, IBM and AT&T if you brought any undo attention to yourself that in any way reflected bad on the company you could be dismissed. Same with making comments to the press……mishandling of client information, do not even go there. Any account that touched any government agency in any way required a security clearance issued by the government, abuse of those rules in any way was a condition of employment and possible criminal prosecution by the government. Some of my last tasks before retiring was working with the nuclear energy companies, thats a whole different world.

        Coming to work in any way impaired whoa…..when one error in code could cost the company 10’s of millions of dollars causing downtime of a client,,,,you better have all your wits at all times when in the office….we were working with an annual $60B revenue stream in our division. Only to the Federal government is that chump change..

        • Mathius says:

          However, download a site like porn and you were GONE GONE GONE

          I happen to know that my employees use their computers for… err… personal use.

          But the use laptops. That they take home. And use in private. And they’re well protected with antivirus, etc.

          I could make a stink. But, eh… live and let live.

          I’d be safe to say that the use of SUFA during work hours as you do would have been grounds for dismissal.

          In most jobs, I’d agree.

          I work crazy hours, and it’s not a 9-5, punch-in-punch-out kind of job. I get in early, but leave when I feel like it sign on from home, do some work on weekends, et cetera. I have my bucket of responsibilities and I get my stuff done. It really doesn’t matter if I putz around for hours during the day so long as my stuff gets done, done well, and done in a timely fashion.

          If I were paid hourly though… well, yes.

          But the time I spent SUFA-ing today, means I’ll be logging on tonight to get some more work done rather than watching Logan. That’s the consequence of my choice. If I didn’t do that – if I just let things fall behind because I’d rather argue with you lunatics than do the things I’m paid for, then I would deserve to be fired.

          Coming to work in any way impaired whoa…..when one error in code could cost the company 10’s of millions of dollars causing downtime of a client,,,,you better have all your wits at all times when in the office…

          Sure. For a coder, that makes sense.

          But for the guy pushing a mop? It’s a important job, to be sure. But does it really hurt anyone if he’s hung over or has a light buzz?

          Essentially, my argument would be: you need to be able to do your job. If you can do your job, then I, the employer, don’t know and don’t want to know, and wouldn’t care if I did. If it hurts your ability to do your job, we have a problem.

          • You ARE using the term lunatics, with a smile on your face?

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Mathius….while at IBM I was an hourly employee. While at AT&T I was salaried managment. For the first 7 years my average hours/day ranges from 16-18 hours. and that was everyday, including Saturday and Sunday, My first scheduled vacation was 5 years after I started work there.

            I always had two computers. The business one was only used for business at all times, When I retired I had to delete NOTHING. Every piece of data and analysis or email or contact list was AT&T related and therefore their property. The second one my own personal computer was used for those purposes only. Never the twain would meet. My business day usually started around 0400 when EMEA came online and died down well after Asia came online. It was very routine when I actually was had an office to stop off at the store and get something to eat at 2200-2300. Deliver an analysis at 0200 and the VP who requested it more than likely was still up and we’d go over the report answering any question he or she may have. Actually being asked to take my laptop after surgery while in recovery to handle a meeting in NY with SONY. Being required to take my business laptop everywhere. In like ’04 I rented a place on Miami Beach. Step out the back and you were in the sand. In the week, I spent exactly 45 minutes on the beach and that was to tell my friend and her daughter that I had to get back and cover another meeting. I had all the messages telling people i was on vacation but was completly ignored…..so don’t tell me about crazy work hours. Personal stuff was always done at home.

            I learned all that from my Dad. He worked obscene hours, yet he only once brought home work related items to be worked on, that I knew of. Actually that is why we moved to CA He’d fly out Sunday to the west from LaGuardia or Idyllwild and we’d drive to the city from Woodstock to pick him up sometime late Friday night or sat morning. Trains were down by that time especially to upstate. The briefcase was dropped by the door and was picked up when he left in the AM. That said he also may be gone for months on some secret shit for the military, If we wanted to see him, Mom took us to where he was, Like White Sands NM. When he was OFF he was OFF. Even while in LA some projects became so consuming the team rented hotel space near the client of IBM office to sleep at because commuting in LA took to much time. The wives would deliver clean suits and clothes every so many days….and I’m sure other distracting activity.

  14. Mathius says: ” I ain’t signing no such document.”

    D13 says: And that, sir, is your right that I am willing to fight and die for you to have such a right. But do not lay blame that a “buyers market” makes you sign something you would not normally sign. That, also, is a choice.

    “Is it right for you to require that he marries who you tell him to and has the mandated number of children, too. That he eats the way you tell him, goes to the gym the right number of days a week, that he files his taxes on time, and drives a pre-approved car? Should he have to get the haircut you think he should get and wear what you want him to – ON HIS DAYS OFF?”

    D13 says: Really, Mathius….keep the comparisons reasonable….what a rabbit trail.

    “Why is it your – the employer’s – business what he does outside of the scope of your employment? Just because you have the leverage to get him to sign something surrendering his rights, does that mean you should exercise that power over him?”

    D13 says: Tch Tch……I do not care what you do outside the scope of my employment….do not bring it to work. And to your leverage statement……keep the ideology out of it, sir, we don’t need that. There is NO LEVERAGE that MAKES you work for anybody. Just because you are poor and hungry does not MAKE you sign up. BUT…….yes sir, if you agree to come to work for me and you know all the rules and regulations in advance, I will, indeed, exercise that power.

    How do you reconcile union contracts where conditions of employment, including off duty conditions, where the rights and privileges are spelled out?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Here is an analogy. It relates to what we could bring to school. NOTHING was allowed other than school related material. We had no locker breakins either in the hallways or gym lockers. There was nothing but school books, a tuna sandwich and dirty socks or jock to steal. And this was a high school that was the next one down on the social scale from Beverly Hills High.

      While attempting to instill some sense into my step kid when he was in HS, They had no rules in his VT High School. Kids took anything they wanted to school. Wore anything they wanted…lots of expensive bling. The robberies that took place was astounding. The kids lost so much stuff, I’d shrug and say you shouldn’t have had it there anyway. His Mom would replace it so his stupidity was rewarded. Going to the school administrators equally brought no resolution, They also shrugged and said if it was up to us the crap not related to school would stay home. The courts over ruled them ‘let freedom ring” and the crime skyrocketed…..even weapons started being prevailant on the campus….knives in particular. Again the school could not enforce the rules and would get sued. The Boys VP showed me a drawer full of knives they’d confiscated. But if they expelled the kid for having the weapon, the school would get sued.

      • Mathius says:

        Beverly Hills High.

        Oh man… that brings back memories.. I dated a girl from Beverly High… took a looong time to get over that one, I’ll tell you.

        And this was a high school that was the next one down on the social scale from Beverly Hills High.

        Which one is that, if you don’t mind my asking.

        (I went private, so I’d argue mine was the next in line socially after Beverly. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if we went to the same high school?)

        His Mom would replace it so his stupidity was rewarded

        This is a constant point of contention with my wife. Our kids are 2 & 5, so it’s not really about stupidity as much as “rewarding bad behavior.” I am militant about never – never ever ever – rewarding bad behavior. I don’t care if I have to endure a nuclear tantrum over a gummy bear, you ain’t gettin’ it until you calm down, apologize, and ask nicely.

        My wife though.. she just doesn’t want to see the kids “suffer,” so she caves and give it to them… which, of course, only encourages more meltdowns in the future! GAA!

        Anyway, all that’s to say, bless your logic here. I wish all parents acted like this.

        I’ve seen it a few times. I watched a lady in an ice cream store literally throw away an ice cream she had just paid for and frog march her kid out the door after the brat had a meltdown over sprinkles. I felt like applauding. You can bet the kid won’t be repeating that. Ask me nicely, maybe you get sprinkles, maybe not. Misbehave, you get no sprinkles and no ice cream. Too many parents would have just given the sprinkles to shut their kid up – and next time, the kid’s going to do the same thing.

        But if they expelled the kid for having the weapon, the school would get sued.

        Some kid brought a grenade to show and tell at my school. It was disabled, but they evac’d the whole campus, called the bomb squad, and expelled the kid (then rolled it back to two weeks suspension because he was pretty young, it was inactive, and he wasn’t trying to be a smart-ass, he just wanted to show cool a WWII relic to his class.. plus, I think, his family were big donors, so, you know, that helps).

        I never did understand evacuating the entire campus.. what did they think the blast radius is? 50 acres? The hell kind of grenade is that?

        • “The hell kind of grenade is that?” A Texas one……………………….

          ——–
          Come on, Mathius, you cannot throw me a high hanging curve ball and expect me not to swing, eh?

          • By the way…you do realize, do you not, that your 2 and 5 year old will gorw up to be…..(gasp) TEENAGERS?

          • Mathius says:

            “The hell kind of grenade is that?” A Texas one……………………….

            Ok… let’s do some math.. ius… Mathius Math!

            Assuming a circular blast that gives us an area of 50 acres.. carry the 1… times the square root of i… divide by the color blue… that’s a radius of 253.7 meters, or 832 ft in Freedom Units.

            So the safe distance to be standing when the thing goes off is 832 feet away. And, of course, as anyone with a passing familiarity with grenades will tell you, the “safe distance” is a relative concept anyway.

            Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that a grenade packing that kind of punch weighs a bit extra. But never mind that.

            The fuse on your average grenade is also 4-8 seconds. Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you happen to be able to throw at 90MPH. That’s 6.3 seconds. For a ballistic trajectory, giving 90mph, you’re going to need a bit more time, but I’ll allow that the fuse can be made longer to accommodate this. Looks like you’re safe here, assuming you happen to be Nolan Ryan.

            The world record for a baseball throw stands at just over 401 feet. That’s about halfway out of the blast zone. And that is a problem.

            Because assuming you happen to also be Usain Bolt (and not, say, a retired colonel pushing 70 recovering from a recent surgery on his belly button), your top speed is about 27mph. And at that speed, assuming you can keep it up, it’s going to take 10 seconds to sprint 401 ft. And you only have… less.

            Plus, you know, the amount of debris and shrapnel something like that is going to throw around ain’t going to magically stop just outside that radius.

            ————-

            So anyone using a Texas Grenade is going to blow themselves to kingdom come.

            But odds are good they’ll take the other guy with them.

            Yup. Sounds about right. 😀

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Besides a grenade is heavier than a baseball. You need an arm like Rod Laver to chuck one like Nolan Ryan and a baseball….then again if one side is so much more developed than the other the army would march in a circle and lo and behold they’d be chasing their tail….I just wonder if the army is trained anymore on how to walk a straight line without GPS?

              • As I believe I reported here, my favorite trick to use before night orientation is to take a 150 gauss magnet and wave it over the GPS……then hand them a lensatic compass, a grid map, and a plastic protractor and turn them loose……………………….it has been my history that we usually have to go find most of them at sunup.

            • 27 MPH, huh…….you have never been shot at, have you……SO, a little Colonel math, who has actually been shot at……it is said that I heard the bullet twice…..once when it passed me and once when I passed it…..NOW, assuming that the average round pushes (NATO 7.62) about 2800ft per second…..So assuming that I passed a round traveling at 2800ft per second, 6.3 seconds is ample time to avoid some shrapnel…..

              That said……a standard grenade launcher can only chunk one about 100 meters…….BUT, a Texas Grenade Launcher…………well, that is much different…..one does not need a NOlan ryan arm with the strength of a Rod Laver……one only needs three pounds of trigger pressure and this old Colonel still has that and the strength to lift a Texas Grenade Launcher to the desired elevation for clearance. Since the round arms at 27 meters and has a fuse of 7 seconds….carry the 1, and divide by Burnt Orange….you have a range of 1,500 feet before detonation.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                Inquiring minds would like to know if a Texas Grenade can be configured for air-burst detonations?

              • I remember once at the big blow out in 1985 for the dedication of the NY Viet-nam vets memorial on the carrier Intrepid hosted by Miller Beer and Ballpark hot-dogs, (there was NO bottom line that year for them ), a performance by an 11Bravo turned stand up comic on the Rambo franchise, Rambo’s broken field running abilities and the kill radius of an 81MM mortar round”. Quite good!

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Beverly Hills HS was considered private. I was public and that was Taft long before they started busing causing most neighborhood kids to be taken out of the system and sent to private school. NO way in H*ll were parents going to allow their kids to be bused in to LA High or Gardena etc. We had 4400 kids in a 3 year school, today its around 2500 since it went charter the other year. We had exactly 2 kids of color at the school, one black kid, Ollie, who lived at a boys home, he was an orphan and the other was from Ceylon, now Sri Lanka. The school demographics then reflected the neighborhood. When busing started it represented the inner city. Now it’s a charter school so it actually represents the Valley at large. However the community demographics only changed today with more asians. They embassingly would work your ass off. When our old house in Woodland Hills now runs between 2-3 million and the one in Hidden Hills the last time we heard it sold at 4.3 Million, you do not live there unless you are very ambitious.

          I dated Michael Landon’s daugher one summer, cheryl. That was expensive. Never wanted to work that hard to keep running in that crowd….but then she attended Birmigham so when school started, school pride and all c’est la gare..

          • Mathius says:

            I’m from The Valley (of course I am!). My school was, maybe 80% Jewish, 90% white. There were a handful of Asians, too. I remember laughing hysterically when one kid tried to found a Christian Club, but couldn’t find the required 5 members to start one. Meanwhile, Chess Club had about a dozen members (no, I wasn’t a member, but I did stop in occasionally to lay waste to some of the regulars). Hell, Math Club (of which I was also not a member) must have had 40 people in it.

            God, do I not miss the Valley Girl Accent – or the use of “like” as every-other-word. “Like, oh my god, like totally!” ::shudder::

            I’ll tell you one thing I do miss about LA, though, other than the weather, of course.

            I would give my left arm for a regular supply of Double-Doubles from In ‘n’ Out.

            Oh, and I miss the beaches.

            And the California girls.

            But mostly In ‘n’ Out.

            • Oh my……and I was trying to get away with no more comments for awhile…..Need to report to Mathius…..when In n’ Out first opened and you suggested that I try a Double Double……Animal style……..

              First of all, I felt really stupid ordering a double double and then saying animal style….but they knew exactly what I was talking about…..and I have to admit that I have not been back. …….the other thing is that it is not going over very well here and do not know why…there were two in my area and one has now closed…the other seems to be open but never a line like Chic Fil A or Whattaburger……The one I know about in Dallas seems to be doing better.

              Five Guys has moved in and seems to be blowing the competition away for now…..tried them and have gone back….the cajun fries bring you back…burgers are good….

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Taft was heavily Jewish also, Used to piss us Gentiles off that they get their holidays off and also ours, because the school was closed being a city public school. The school would be deserted.

              Valley Girls did not exist yet, “for sure” Started with great popularity with Moon Zappa. Loved a concert at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilian where Frank Zappa conducted the LA Philharmonic. Zubin Mehta just sat and enjoyed Zappa’s twisted mind.

              I seriously miss the beaches and the islands. The mountains and desert. I was a serious sailor and rock climber. But I do live in an area that is a good compromise. Flatter than a pool table top and the mountains of any size are 350 miles away..

    • Mathius says:

      But do not lay blame that a “buyers market” makes you sign something you would not normally sign. That, also, is a choice.

      I gotta work to live in this world…

      D13 says: Really, Mathius….keep the comparisons reasonable….

      No.

      Of course it’s a slippery slope argument… AND reducto ad absurdem, too!… but that doesn’t change the fact that you seem to justify one while recognizing the other as a “rabbit trail” without offering any differentiating factor.

      So I put it to you – why is it ok for employer D13 to control my private life in this way and not that way?

      Not “why is it legal”.. why is it “ok”… why do you feel justified doing one but the other is a bridge too far?

      There is NO LEVERAGE that MAKES you work for anybody.

      Nonsense.

      I have bills. I need to eat. I need work.

      There is a limited supply of work for which I am suited.

      Ergo, I will must accept any suitable work.

      Maybe a self-employed, independently wealthy individual such as yourself has choices, but for the rest of us, we aren’t exactly rolling in options here. Employers have ALL the leverage here.

      How do you reconcile union contracts where conditions of employment, including off duty conditions, where the rights and privileges are spelled out?

      Can you elaborate? I’m not sure what you’re getting at?

      • Ohhhhhh, Mathius…..your slip is showing….I have bills. I need to eat. I need work.

        There is a limited supply of work for which I am suited.

        Ergo, I will must accept any suitable work.

        D13 ( still stinging from being called a Libertarian )….cry me a river, boy-o. Get better suited for more work…and the fact that you have needs ( as everyone does ) you are “forced” into work you do not want? Nonsense….you are not forced into anything….now, you may have to make choices for you to survive but that is not being forced.

        How do you reconcile union contracts where conditions of employment, including off duty conditions, where the rights and privileges are spelled out?

        Can you elaborate? I’m not sure what you’re getting at?

        D13, trying to elaborate……That did not make much sense did it…I must be on your funny wunny weed…..ahem…..Allow me a personal example. I once had a trucking entity in Jacksonville, Illinois and it was unionized by the Teamsters local there. In my contract with the Teamsters Union, it atually addressed off duty conduct for employees and the Teamsters signed the agreement. An example of off duty behaviour……Going to a bar wearing a shirt or jacket with the company logo on it and engaging in inappropriate behaviour. ( getting drunk, fighting, pinching women on the butt or other locations, throwing things through windows ).

        • Mathius says:

          I think it’s fair to say that they should not identify with your company when engaging in behavior which reflects poorly on your company.

          That is, you shouldn’t be able to stop them from going to the bar and getting drunk.

          You should be able to stop them from doing so while wearing the shirt/jacket of your company.

          Fair?

  15. Most employers know that they can be held liable in some situations based on negligent hiring or retention of an employee who harms a third party. A new decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals cautions employers that these obligations can extend to off-duty conduct by the employee that has some connection to their workplace responsibilities.

    In Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff was the estate of a Home Depot employee murdered by her supervisor in a hotel room while attending an out-of-town wedding. The plaintiff alleged that the supervisor had engaged in violent and sexually harassing workplace behavior for years. Regardless of this fact, the estate claimed that Home Depot retained the supervisor, even when he failed to complete a mandated anger management class. The estate said that the supervisor coerced the deceased employee to attend the wedding with him by threatening to fire her otherwise. It sued alleging negligent supervision and retention by the employer.

    Home Depot contended that it could not be held legally responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, remanding the matter for further proceedings. Interpreting Illinois law, the court noted that employers have a duty under law to investigate and discipline employees under federal anti-harassment and employment discrimination laws. Although Home Depot is not directly responsible for its supervisor’s criminal acts, it must follow a reasonable standard of care in selecting and retaining employees.
    ====
    On July 7, 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reached a decision in Cimpean v. Payton [2008] O.J. No. 2665 (“Cimpean”) which stands as a warning to all employers that they may be held responsible for their employees’ off duty conduct.

    In Cimpean, three NBA players who played for the Milwaukee Bucks assaulted a woman and her husband outside of an adult entertainment lounge. The Respondents plead that the Bucks and the NBA were vicariously liable for the three players’ actions pursuant to clauses 5(b)(iii) and 5(d) of each player’s contract with the Bucks and Article 35 of the NBA Constitution. Clause 5(b)(iii) of the employment contract stated that each player agreed to “conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standard of honesty, citizenship, and sportsmanship”. Clause 5(d) read that “The Player agrees to be bound by Article 35 of the NBA Constitution” in which all players agreed that the NBA Commissioner could suspend or impose a fine on any player who “in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct that does not conform to standards of morality or fair play, that does not comply at all times with all federal, state and local laws, or that is prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.”
    =======
    Juan Williams — the veteran NPR reporter was recently fired for making comments about his fear of flying when there is a Muslim on the aircraft. Helen Thomas — a White House reporter for over five decades was fired for making anti-sematic comments in an interview. Howard Arenstein– a longtime reporter for the CBS was fired after police discovered Arenstein and his wife were growing marijuana plants in their Washington D.C. backyard.

    What do all these people have in common? Well, in addition to being highly-respected in their various fields, they were all fired for statements for behavior that they engaged in OUTSIDE of their employment. Williams and Thomas were both interviewed not in their official capacities as reporters, but in personal interviews with a different media outlet. Arenstein was not growing marijuana at the CBS office, but in his own backyard. All the firings beg the question, when can an employer fire an employee for actions taken off the clock? Here are three ways …

    Breaking a company’s code of ethics — Code of ethics or professional responsibility policies are popular (and very general) clauses in many employment contracts which basically demand that an employee behave in the best interests of a company, at all times. There are the obvious issues with this provision (i.e. free speech, anyone?) but in the end, entering into an employment contract is a decision, not a demand, and people are free to contract as he or she pleases. One important suggestion for an employer that wants to have this option: you actually have to have a policy on this.

    Breaking the law — Arenstein is a perfect example of this. He did not break the laws and rules of CBS, he broke the laws and rules of the criminal justice system. Criminal behavior is often a valid reason for firing an employee. Again, this is a policy that can, and should, be put in writing.

    Making the Business Look Bad — this reason is general for a reason. Because it depends what state you are in, and what behavior your are looking to fire an employee for. Many states have limitations on when an employer can fire an employee for off duty conduct. For instance, some employers have fired employees for smoking or using tobacco products after work hours, and have run into some legal problems down the line. In the end, a showing of just cause is usually required to fire an employee for off-duty activities. In order to show this, an employer should be able to articulate how the off-duty conduct implicates an employers negative business interests.
    =====
    Negligent Hiring or Retention

    Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.

    • Mathius says:

      The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.

      I had to read that whole wall of text to find the nugget of gold.

      That’s the key, right there.

      In the first case, the reason HD was vulnerable to suit was because they left the guy in a position of authority where he could commit the harassment – having failed to exercise due care to investigate claims against him and remove him from that situation. Had they behaved properly, the situation would have been avoided.

      I’m not sure I understand the reasoning behind the NBA one, but at this point, I’m too lazy to dig further.

      But the point here, at least per the HD case and your last section, is that it was the company’s willful negligence which rendered the company vulnerable. Not merely the fact that the individuals were employed by the company.

      ——–

      Juan Williams et all doesn’t seem to have any specific bearing on suing employers for outside activities, however, it does pertain to the broader conversation. Should I fire an employee for being racist, say. If his behavior has become a liability to my company, then yes. In the case of Williams, he was a public figure, engaging in public discourse, and his statements were quickly and readily tied to NPR. As such, NPR, to protect itself, was right to get rid of him. Fair or not. Toodles.

      That said, I understand the idea that a company should be proactive in safeguarding itself from publicity disasters such as these (and others). To that end, I understand applying a higher level of scrutiny to more public figures within a company. The CEO should be beyond reproach. The daily grunts should be free to be humans.

      It’s all very wishy-washy, I suppose.

      But at the end of the day, the idea is simple: IT’S NONE OF YA BUSINESS!

      ———–

      Making the Business Look Bad — this reason is general for a reason. Because it depends what state you are in, and what behavior your are looking to fire an employee for. Many states have limitations on when an employer can fire an employee for off duty conduct. For instance, some employers have fired employees for smoking or using tobacco products after work hours, and have run into some legal problems down the line. In the end, a showing of just cause is usually required to fire an employee for off-duty activities. In order to show this, an employer should be able to articulate how the off-duty conduct implicates an employers negative business interests.

      I get this – I do.

      But there’s a deeper theory here. I understand that reality is messy and there’s a whole legal framework to contend with on top of this, but it really is quite simple.

      I work for you.

      You pay me to perform a service.

      More explicitly, I exchange my time (and efforts therein) for your dollars.

      It is reasonable to demand that, in the furtherance of this deal, I do not behave in a manner which impairs the broader company, or in a manner which reduces my efficacy within the scope of my own duties.

      It is further reasonable, that if I become a liability, where due to publicity or miscellaneous, that you may terminate the contract. But within this is a line. I, the employee, am still a private citizen. I have not signed over my life to the company. What I wish to do privately is my business and not yours. You must interpret this authority of the company as minimally invasive as practicable.

      If I want to get stoned on weekends and eat an entire pint of Ben & Jerry’s (Half Baked is the. best. ice. cream. ever.), that’s my private life. If an investor finds out about it and starts asking the company why it hires pot heads, they should fire me. (disclaimer, I don’t actually smoke pot, this is purely hypothetical). The company should not proactively invade my privacy on the chance that it might become and issue at some point.

      If, however, I come in like a zombie every morning and make lots of costly errors and you suspect it’s due to drug use – even if that use is on my own time – it’s your problem because it’s impacting the service you paid for. So you would be justified in testing me / firing me.

      But so long as I come in bright eyed and bushy tailed, and I perform to the level of expectations, and I am not an actively credible risk to your company, that’s all you, the employer, should get to care about. Beyond that, butt out.

  16. Boy, did I spend entirely too much time on SUFA today…..well, it is 108 now…..A/C works great….better inside.

    Everyone have a great weekend….and it was fun, Mathius.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I came in from working outddors around 1000. Closed everything up and pulled the blinds and decided to interact with SUFA…..been fun and yes Mathius is an OK guy. and probably doing his level best to survive in the lunatic asylum of NYC.

      It does get interesting when the better half undermines the lessons you were trying to teach.

      One winter day my stepson and a neighbors kid were bribed to shovel the driveway after a blizzard. To much snow to plow, besides the drive was all brick lined and gravel I prefered it to stay where it was. Anyway with a 250 foot drive the money paid them was worh it and they were compensated well. After they were done they got some hot chocolate and set up a card table in front of the fire and started playing poker. They asked if I wanted to join them. I said sure why not. They were playing for real money, like what they just earned. I asked if it was for keeps. They both said yes…OK then but don’t whine to me later. I cleaned them out, piggy banks and next weeks lunch money’s. They forgot my stories while on the exploration ships and off duty we had nothing to do but play poker and it was for paycheck size pots. In the Navy I also played a lot during some awful long downtimes with no where to go. My only responsibility as the dept head was to insure that a person who had a family and all the attached responsibilities DID not play if on payday there was a long line with their hands out with IOU’s. I had to watch that. Once was OK but once I knew he or she was a sucker I had to end their playing days., besides getting into debt was a serious security risk. The first thing the investigators looked at when military secrets were stolen was to check debt levels. F14 black boxes controling the Phoenix missles stolen from Oceana NAS, Kid got caught the next day but he Russians had already got them $10K was his price, ….anyway the next morning while we were driving to work and were dropping the kid off at school he asked his MOm for more lunch money, like $20. She said that she had give it to him already what did he do with it. He said I took it from him playing poker. I explained to her what had happened and she reached into her purse and gave him more. I was livid. I said we could stop at an ATM and he could get money from his bank account….the fight that ensued whew…..never never gamble with money you can not afford to lose. like the rent and grocery money. I divorced him along with his Mom in ’94…

      Matt, I don’t care what Gman says you are alright.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Never touched anything but wine, beer (now craft beers) and an occassional good single malt on my birthday. Seen to much damage around me in my life..

    • Nicely said in both articles. Sad about Sessions. Was played by the Democrats like a fine violin into appointing Mueller then being “afraid” of non-existent conflict of interest and recusing himself. So much for gentlemanly behavior and decorum. It always seems to me that the entire Republican Party leadership, to this day, missed the 1960’s and 1970’s.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We need people like Kid Rock, Ted Nugent and the like to spice things up and play dirty.

  17. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I’d be totallly pissed like TRump is with Sessions. Talk about a set up. The Asst AG recommends that Comey be fired and rightfully so. Trump does. Then Comey states he violated the law and did it specifically to get a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged conspiracy with the Russians, by Trump. That very same asst AG then appoints Mueller who was Comey’s mentor and previous boss. And Sessions has recused himself leaving Mueller with an open checkbook to dig into everything about Trump and even his business. This DC thing is not just a swamp but a pit of vipers. Both R’s and D’s I do not think Trump can trust anyone in his administration that came out of Congress. He knew he’d be getting crap from the dems, but his own party is worse by being stealthy and back stabbers.

    A former Bill Clinton guy was sent to Russia in the 90’s to work directly with their election process. Then the mission changed to derail any opposition to Yeltsin. Clinton (HRC and Kerry and Obama very definitely interfered with an elected government in Ukraine causing a very major upheaval

    He’s now being called into Congress to testify about this Russian thing. He has not been to Russia in 20 years. he married a women from Ukraine. In a hearing when he was not there but on a business trip, one of the democrat legislators specifically dropped her name in a televised hearing and all of a sudden the threats of violence came rolling in. people calling the house and threatening to burn it down with her and the kids in it. talk about intimidation.

  18. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Saw a video this AM on the 1st “sniper” rifle. A Whitworth. mussle loaded and used a hexagonal bullet, and was very accurate at 400 yards. Used in the Civil War by the Confederates.

  19. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4670262/Austria-suffers-terror-attack-couple-murdered.html

    The EU scrapped their plan to harden their border after EU pressure.

  20. Had to look up the definition of defenestrating-“to throw out a window “, for those who don’t know.

    Eric’s tweet seems accurate. The left extremes turning against Dawkins, never thought that would happen.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/richard-dawkins-berkeley-event-canceled-over-tweets-critical-of-islamism/#more-221239

    • The new, new left has to be 100% on EVERY issue. So you can be an atheist but cannot speak out against a certain religion as practiced by a majority of people who happen to be of the third world persuasion. Too bad the Aztecs are not still around, the Berkley crowd woudl be defending human sacrifice.

      It is pathetic and would be funny but these guys are about as funny as Stalin.

  21. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    It is so refreshing to know that we have a “unbiased” free press in this country that digs for the truth to inform the people. I do realize that each news outlet be it newspaper, radio, tv, magazine will reflect the general bias of the owner and editor. But they varied, and you’d probably get a pretty good view of the events occuring here and around the world….please note the sarcasm.

    Glanced at all the covers of the news magazines and they were all 100% one way…..vicious against Trump and his family. Not ONE word in any headline about the continuing unveiling about HRC and her cabal, emails etc. At least the NYT at the top of page one was the story with pictures of the arrests of hundreds of that El Salvadoran gang in Suffolk County. One wonders what the police, FBI DOJ and DHS were sitting on while that gang operated there and everywhere in this country with seeming impunity, with unbounded viciousness. Though not one headline about HRC and her now unvailed ties to Ukraine doing the same thing Trump and his family are accused of.

    I watch the weekly summary of Judicial Watch, updating what has transpired over the week in their search and court cases for the truth which Congress with all their effort can not seem to get off their collective asses and do something about the deeply imbedded corruption in the government……Like this week the State Dept started releasing the first batches of the emails that found their way to Anthony Weiner’s laptop from Huma Abedin’s system from HRC’s illegal and unsecure server. The corruption unveiled of pay for play via Huma was amazing. But JW was pleading in court for the State dept to release the documents quicker. The rate State said they’ll do is 500 pages each month. The last of the first batch at that rate will be released in 2020. States excuse was that “whats the rush nobody seems to care after the election” And this is Trump’s/Tillerson’s State Dept now. And that 700 is just a fraction of the whole. The IRS IG report was pretty damning of the “retention” software the IRS installed. It pretty much was a system that unless YOU specifically hit a specific key an email or message would not be retained. Destruction of devices and files supoened by the courts and Congress……Why Lois Lerner is still walking around and the Head dude is still in place is beyond me.

    With all the attempted censorship by companies like Google, paypal and apps like facebook and twitter screening of anything outside of the MSM and anything they view as offensive speech just because they do not like that side of the opinion….at least Twitter’s app “periscope” is in serious trouble, at least it should be…..Huge pedophelia operation uncovered. With all this sickness flowing through the internet etc, didn’t anybody ever act on this in the DOJ. They have to have departments monitoring or at least responding to complaints from parents who just might have stumbled onto the sites of their kids iphones and laptops. Or have caught someone at some time or another and followed the crumbs back to their sources.

  22. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Australia is having a real fun time with massive State wide blackout due to the losses of wind power. They’ve had quite a few days that literally NO wind energy created has been recorded. Their energy costs are just exploding. A presenter just showed how many NEW coal fired plants are being built in China. Likewise in Japan which is essential due to them shutting the door on nuclear. Cheap energy creates powerful and wealthy industrial societies, not going to an enormously unrealiable and expensive source.

    Seeing the UN has been driving this shift of energy moslty on the west and all of their predictions have been shown to be bogus, plus the UN plan created in 2000 about the shifting/moving of population from the 3rd world to the west. Tied together?

    All predicted by history of the shifts in weather and wind patterns and 3 Russian scientists with changes in the sun…..not man made CO2 .

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Great video presentation

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I just wish someone with the “financial” assets would start giving CIVILANS like Al Gore, Michael Moore, Obama, and the Nobel Peace Prize committee a real serious headache and give them something to worry about for perpetrating a diasterous major scam on the world. Especially the west who all in all should know better with all the scientists available. The scam was manipulated data which the scientist in the presentation explains how they did it. Basically they took a natural occurance that had been regularly expected and proven over and over with lots of “real” data to back it up. Notice the coincidence of the “global warming” scare timeline and the when the politicians switched to “climate Change” No one doubts that we had “global warming” They expected a peak then a drop off which as we are 7 years past the peak heading into a cold periodhence “climate change” that is real as was the warming but it is the change to cold that will be the problem to the population and physical being of the earth.

        FYI : NOAA and NASA were forced to recant their collective reports of certain years of late as being the warmest years ever. The manipulated the data and also they were forced to say that the results were only estimates with a probability of being correct by what wound up to be a huge margin of error. As having worked statistics for 40 years neither I nor any of my managment would have taken any action on any problem with that huge of probability of being incorrect.

        • There is a philosophy in science that the simple explanation is usually the correct one. If solar cycles and orbital mechanics explains the weather patterns, why are we spending millions to find the missing mechanisms to explain why the models do not work. It looks like (and I have seen others explain it as well) that know science is a better predictor of the future than failed AGW models. As such the conventional models appear to validatible while the AGW models have failed validation by missing the last 18 years.

          • Remember…..global warming is about money. Scientific backup is about money….Grants are given to these studies. As go the grants…..as goes the study. Tell all these hot shot sicentists to due the studies on their own dime for the good fo humanity….then watch what happens.

            • Sorry…due=do

            • It is a combination of the scientist willing to whore themselves for the money, the globalists/communists who want control. Then there are the useful idiots who swallow all the rot. I have had many debates with people trying just to get them to think. It is mostly closed minds.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I had never seen the correlation to the “extreme” volcanic explosions to the distortion of the earth when the moon and sun line up. I’ve seen the solar charts and also historically the volcanos, but never overlayed. Never thought about it but makes total sense when the gravitational pulls bending the earths crust. No wonder there are all the “new” disaster alarm and scientists keeping a close watch on those most at risk sites, like the Yellowstone cauldron. Not that man can do anything about it but bend over and kiss ones own ass goodbye

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                I hope Jerry Brown is getting updated on the power crisis going on in Australia. But then “moonbeam” is one who refuses to truly understand the real data. Because then there is no way he and his ilk can control those under their thumbs.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You do NOT describe averages over time as “NORMAL”.

        CO2 levels since the 1800’s have become somewhat disconnected due to human production.

        So it is inaccurate to put up natural cycles of the past and say this is “normal” and then discount the human produced amounts in the current cycle concentrations.

        Unless the ice core data is also manipulated we know that modern CO2 concentrations are higher than the historic numbers of prior cycles.

        This is not cause and effect. Just a statement about how this fellow is also cherry picking some information.

  23. I find this quite funny in a, “You reap what you sow” kinda way!

    http://theresurgent.com/strong-african-woman-obliterates-arrogant-white-pro-abortion-americans/

    • This woukd carry more weight with me if the article talked about abortion rather than race. What I got out of the article, was some black woman saying that it was white supremacy forcing the contraception/abortion issue. I did not know that the abortion issue was a racial issue……but apparently it is.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        As Margaret Sanger said long ago it’s about reducing the population of those in poverty. It just so happens that most living in poverty now are blacks, so it has become a “racial” issue. What the Blacks in this nation need is another Martin Luther King and not more race pimps. A Black Moses “Let my People go” from the grips of the government tyranny that has through it’s policies put so many in bondage. Is It white supremacy that is the problem? Maybe initially it was when Johnson created the “great society” which also put most whites in bondage though they do not realize it, example medicare….for years analysts are telling us about the inefficiency and fraud etc of Medicare and it’s running.on an annual bailout like social security because the trust funds have been looted by the government and used not as the trust dictates. But then the government is exempt from violating the very laws they enact. Politicians today are just responding to the squeeky wheel demanding more of the same that got us into the place we are now. The ultimate betrayal will be when Congress enacts a “medicare” system across the board with the management practices they now use.

      • I think a guy like Ben Carson could make the argument about White Supremacy and its coming from the left with their beneficent “plantation mentality”.

        As we all know (and I think we do) the left and progressives know what’s good for you. Sanger was anti-abortion, considering it murder but very much pro sterilization and pro birth control. She came from the group of early 20th century progressives who believed in the superiority of the Nordic race (hence her popularity in Nazi Germany). The Southern and eastern European races were below snuff and should be guided and taken care of. The non-white races the same.

        If anything the modern planned parenthood crowd is closer to the Nazi’s then Sager and her contemporaries ever were. While they may have come from a Huxley, “Brave New World” approach, they did not believe in genocide for the good of the people being killed.

  24. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    It looks like the British people have been betrayed by their government. Negotiating a “soft” landing for business with Brexit. Agreeing to gradually loosen the EU’s grip until 2022., while agreeing to take hundreds of thousand of “migrants” into their midst, when the polls in Britain have 80% wanting migration curtailed with 60% want it sharply curtained

    Italy mayor’s are really pissed. A mayor in Sicily was told by the government that they were planning on bringing a bunch of migrant/refugees into his city. Only to find out they had already been brought in and a hotel taken over and the refugees esconces in it.

    With all the historical records and photos over the years, these migrants/refugees are like none other. These are fit and very healthy looking men and rarely is a women or child to be seen. No skin and bones bedraggled look as in the past. Especially allegedly leaving a country torn apart by war, Libya and getting across the Sahara. Somolia is no sweet spot, neither is the Sudan nor Nigeria that have been torn apart for decades, the Ivory Coast. I have never seen or read in history a group of nations so willingly commit cultural suicide.

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    “It’s definitely bigotry,” Freeman declared. “It’s everything that they’re calling us, they’re doing. It’s a huge case of hypocrisy.”

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/contest-winning-makeup-artist-disqualified-supporting-trump

    Ah yes, Hypocrisy. The Progressives have the patent on that it seems.

  26. Just on the news….London’s high court says….little “Charlie” cannot go to the United States for treatment…………The parents pulled their request because little Charlie will be dead before the appeals run,,,,,,

    Sure glad there are no death panels in England.

    • Nazi’s win! In a few more short years they will “help” you along or even better demand amniocentesis and forcibly abort the imperfect. Man those Nuremberg laws were really some template weren’t they?

    • It more than death panels, England has become a dictatorship.

    • OMG, just read the hospital statement. I’m so sickened by their words I just can ‘t imagine how the parents feel. I mean they had every right to look into the treatments just no right to use them! And care, they want to care for the parents, they should feel lucky the parents aren’t physically attacking them. I guess that last statement means we should think about this and realize the hospital was right——-Fuck Them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Why would the ‘High Court” care anyway. No cost to Great Britain.

      Like a few years ago the the courts in Holland took a young girl away from her Father because she wanted to sail around the world. She was born on a boat, grew up on or around boats, bought the boat with her own earned money, restored the boat on her own. Eventually the courts relented and she took off. However, she officialy started and ended her around the world voyage elsewhere. She flat out said she would NEVER return to Holland or any Netherlands possessions again. When she finished her first voyage she took off again to see things that she bypassed the 1st time around like New Zealand where she was born

      • They care because they cannot allow the narrative of their superiority to be challenged. Went to the pool the other day with the grand kid, 3 1/2, and some squirt toys. well, the Pool guard, some 18 year old chucklehead tells us we have to leave them at his desk cause they are NOT ALLOWED. Nobody else at the pool!

        Das ist ein jugen sturmtruppen in training. probably wind up a suburban $ 180,000 per year cop with a shaved head, tattoos and a penchant for hassling everybody. .

    • As it should be to keep a docile and dependent populace. Ever few years you can allow them to “riot” and blow off some steam. Never gonna get into the Houses of parliament though or the gated communities.

      • They really have figured it out quite well. Never make things so bad there is danger of a revolution. Just provide the minimum, allow the drugs in to degrade the populace, demonize the opposition as wanting to starve or watch you die. And, as Jackie Gleason would have said, “Awaaaaay we go!”

  27. The more I read, the angrier I get. Is it to early for a bourbon?

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/trump-throws-wrench-in-u-n-plan-to-replace-u-s-population/

  28. Jeff Sessions the gentleman from Alabama should probably go. I absolutely hate saying this but the guy thinks he can play ball with Chuck Schumer and Al Franken and they cleaned his clock.

    If i were him and I had the guts for a knife fight, I’d put aside that genteel Southern charm for a moment, grow a pair, become Stonewall Jackson, pray to my God and un-recuse myself.

    I’d do a short terse announcement. “Ladies and gentlemen, since it has become apparent that there has been no Russian Collusion nor that I participated in any, I hereby un-recuse myself. Tomorrow morning Special Counsel Muller and I will meet and discuss the parameters of his investigation. As originally stated he will be limited to matters relating to alleged Russian involvement in the election past. I will urge him to subpoena any and all records and electronic devices held by the Democratic National Committee pertaining EXCLUSIVELY to the period in question. It is my understanding that these devices have been previously examined by a foreign company. The principals of that company will be requested to testify, under oath, on their findings and how they arrived at those findings. The DNC devices will then be turned over to the DIA for analysis and an attempt to make a provable link to Russian involvement.”

    • I liked it so much, I just sent it to the DOJ dropping the first paragraph and replacing “grow a pair” with “hitch up my britches” .

      Ladies and gentlemen, feel free to follow suit.

      https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Why are the democrats so hot and bothered about the alleged Russian collusion to affect our elections in favor of Trump….yet they all in lockstep about Trump’s election integrity investigation meeting it with ridicule by HRC and Dem supporters who claim that there was NO voter fraud or irregularities in the Nov 2016 election. Can’t have it both ways. Like all the fraud in Detroit found during the recount, and thankfully stopped. Even here in NC where we had a gubenatorial race decided by around 5000 votes, they’ve found many counties and precincts that had more votes cast than actual eligible voters there. 70000 votes appesared to be cast in NC by residents yet low and behold there were votes cast in the areas they came from. Not taken off the roles yet moved and someone voted in the old home precinct…….how many went the other way like moved from NC…the voter roles cleanup didn’t keep up and votes were cast in two places. How fast is it discovered that you have moved, by changing ar registration or your license, close on a house and the mail rolls in….welcome to the neighborhood.. Public information and do we think that political operatives do not tap into that data? Have an accident and just see how fast your mailbox fills up with lawyer solicitations from the accident report files at the police station.
      Without voter id all one has to do is state a name. Just imagine the flow of people moving from one state to another on a daily basis and then usually how long it is before you clean up all the paperwork. Our current governor who was the AG for NC refused to defend the State against Lynch of the voter iD laws passed by Congress and signed by the former governor McCory. He also didn’t fight over the bathroom edict handed down by the Feds under Obama. He is the governor now by if he votos a bill that overturns anything our Congress wants it can and willl be overturned. So the election of the governor even close was inconsequential. I’m sure McCory capitualed quickly only after the legislature votes were tabulated. …….Squeeky wheels get attended to 1st…..same goes for those that protest the loudest usually have the most to hide, I used to have one rule in troubleshooting. “Who touched it last” that usually found 80% of the problems I dealt with.

  29. I keep thinking this barely talked about case is gonna end up being a big deal. Is it connected to the hacking? Why is Schultz protecting them? Why wouldn’t the DNC let the FB I look at their computers after the hacking? Why is Schultz fighting so hard to keep them from looking at these computers?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/wasserman_schultz_it_aide_of_pakistani_descent_target_of_illegal_computer_data_sharing_probe.html

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Didn’t the FBI just grab all her stuff yesterday or today?

      • No, they found another computer a while back hidden in an office these IT guys used, Shultz claimed it was hers and demanded it back. She didn’t get it but her claim has so far stopped them from being able to look at it.

        • I think the Capital police investigation started back in feb.– These new hard drives were just found and it looks like the FB I is now involved.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            A apparently deliberately smashed…..when are these people or anyone in government for that matter going to get hit with obstruction of justice charges.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          May 22, 2012 … Barack Obama: ‘The only people that don’t want to disclose the truth, are people with something to hide.”

  30. Just “discovered” they do an epic movie about Dunkirk and do not mention or use Winston Churchill. Was the old colonialist too controversial for them? Might offend some Kenyan descendants? Have also been told that the words Nazi and Germans have been downplayed and replaced with the generic “enemy”. Swastikas are also supposedly verbotten.

    The Churchill thing is verified, the other stuff…..well if you find out, let me know.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      SK

      Churchill’s speech is not ignored as I understand it . Have not actually seen the movie yet.

      One of the reasons it is not used as a broadcast is the Director wanted to tell the story from the perspective of those fighting. The bridge to town, the beaches, the ocean, and the air. Thus the references to “Germans” instead of “Nazis” probably is historically accurate at this time. Especially given the Brits history in WWI.

      I understand that Churchill’s speech is read by one of the characters. Perhaps read out loud to his “mates”. Which is also more accurate historically. Most would not hear the speech but read it and then read it to friends.

      Anyway, I so far see no conspiracy in this film to dumb down history of make it more politically correct.

      Will share more after I actually see it.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    This is telling….and too funny to pass up 😀

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/kid-rock-4-points-michigan-senate-poll

  32. gmanfortruth says:

  33. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    “The 1833 Abolition of Slavery Act is usually cited as the end of slavery in the British empire. But, as Gott notes, it was always intended to only “gradually” end slavery, and the law was initially only applied in the West Indies. Slavery was abolished in the Gold Coast in 1874 and in southern Nigeria in 1916. In 1906 in the Gambia, an ordinance was approved that anyone born after that date could not be enslaved, but remaining slaves were to be freed only on the death of their masters.

    In 1901, Sierra Leone passed an ordinance which ended the dealing in slaves, but individuals could still bring slaves into the country for their own use. The same ordinance did allow slaves to buy their freedom, at a sum to be fixed by the governor of not more than four pounds for an adult and two pounds for a child. When the governor wanted to abolish slavery there in 1921, Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for the colonies, replied that “the abolition of slavery could not, however, have any immediate beneficial effect on the finances of the colony” of Sierra Leone.

    By the early 1920s Britain was under increasing pressure from the League of Nations temporary slavery commission. In 1924 Britain was forced to admit that slavery was still practised in Sierra Leone, northern Nigeria, Gambia, Aden, Burma and Hong Kong.

    Sierra Leone was founded for freed slaves (some in the American revolution had been promised land and freedom if they fought for Britain, but the land turned out to be in Africa). Captain WB Stanley, commissioner of the Northern Province, reported in 1924 that there were 219,275 slaves in Sierra Leone, 15% of the total population. Governor Sir Ransford Slater wrote that year: “My first impression [on arrival] was one of surprise that in Sierra Leone, of all colonies, having regard to the history of its first settlers, there should still exist, even in the hinterland, an admitted form of slavery.”

    Britain in 1926 signed the League of Nations slavery convention. But it was quickly in trouble with the League, following a ruling by Sierra Leone’s supreme court on July 1 1927, which declared that the status of slavery “is clearly recognised” and thus “the use of reasonable force [by the slave’s owner] in retaking of a runaway slave must also be recognised”. Court president Mr Justice Sawrey-Cookson added: “It must be as absurd to deny an owner of a slave his rights to retake a runaway slave as to deny a husband certain rights which follow on a lawfully contracted marriage.”

    Slavery was finally abolished in Sierra Leone on January 1 1928, nearly a century after the Abolition of Slavery Act. In marking the end of slavery, this is the date which should be used.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Slavery still exists today. What we view as slavery (ownership, forced labor etc) isn’t exactly what modern day slavery looks like, at least in the US. Like any law, there are ways around it. IMHO, welfare, is a form of slavery, as long as it’s permanent with no work requirement. Slavery is alive and well in the US and their owners are Democrats. 😀

  34. gmanfortruth says:
    • Obama could not come since we were such incredible anti-Trans homophobes. Now, of course, we have been bullied into submission. I noted that no one mentioned just who it was that made sure we could no longer hold our Jamborees at Ft. A.P. Hill VA. I still don’t know if we are allowed to use/camp at government facilities since we have not yet denied God.

  35. gmanfortruth says:
  36. Interesting fact……..the DOW, in the last four weeks, has been earnings driven. The first time in 9 years.. it has been Fed driven.

  37. gmanfortruth says:
    • Gino LaFabio! The Trump train continues to collect followers along the way. Way to go Youngstown.

  38. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    And these idiots are supposed to be teaching and developing the curricula for the young to survive once they leave the nest and carry on..

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/algebra-is-racist-according-to-california-college-chancellor-it-is-a-civil-rights-issue/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra

    Granted originally one branch was invented in early Babylon but other strains of this “RACIST” form of mathematics can be blamed on Egyptians, Indians, Greeks etc. and every great civilization of man’s history over many millennia. I guess the further along the timeline of history, where we are supposed to take and utilize the knowledge of the past to make a greater civilization…..I guess that’s wrong and we are degenerating into a culture of demeaning, ostracizing, pillaring the striving, educated people that are the builders of any civilization.

    One of my nephew’s was a dept head at Duke University, years ago, dealing with grants for advanced degrees ad research. He got very frustrated by the very lack of drive “American” students had when it came to not only applying but qualifying for the grants. Most went to Chinese and Indian applicants.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I remember even when I was in school, oh so many decades ago, the teachers and profs said Algebra was an “Arab” invention. The last I read is that the Arabs were from the sands of Saudi Arabia mostly and Babylon back 3-4 millenia ago was Persian and nothing what so ever to do with Arabs living a nomadic life. Nor greeks, nor Egyptions 3 millenia ago nor Indians. I’m sure anyone would get a punch in the nose if not worse if one called an Iranian/Persian an Arab.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump is awesome in Youngstown. 😀

    • Good question, if Trump keeps on attacking his own people —how is he ever gonna find new people?

      http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=370833

      • I can see how it is extremely frustrating for Trump to see the lies and distortions printed and broadcast daily about his campaign and presidency. His attack on Session however is misguided. I can only see it if he is trying to motivate Sessions to become more active in investigating the multiple scandals of the opposition. With regards to the Russian investigation, is ire should be directed to DAG Rosenstein. Rosenstein is the one that charted Mueller and basically gave him cart blanch. Knowing the history of special prosecutors, he should have been given a very narrow scope. He should also have been required to report his findings to the public, the DOJ, and Congress once a month. If no collusion was found in say 6 months, then that part of the investigation should be dropped. Only the investigation into any Russian involvement in the election should be continued. By that I mean the mechanisms they used with the goal of how to secure our elections in the future from foreign meddling.

        Now with that said, I do think that Mexico and their millions of invaders have more influence on our elections than the Russians. I support the voting fraud commission that Trump has chartered and hope they do a thorough job of documenting once and for all the level of voter fraud in this country, be it large or small.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Especially since in California getting a drivers license whether a legal resident or not automatically gets you registered to vote. From what I’ve read there has been NO attempt to verify immigration status. Couple that with the laxity on proof of id while voting just about everywhere except Texas. That is a recipe for voting fraud. When one has administrations like those in San Diego that very publically supported illegal migrants voting in our elections..

  40. I think we need to stop calling these people snowflakes -makes them sound innocent, when I’m thinking they are not stupid or innocent, they’re dangerous.

    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/08/first-church-of-intersectionality

    • Nice piece. i was lying in bed this morning thinking of the Boy Scout Jamboree, Transgenderism, the first two female sailors applying to SEAL training and the first time I ran into a crazy female in authority.

      It was late fall 1968 and I was in the process of joining the US Army (see, I beat the draft!). Part of what i wanted a the time was a commission through OCS. I had to go before a board of three officers, a Sr. Colonel with fruit salad up to his shoulder, a male 1st Lt. wearing black Gucci loafers and a very new shave tale female 2nd Lt. The Colonel, God bless him asked relevant questions, the 1st looey asked touchy freely questions the female however asked me at least 16 times if I could take orders from female. That is all she cared about. Now, let me tell you, I was familiar enough with the Army and the World and fully understood that you obey orders from anyone in the workplace, any workplace who has authority over you. Period. So, I answered her that way. She hammered and hammered and would not let it go until the Colonel called it off. Three months later I got to look at the evaluation. The Colonel loved me, the 1st Lt. gave me an OK but the female, she tore me to ribbons over her perceived view I would not take orders from a woman.

      It took me a very long time to understand that her evaluation had nothing to do with me. I was and am not insecure about anything except maybe playing with electricity. It was all about HER insecurity. She had absolutely no confidence in herself for things that really mattered. Your intersectionality people all seem like that, even the 69 year old Professor lady. So, it is OUR fault.

      Like my hero/mentor, Robert Heinlein, I love women, perhaps in some ways too much. Like him I understand quite clearly that women and men are not interchangeable pieces nor should they be. With our loss of religion, we have forgotten that we are supposed to complement each other, be helpmates to each other. No one would say there are not jobs that both cannot do equally well however when a woman boss has an attitude that she is constantly on the defensive and “they” are out to get her, she is every bit as bad as the very worst misogynist male. She will also guarantee that the mission, whatever it is, will if not fail at last not succeed the way it should or could.

%d bloggers like this: