I just saw the following news article on CNN. It looks like Venezuala's America-hating Hugo Chavez just closed down unfavorable radio stations.
I saw a quote recently that said something about how the first things oppressive regimes go after are the radio stations, because what is said on the air is more difficult to control than printed media and word of mouth. I would suspect, then, that free broadcast radio is (in modern times) the pinnacle of free speech.
( Here's the article )
Great to think it wouldn't happen here! Or could it?
You may or may not know that one of the (many) disturbing policies suggested by the incoming Obama administration and the democrats was a new kind of "fairness doctrine" aimed at radio programming.
Radio programs are often syndicated. This is how you could live in Arizona or Michigan and get "America's Top 40" or "Dr. Demento" out of California when you were a kid. It's how you can hear NPR programming across the country on your local station, and why radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, George Noory, or Glenn Beck can be heard nationwide. It's why you've heard of Dr. Laura or Shock-Jock Howard Stern.
The concept isn't that unique ... Television is also syndicated. There are giant broadcast networks that predate the Cable Channels. Saturday Night Live would only be available to residents of New York if that weren't the case, and only people in southern California would have seen BayWatch, 90210 or One Tree Hill.
Not really a bad thing, right? Local stations still insert their local advertisement for local businesses, local news still airs.
Over the years, people of sure political persuasion have gravitated toward one form of transmitted media or the other. Conservatives and Republicans largely listen to radio broadcasts, and Liberals and Democrats largely follow what comes out of Hollywood or shoots out of their television. While some might point to some old-timer or nostalgic reason, another argument may be that hard working Americans tend to not have the option of watching television while working. Whatever the case, Conservatives generally get their news and opinion-entertainment from radio shows like Glenn Beck or Dr. Laura, and Liberals generall get their news from comedy shows like SNL or The Daily Show. Not trying to pick on anyone, but it's pretty much the truth.
The wider availability of radio, along with the predominance of 'conservative talk' shows has long troubled the liberal illuminati. Joe-Bob Farmer, who lives 60 miles from the nearest bottled water vendor can usually pick up a handful of radio stations when television isn't an option. I live in an actual town, for example, and to get "local" television here, we have to subscribe to a satellite service ... but i can easily pick up four good talk radio stations and a dozen music providers.
In order to offensively insert their agenda into the minds of Rural America, the liberal illuminati needed to take out the existing feed and make their own flow more accessible. Increasing television coverage would be expensive, but newer digital technologies were capable of delivering signal at greater distances with less power. Solution number one was to sell the public on the "need" for a switchover from older analog broadcast systems to the newer digital systems, and part of that solution was to mandate the switchover - leaving providers with no choice. The town where i live recently gained 9 television stations (nearly all are Public Broadcasting). "Mission accomplished". Rural America now has access to the filthy softcore porn, inappropriate language and mass-marketing that had helped undermine urban america decades before. But PBS is safe, right? Unfortunately, the Obama administration decided that local PBS stations would lose their funding if they aired religious programming because a small portion of the funding for Public Broadcasting comes from taxpayers (despite 81% of American adults identifying themselves as members of some organized religion - 77% being "Christian" according to the same 2001 poll), so anything that smacks of religion or religious values cannot be aired on PBS, while shows and documentaries promoting homosexuality are promoted.
So what to do about the steady stream of syndicated right-wing programs? The answer was found in the exploitation of "minority groups".
Some politicians (pushed by activists) crunched some numbers and found that there's not a whole lot of minority-owned radio. Rather than trying to determine why (it makes sense, for example, that a group that makes up 2% of the population would not have more than 2% of the radio stations, right?), they proudly announced that "the reason why" there wasn't a lot of 'minority radio' was that all the "Big Networks" (kinda like "Big Oil", "Big Auto Companies", "Big Businesses", "Big Religion" ...) took up all the radio bandwidth.
Excuse me for saying this, but [bad word]!! Eliminating analog television freed up a whole lot of the spectrum, and in very few places was the spectrum already over-burdened in specific localities. Not that that matters ... the whole story is pretty weak anyway.
So welcome "localism" and "fairness doctrine". The idea that the mere existence of syndicated "network" radio prohibits minority radio from existing. The FCC created a "diversity" group (made up of the most militant of affirmative-action and opposition groups, but which isn't diverse enough to include straight people, white people, religious people, families, etc). Congress also voted in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine", which many suspect will be a 'back door' to seizing control of radio stations and disbanding networks which currently carry content unfavorable to the liberal agenda.
As it now stands, and with the direction things seem to be going, pornography has more legal protection than conservative talk radio. When you consider the administration that launched this attack is the same one that strong-armed and intimidated smaller broadcasters during the election from airing an unfavorable (but truthful) ad about Obama's anti 2nd Amendment stance, it's pretty clear to see that unless someone can get some protections legislated, the United States may be losing a vital pillar of Free Speech.
sources (accessed 08/01/2009):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_pr
http://thenationalscene.com/obama-democr
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Ar
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_mem
- Wher'bouts:Somewhere Nice
- Weather:
contemplative - Yodel:an old fan and a barking dog.
I've actually been gathering information to write a coherant blog on the subject, given the recent "swimming pool-daycare" incident and now the "respected professor breaking into his own house" incident. I've found, however, that waiting a few days here and there provides a much stickier story with all sorts of plot twists ... like the 911 tapes and interview with the caller that show there was no racial intent (and, given the additional context of a police officer with no prior "race problems" and other witnesses to the arrest, it looks like the only person exhibiting racial prejudice in this situation was Mr. gates himself).
anyway, stay tuned ...
- Wher'bouts:Initial Point
- Weather:
busy
While i shouldn't be so cold hearted ... he is, after all, grieving the death of his mother ... this is an example where fame and fortune in the land of sin has bought a criminal special privileges.
If one guilty man gets special treatment, they all should.
I don't think this treatment had anything to do with race (he is white), but try telling that to minorities (including the poor!) who don't get to get out of jail with a special escort to see their wife, sister, mother or child's funeral or wedding. I think this is a case of a star-struck law-enforcement department who (in the first case) wanted to see Farrah, and (now) who want to attend her funeral.
CNN reported the following about O'Neal:
"O'Neal was arrested in September when deputies found methamphetamine during a probation search at the Malibu, California, home of his father, actor Ryan O'Neal. The younger O'Neal was on probation for a 2008 felony drug conviction involving heroin and meth.
Monday's court order will allow Redmond O'Neal out of jail for up to three hours for the funeral. A sheriff's deputy is to accompany him at all times, according to the order, issued in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
O'Neal, 24, will be allowed to wear civilian clothes for the funeral.
He is undergoing what the sheriff's department has called an "intense drug rehabilitation program" in the L.A. County jail."
So he wasn't in prison for murder, but he also wasn't simply in jail for public intoxication (do they even have that in California?)
I was about to apologize for jumping to conclusions when i read the "intense drug rehab" quote, but that could simply be jailhouse humor ...
But if the rehab program (paid for by California state tax dollars - dollars, which in turn were paid for by federal tax dollars when our government had to bail their state out) was so "intense" that the "patient" had to be locked up in order for it to be effective, then isn't this 3 hour vacation going to render the program less effective, in turn costing the taxpayers additional money that could have been spent on getting communists jobs in our educational system, buying big-screen TVs for homeless shelters, giving foodstamps to girlfriends of drug dealers, or closing down car manufacturers who can't make cars that do 85MPG on fuel made from moldy organic lunchmeat?
I know personally of persons incarcerated in other left-coast states who didn't get this kind of opportunity. An ex-con who "served his time" and was released from prison ... but the 'release' process took an extra month, so he missed his sister-in law's final days as cancer took her. A stupid kid who was drunk driving, was sent to rehab, got released, then a paperwork error caused him to get brought back in (to a different county) for several months, making him miss his probation officer, which caused a warrant to be issued for his arrest ... when the paperwork error was corrected (someone else of the same name), he was still 'guilty' of not checking in during that time (in which he was in jail in a neighboring county), so he went immediately to THAT jail ... and on and on.
neither of these guys had the money or famous parents that O'Neal has, however, so they certainly deserved what they got, right?
sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/06/30/fa
- Wher'bouts:Dude, Where's My Country?
- Weather:
cranky
The CNN story said that the theme park (Kings Dominion) said it was a smoke ring from some Volcano ride ... but that some people were mentioning the similarities between it and a 1957 photo from an army base:
I excitedly went online and googled "ring of smoke or UFO", and found a blog that someone did on these smoke-ring UFOs. It was quite interesting, and I was becoming more and more excited about the footage until i saw the "unmentioned" final photos in the 1957 sequence:
( See the pictures they DON'T Show you! )
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O87h-fkTj
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Kni
- Wher'bouts:Rural America
- Weather:
cheerful - Yodel:Theme song to DORA THE EXPLORER
12 Year Old Girl Beats Boy Over The Head With A Backpack Full Of Rocks
SEATTLE - A 12-year-old girl is facing possible assault charges after she allegedly hit a 12-year-old boy with a backpack filled with rocks.
According to police, the two kids got into an argument at the Southwest Community Center playground in West Seattle .
"They went about their ways, they parted company." said Jeff Kappel of the Seattle Police Department. "She apparently loaded up her backpack full of rocks and came back and essentially ambushed this boy."
The girl is said to have struck the boy in the back of the head at least twice.
"He never saw it coming. (She) struck him in the back of the head with this backpack apparently full of rocks," said Kappel.
Staff members at the center found the boy and called 911. The boy was said to be unconscious after the attack. A nurse from nearby Denny Middle School, where the boy is said to be a student, and paramedics treated the boy at the scene. He regained consciousness and was then taken to Harborview Medical Center.
Police interviewed the young girl, as well as witnesses.
"(She) was turned over to her mother," said Kappel. "We did out a police report and will forward that to the prosecutor with a request for a review for charges of assault."
Even though we're living hundreds of miles away now, i'm seriously considering pushing for home school. We'd looked at it originally ... before we had kids ... and finally (maybe out of laziness?) decided to go with public schools.
I've been reconsidering for awhile now, however. The college i attend has a high number of home-schooled kids, and they're all intelligent, driven, and innocent kids ... by "innocent" i mean they aren't tainted with all the other garbage "normal' children are subjected to (drugs, alcohol, violence, homosexuality, strange philosophies, etc).
I'd LOVE for my children to make it out of their teens withough being made filthy and bitter by the world.
Man arrested, accused of threatening to kill Obama
(CNN) -- A man accused of making threatening statements about killing President Obama has been arrested in Nevada, the Secret Service said Saturday.
Daniel James Murray was arrested Friday night in the parking lot of the Riverside Resort Hotel and Casino in Laughlin, Nevada, said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley.
Murray recently withdrew $85,000 from a bank in St. George, Utah, in two separate visits and told a teller, "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States," according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Utah.
According to the complaint, Murray opened an account at Zions First National Bank on May 19 with an $85,000 check.
"With all this mess going on under President Obama with banks and the economy, I'm sure if citizens happen to lose their money, they will rise up and we could see killing and deaths," he said, according to the complaint.
On May 27, he returned to the bank and tried to withdraw $12,000, but lacked proper identification.
"Not to be disrespectful, but if I don't get this money, someone is going to die," Murray said, according to the complaint.
A bank manager was summoned and Murray was allowed to withdraw the money without proper identification.
Murray would not accept a check and demanded bills no larger than $50, the complaint says.
"We are 94 million miles from the sun, and are in-between the sun and moon, and the eagle that flies between them and it's a giant step for mankind. ... I have traveled thousands of miles to be here and know things that are going to happen. ... the banking system will fail and people will die. ... there will be chaos in the world," Murray said, according to the complaint.
He then made his threat against the president, the complaint says.
The next day, Murray returned to the bank, withdrew the rest of his money and closed the account, a bank teller told authorities.
source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/06/obam
ok. here's where i start to play "devil's advocate':
1- did he really say those things, or was the teller just mad at how the customer treated her, and made up some weird story to make herself feel good? And maybe a fellow employee suggested she 'report it to police', so she did, because admitting she made up what he said would be too embarrassing?
2 - you'd have to be crazy to say things like that. even momentarily crazy ... like a person would be when they go to the bank to withdraw all of THEIR money, and the bank won't let them have it. I'd imagine such a person would get angry at the federal government (since banks are essentially controlled by the federal government), and possibly assume they were trying to fend him off ... that he was starting a 'run on the bank'. (Though any sensible person - who has access to their own money - would know the bank porobably just didn't have that much cash on hand).
3 - i'd suspect, however, someone who has $85k in the bank couldn't be THAT crazy, right?
4 - if he was really out to get the president, wouldn't he have headed east, rather than west? I mean ... they caught him in Nevada ... at a casino (wouldn't it be funny if he was withdrawing all his money to go gamble? wait - yeah, i know ... THAT is too far fetched!) ... and Nevada is West of Utah, not East.
I suppose it's best that people who say weird things like that do get 'checked out'. After all, what if he really was going to do something criminal?
BUT ... because his (alleged) rant was against the president, the government IS going to seize all of his money, he's going to lose his right to own a gun, maybe be locked up in a federal prison, and lose his right to have a fair trial. if he is innocent ... or if he was just a dork and said some weird crap ... that's a lot of rights to lose as a result.
scary.
anyway, i hope justice is served. i hope the punishment is equal to the crime.
additional sources:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl
- Wher'bouts:Rural America
This isn't going to be a very original post. I really have little to say ... because it's all too glaringly obvious. No insight needed to understand this one ...
Usually this quote is used to promote the conspiracy theory that "The government is run by Big Business". They want you to live in fear that "big oil" companies and mcdonalds are lurking in the shadows, whispering orders to the army, the IRS, the police, or whomever.
The truth is actually more benign in some ways, and more frightening in others.
We are protected by numerous laws from most intereference with our laws by "big companies". A company cannot, for example, donate any money to a campaign or political party. When you see politicians (like Hillary Clinton in 2007) having to give back money that was "donated illegally", it's usually related to some company trying to sneak money to a politician through a third party, and then they got caught. When you hear political ads warning that "so-n-so got most of his campaign donations from 'big oil'", it's usually a flat-out lie, or it's based on the thin fiber of truth that an employee or cousin of someone somehow tied to the company (a janitor, the 2nd cousin of the receptionist, etc) having contributed money. There is even a maximum amount that any person may donate.
This isn't to say there aren't ties between businesses and politics. Obama himself was tied to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae long ago, and appeared at banquets they put on in his honor because of some low-level political wrangling he'd done for them in Chicago. His current administration is made up largely of people who were in his "line of business", working with low-income housing and minorities - though it would be an assumption to say he worked personally with all of them. In the early 1900's, infamously corrupt Tammany Hall was a den of democratic politicians "in bed with" business owners. On the lighter side (sort of), the government officials are (mostly) elected by "the people", and when "the people" demand cleaner air, safer working conditions, equality between genders/ages/races in employment, more accessible healthcare, etc ... the government is the tool in which those changes are enacted - on businesses - and to be just, those businesses should be permitted some measure of presence in the debate to decide their own fate. When we elect any politician, we also have to remember that no matter how environmentally-friendly, 'down to earth' or 'progressive' the man, a lot of money was spent bringing his face to your television. Obama, for example, was elected on a magical pedestal that cost $195 Million for the television spots alone. His chief rival, John McCain spent $11 million. Obama had a lot of additional help from "non-profit" organizations who "independently" (on paper, anyway) promoted him and his party. MoveOn.org, DemocracyNow!, and others, supported by the Annenberg Foundation and Global opportunist millionaire George Soros. Politics will always have some sort of tie with businesses.
As ugly as some of that sounded, that was the harmless part.
The Real ties between government and business that we need to be aware of are the numerous Government-Corporations. Some were created by the federal government to serve some sort of purpose that benefitted the government, a sort of "shell entity". Some are "private" companies that the government has purchased shares in. Others, were "purchased" by the government when they went bankrupt. Some even started off as a government project, went independent, failed, and the government took over again. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are of that variety.
It is actually difficult to track down a comprehensive list of these organizations and their ties with the government. Off the top of my head i would suggest NASA is one. The Airlines are too, sort of. Railroads. Power Companies.
A search online yielded the following list:
GOVERNMENT OWNED:
Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba "Amtrak")
Consolidated Rail Corporation
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation
Holdings of American International Group
Legal Services Corporation
United States Government Sponsored Enterprise
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority
GOVERNMENT SPONSORED:
Farm Credit System
Federal Home Loan Banks
Sallie Mae
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
American International Group (AIG)
General Motors
United States Postal Service
North Dakota Mill and Elevator
I want to be honest about this list: I don't believe it includes everything, and I don't know the history or depth of connection between what is on the list and the government. I haven't checked my "facts" yet, and this will be an area of further study, hopefully producing a well-documented and detailed list at some future date.
These companies seem pretty harmless. What danger is posed by North Dakota Mill and Elevator, for example? Or those loveable cuddly names, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
While it is true that some have more weight in their potential effect on the nation than others, the primary danger is that a close mix of government and business cannot be fruitful for either.
In order for a business to truly be successful, it needs to be able to stand on its own, and produce for the demand. If the business is a failure ... mismanaged or unfruitful ... it needs to crumble so better businesses can rise in its place and fulfill the need better.
Often our country experiences devastating wildfires. Wildfires, a "natural disaster", have existed since trees and lightning. Some trees actually thrive on the fires - the heat being required to open their cones and ripen their seeds.
These fires also serve a purpose: they remove the failed and diseased trees, and open the forest for new vegetation. With too much of a forest canopy in this kind of climate, the trees which occur here naturally cannot get the sunlight they need to grow. With all of the new growth being sickly, the entire forest would soon die.
Darwinists might cause this "natural selection" ... "survival of the fittest".
As we have infringed upon the wildreness, building expensive homes deep in the forest, we have enacted laws and created agencies to protect our homes from this natural menace. Men die, money is spent, and crews are flown across the nation to fight these fires ...
In stopping the fires, we are preventing nature from 'cleaning house'. We're creating more disease in the forests, with more dead underbrush. We're preventing certain trees from reproducing.
Our well-intentioned laws, designed to protect a few wealthy individuals who want to live in luxury in "rough" surroundings, are actually increasing the danger by preventing the natural balance from happening. Every now and then, a small fire erupts, exploding into a gigantic monster of devastation.
Businesses are like those trees, and failure is like the fire. When government steps in to "help" the sick and failed businesses, the stronger businesses have little room to grow. When enough of these dried and withered businesses are propped up by the government, all it takes is a small spark to send the whole "forest" into flames, and the few strong who had managed to survive on their own are not enough to hold the structure on their own. With each new wildfire, fewer and fewer of the strong "trees" will be left standing.
Government aiding broken businesses is a bad deal for the country. But that is not in the least bit the worst of it.
When the government owns a business ... say ... a power company ... competition quickly vanishes. I don't for a moment suspect secret agents sneaking around making threats and having the competitors "disappear" ... the competition disappears on its own. This harms capitalism, which might seem like a great thing (if you're poor and jealous), but is actually quite bad. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have as many choices in the goods and products that we can currently choose from. Organic foods would not be available unless the government decided they actually made a difference (and likely would not). You also probably wouldn't have a job. Without capitalism, liberals wouldn't have access to pornography and 'adult items', their favorite brand of cigarettes, bars, nightclubs, Che shirts, Save Tibet bumper stickers, Beastie Boys and Bob Marley albums, cable television (including non-profit channels), and our cars would all be pretty much the same and likely be gas-guzzling black-smokers, at least until someone in the government was pressed to change the laws.
Capitalism creates jobs, and even more, creates choices. Choices create competition. Capitalism is a merit-based system ... as much as you want to complain about "the rich getting richer" ... in a capitalist system you have the opportunity to quit working for 'the man' and go into business for yourself.
When governments own companies, they run business like they run politics. The products become worse ... being mass-produced, not "environmentally sound" (until enough people in government push for changes that EVERYONE can agree on), and the workers making them become more miserable.
When governments run companies, scientific progress is hindered. Political choices determine what science to funnel money into or not. This usually means billions of dollars spent on ways to kill people, not on cures for cancer, alzheimers, or new energy sources with a better 'carbon footprint'. Remember how angry you were that Bush stopped stem-cell research? It is incredibly foolish to build a government that gives this kind of power to the president (or to congress, etc) ... because there will never be a president or ruling party that will satisfy everyone's needs ... and that naturally means that no single political dogma will remain in power forever. You saw Obama's "first hundred days" ... he spent them exclusively un-doing things his predecessor had implemented, pointing fingers as he went. It's not much of a stretch to imagine some post-Obama president could undo what Obama has done.
You cannot give government too much power without risking your future. When you enact laws giving the government more power, you do not in any way prevent the power from being abused at some point in the future ... but you do make it incredibly difficult to remove that power when 'the bad guy' is abusing it.
We may not know the exact outcome ... the consequences of government control of the banks, the mortgage companies, the auto companies, the energy companies, the farming companies, the broadcast companies, and so forth ... but we can be certain that, eventually, those consequences will be evident, and at that point it will be too late.
- Wher'bouts:The Left Coast, USA
- Weather: contemplative
A girl in Boise today was busted for road rage. She got cut off by someone in a small car, so she chased them, throwing coins and ranch dressing at them. The victims called 911 for help, and were told to pull into a nearby parking lot for police assistance. She follwed them there ... and by the time the cops showed uup, she'd rammed her truck into their car enough to make the bumper fall off & caused other damage.
Just for fun, i looked her up on MySpace. Here's what her profile has to say:
im livin! i love music like 4byin love to party like gettin dirty love camping like grits love coffee hate food:D like reptiles love snakes like piercings love tattoos..(especially on my men) im respectfull not a kiss ass. im real, not a bitch. i dont get mad i get pissy. i dont care to argue or to debate, its a waste of time. im conservative not shy (well kinda shy) :) im a hard core recycler and a hard core litter nazi n:)(we dont live in a giant trash can!! im totally down for spur of the moment random stuff (it makes life funner) im positive maybe a lil to much sometimes, i love sleeping i hate alarm clocks. i love to love not to f***. i follow no rules but the rule of live your life the way you wanna. im not a big fan of dudes... i am a big fan of men. im not a big fan of girls... i am a huge fan of women. I get spirts of rebellion but for the most part im a good girl ;)
I'll admit i'm an evil jerk for looking up the profile.
What would make her snap like that? From what her profile says, she seems like a pretty average 18 year old ... into a calculated (but foggy) range of music ... rap, metal, janis joplin. She tries to sound really bada**, but just comes off cutesy when doing so. Her mug-shot shows she's been crying quite a bit. Likely this WAS the first time she's 'road raged', but wow, what a start!
I had my own moments of road rage today. I was late for a test at school, and it seemed like the guy in the 'fast lane' was trying to go under the speed limit to match the slow old woman in front of me ... so i couldn't get into the other lane and drive the right speed. It took me about 3 miles to finally break free of him, losing valuable minutes in the process. I took my usual back-road, and at the "right turn doesn't have to stop" sign, the woman in the fancy new-model black jeep or hummer (from Washington Country, License No. 20105) just sat there. She finally turned the corner and began driving "fine" until she spotted me in her rear-view mirror. She began slowing down more and more, snickering (i could see her in the mirror), until she was down to 15 MPH. FIFTEEN MILES PER HOUR. Eventually (a mile and a half later) she turned the other way, and I was free to drive the posted limit (35) the rest of the way to the school.
People don't understand some stuff about driving. You never know when you're going to cut off a girl like Tiffany Wallace and get beaned by some change and some ranch dressing containers. You don't always realize that, while more difficult to prosecute, intentionally driving slow to harass the drivers behind you is also aggressive driving, and can also lead to accidents. We get idiots who can't be bothered to wait for the car in front of them to turn left, so they swerve around on the left ... it's happened thrice now in front of our home. What if you hit me and killed my daughter?
Another danger that even i didn't fully realize until i became "that guy" is that the person you piss off may be carrying a loaded firearm. Most of the ones that do (myself included) don't have a violent temper and are trained to only use the fire arm as a last resort for self-defense ... but what if the one you anger isn't level-headed or legal? You could die because you're driving irresponsibly or "having some fun' with that annoying teenager hugging your bumper.
I haven't always been as good a driver as i am now. (My wife would say "what are you talking about? You're TERRIBLE!") Living on both coasts and navigating ridiculous metropolitan traffic has made me a quick-thinker, my tracking and peripheral awareness is better, and i took a "defensive driving" course awhile back too. I no longer drive when i am exhausted, I no longer trust that "the other guy" is paying attention to her driving, and i've made several adjustments to the way i do things when i'm behind the wheel. For the safety of the public, i also phone the police when i see dangerous drivers (drunken, swerving, aggressive). For my own stress-relief, i sometimes write down the license plate number and vehicle description, and if i'm a passenger, i'll snap a photo ... just in case i feel grouchy when i'm blogging and want the world to know what kind of monster you were. Yeah, i'm a jerk.
I'd love to know more about this ranch-flingin' wallace girl, though. What on earth went wrong with her morning?
sources:
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stori
http://www.myspace.com/missfresh420
- Wher'bouts:Boise, Idaho
- Weather: busy
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stori
Basically, in a nice, clean, middle-class neighborhood, a six-year-old girl went over to her next-door neighbor's house to help her bring in groceries. As the six-year old burst into the house, the neighbor's pitbull lunged and bit onto her face, and began biting down hard. The owner came into the house and saw the dog, and she (the dog) looked up, knowing she was in trouble. The owner was eventually able to get the dog to let go, and the girl was rushed to the hospital. Fortunately, aside from a tooth that was ripped out and the fact that her eyelid and nose were torn off, after some surgery she should be ok.
On the outside, that is ... i can't imagine how frightened she will be for the rest of her life of opening doors or seeing dogs.
The owner quickly had the dog "euthanized", and is now giving away her puppies and another young pitbull.
I really can't say i know what to think about this. The news has me "pretty certain" that all pitbulls are unpredictable killers, and that anyone who has a pitbull (or other handful of dogs) in proximity of children should be burned at the stakes, along with those who breed them. I know when i see a loose pitbull running through the neighborhood, i always keep my kids indoors.
But I also have to think ... isn't this a lot like gun bans? The media keeps us "pretty certain" that all guns - especially a handful of them - are dangerous menaces to society, and that people who own, assemble, or repair them should be burned at the stake for promoting such obvious killers among the innocent.
So I looked at the conversation. Some of the comments were:
"Well, we don't know for sure what the owner did or didn't do. We also don't know if the story happened exactly has it happened. I still am not convinced that certain breeds are more dangerous than others."
"dogs don't just attack and kill for no reason. i don't care if they are pits or poodles. it's common sense, anyone who grew up with animals has a pretty good idea what any individual dog is capable of."
"i am ashamed of you! making claims without research.... some dogs ARE more dangerous than others..and i will give it too you that pits are strong dogs, and can do more damage, but their bite rate is LESS than most dogs, and they score higher on the AKC temperament tests than most "family" dogs. statistically they are NOT as dangerous as the golden retriever, it's just that gang bangers and ignorant people irresponsible people don't tend to say "hey lets get a black lab!"
It's interesting to see people who are anti-gun use strikingly similar "pro-" arguments in defense of their big dogs. In just these three quotes, we see:
1) "the media is out to get us by not accurately portraying the full story",
2) "singling out specific ___ is stupid, because they are all equally safe/dangerous",
3) "accidents happen because people are careless", and
4) "the criminals are the problem, not the _____."
I decided to respond:
-------------
"Maybe pitbull (and other "large dogs who could hurt people") owners should have some kind of licensing to prove they know what they're doing, like you do! (I'm kinda serious about this, because i do know you're good at re-training them).
Maybe we should keep criminals from owning big dogs, and prevent them from being sold at shelters and street corners without adequate background checks? And make laws to hold dog breeders and dog owners accountable anytime one of their dogs hurts or kills a child?
Maybe if those laws are too restrictive, we could just hike up the price of dog food, and create a government agency to bust people who are making their own dog food - or using table scraps - "illegally"?
Oh! And keep a list of dog owners on file with the federal government, and make that list public so neighbors who worry about dangerous dogs in their neighborhoods could "be in the know" for their own safety!
And we could ban certain dogs ... dogs with wrinkles ... dogs with pointy, upright ears ... because those are the dogs that look the scariest."
-------------
My wife and i discussed it later, and I brought up the point i'd made about "some dogs being more tepermental", and how most people bring up the whole "poodles are more likely to viciously attack" bit. She stopped me, shocked , and said "yeah, but poodles don't go for your face and clamp down with muscular jaws and refuse to let go!"
True.
So I added:
-------------
"Lots of dogs ARE more snippy ... like a poodle, for instance ... but a poodle lacks the jaws and bulk to take you down and rip your face off.
and true, we don't know if the owner was secretly beating her dogs and training them to maul little girls who were helping bring in the groceries ...
and NO, i don't support banning the dogs
BUT
if you're gonna have kids around, you HAVE to be prepared for the possibility of something going wrong. That's why i have gun-locks on my guns, that's why knives, rope, scissors and poisons are stored away on high shelves in our house. that's why we don't leave matches or lighters out. that's why our wall outlets are covered with safety plugs.
if i read the story right, the dog owner did not have children.
if i didn't have children, would it be ok for me to leave loaded guns around the house, unlocked? or out on my porch?"
-------------
I guess I'm happy the dog-angle exists. i've been trying for years to help them understand why I'm so "anti-anti-gun", and trying to liken gun bans to organic vegetable bans just wasn't working ...
There are obviously a lot of similarities between guns and giant dogs. As one friend pointed out, people like big dogs because it's a power thing. "Gang-bangers" aren't going to strut down the street with a Pomeranian, for example.
For some owners, trying to distance themselves from the "power trip" thing, the draw to the animals is their design ... their muscle, the shape of their head, etc. An admiration of how they are put together, and awe of what they could do, and an appreciation of how well they behave when the proper safety and care is taken of them.
The rarely-mentioned but consistent truth underneath all of this is that these dogs/guns make their owners feel safe.
The dog doesn't have to attack, nor the gun fire a shot to ward off potential attackers or thieves.
In this lies one of the fallacies of statistics, and the strength of the media. The accidents are reported. The deaths are reported. The successes, however, are not.
It's not really the media's fault, either. Joe Bob who pulled out his shotgun to chase kids off his property probably doesn't want the school board over where he is a teacher to hear about him chasing kids with a gun. Jenny Sue who wasn't even home when the intruder opened the back door and saw a growling mess of teeth and drool staring him in the eye probably isn't even aware she was a 'victim'.
Looking at the two, I can see both have potential for accidents, and both have the potential for security.
Guns, however, don't protect you when you're gone ...
and dogs are never completely predicatable.
- Wher'bouts:Rural America
- Weather: busy
- Yodel:Morrissey: "Driving Your Girlfriend Home"
Those riots ... and the news media's ridiculously biased/ignorant coverage really turned me against all "liberal" causes. Watching the news and seeing the aged reporter waving a "peace sign" and screaming into the microphone that a"these are peaceful demonstrations" as someone behind her hurled a brick at a policeman was really funny. The joke got even better when she tearfully screamed, as police responded with shileds and teargas, "this was an unprovoked attack! this was an unprovoked attack!"
The more i witnessed these liberal demonstrations ... against Bush, against the war, against "big corporations", "oil companies", "republicans" and everything else formerly American and wholesome, the more i realised the mindset and action are far removed from the boycotts and strikes of the past. These things weren't "a revolution" for anything good ... no race, age or gender being championed ... and they certainly were lacking the element of PEACE, not to mention "common sense", "truth", and a plethoras of other good things.
Modern protests are an exercise in violence, hate, vandalism, riot, and all the "anti's" that go along with it.
Burning down SUVs or houses, for example, to "save the earth". How does all the air-pollution, chemicals being washed into the soil, and forcing the manufacturer to re-build (thereby doubling the 'environmental impact' of production alone!) REALLY help the environment?
This morning, before dawn (according to CNN), Starbucks in "several cities" were bombed.
I'm left wondering "WHY?"
What is so offensive to some that some clever person created a business that was successful?
Why does everyone hate Bill Gates, for example? Yeah, he has way "too much" money - but the judgement against the quantity is based in our tiny minds' opinion. If money doesn't really matter, why worry about who has the most of it? Why are people mad that he, taking advantage of the privilege he was born into, increased his talents (to quote the bible)?
Our society is successful, from time to time, because we allow innovators to innovate. we allow accountants to account. we allow workers to work, and we allow managers to manage. While it is also true we allow the poor to be poor and the rich to be rich ... you have to balance that with the related truth that our society also allows the rich to become poor and the poor to become rich.
So why bomb Starbucks?
If it happened in several cities, it was probably a group of some sort and not a person (unless the cities were all nearby). It's likely this group is so deeply ingrained in the propaganda of the Liberal/Socialist/Democrats that they actually believed Starbucks was "the bad guy". They couldn't see that the company became big through legit means ... through hard work ... or that the average employee of starbucks is some college kid working part-time. Yeah - that will help society - make all the college kids lose their jobs! brilliant!
Myopic politics. idiots.
- Wher'bouts:Rural America
- Weather: bitchy
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
inforodeo- inforodeo
- www.inforodeo.com
Syndicate
