Ironic? Yes. Surprising? No

From Right Wing News:

Anti-Gun Activist Knifed to Death
When liberals have accomplished their goal of effectively repealing the Second Amendment, we'll be more than ever at the mercy of the government, but at least we'll be safe from each other, right? Wrong, obviously.

In Britain, where moonbats aren't encumbered by the pesky Second Amendment, anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been found stabbed to death in her apartment. Too bad she didn't have a gun; she might have been able to defend herself.

Mrs. Regan started the Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny was shot. Her grandson has been arrested for stabbing her.

In a world with guns, 53-year-old grandmothers like Pat Regan have a chance. In a world with only knives, not so much. When knives are banned, and it comes down to fists and blunt objects, they'll really be in trouble.

Hat tip: Free Republic; on a tip from Cheetah. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Huh?

"We're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

What precisely does "long predicted might be associated with..." mean?

As far as I can tell, not a damn thing.

But then, when your name is Al Gore, you don't have to make any sense.

God I hate this jagoff.

Anybody you know?

From one of the funniest shows ever, Seattle's "Almost Live". The local station needs to get a clue and put this show out on dvd. But I guess the middle managers don't see what the benefits would be...

Everything proves everything

I've been chewing on this one for a while.  Last week, I saw a post someplace- probably Ace again- that mentioned the latest "proof" of global warming.   I chewed on it, saw it again on Grouchy Old Cripple, chewed some more, and then decided to get writin'.

So here goes.  Last week, a new study came out from Germany, which reveals the exciting news that, while global warming is still occurring, it will take a holiday for the next decade or so.

Why, you ask?  Because the earth will compensate for our carbon dioxide excess.  Naturally, and without any help.

Now contemplate this for a moment.  The earth can adjust to offset increases in CO2, without any help.  The planet doesn't even need to buy carbon offsets from The Source Of All Knowledge, His Eminence AlGore.  It just does it!

The more I thought about this article and this study, the more it bothered me.  On an intellectual level.  What we're actually seeing here is an article in a scientific journal which has major issues, to say the least.  The logic of it all is astounding, and not in a good way.

So let's play a bit of an intellectual exercise here.  For the sake of argument, we'll assume the following:  1) The earth is warming. 2) The warming is caused by mankind.

Let's stress here that this is strictly an exercise.  I don't agree with either of these assumptions, for many reasons.

Okay, so the earth is warming.  What this latest study says is that, while the warming is occurring, it'll take a decade off- that the earth might actually cool for the next 10 years, despite the fact that our actions are continuing down the same path as before.

In other words, global warming is continuing, even if the globe is cooling.

Brilliant, no?  Disprove this one.  The theory says that global temperatures are increasing, and that it's caused by mankind.  If global temperatures rise, it proves global warming.  However, if they fall or stay the same, then it's okay, because the theory of global warming also predicts this.

It's called covering all bases.

So here's a recap:  If temperatures rise, it's because mankind is using too much CO2, and affecting the earth.  If temperatures fall, it's because the earth is compensating (somehow) for the fact that mankind is using too much CO2 and affecting the earth.

But if the earth can compensate for our (presumed) errors in the short term, then is it not possible that it can do the same over the longer term?  In other words, is it not possible that, as many have suggested, the earth itself (or nature) can survive and flourish despite our efforts?  That we are not the masters of nature that we think we are?  If the earth can adjust to stop temperatures from increasing for a decade, why not a century?  Or a millenia?  Or an Eon?  

It crossed my mind from the outset that this is a deliberate act, to buy time.  It's been shown recently that temperatures are not increasing, but falling from the (modern) peak year of (if I recall correctly) 1998.  But now this study will let people off the hook, and give the global warming fanatics another 10 years to come up with another study to prove that it's happening.

At some point, the world will be in the grips of an ice age, and global warming fans will be claiming that it's just a temporary thing, and that in another 8 years the world will be too hot for human life.

The whole thing strikes me as a brilliant bit of propaganda.  Skeptics have long maintained that we're not able to affect the weather over the entire world as much as global warming believers claim.  Now, the argument has been co-opted to "prove" global warming again.  If temperatures increase, it's the obvious proof of Warming.  But now, if they decrease, this latest study has taken that argument away from the Skeptics- after all, scientists predicted a short-term decrease.   And it still fits within the framework of global warming "proof".

But on a rational basis, it seems like nonsense.  To me at least.  For the next 10 years, any attempt by skeptics to argue, using empirical data, that the entire concept of "global warming" is junk, can be tossed aside, since we know that the cooling that we (presumably) would be experiencing is "predicted" by other data.  My guess is that sometime within the next 10 years there will be another new study that will disprove the latest argument of the skeptics.  

Not really, but so the media will inform us all.

The big issue here is rationality.  As this new study shows, everything "proves" global warming- and nothing that seems to disprove it actually does so.  If one scientist says that the occurrence of A proves that B is happening, great.  It might not actually "prove" B, but it gives us a baseline.  Now we're being told that the non-occurrence of A (or even better, what logicians call Not A) also "proves" B.  As does the occurrence of C, Not C, D and Not D, and so on.

It's no longer possible to make an argument against global warming.  Not because there are no rational points to be made, but simply because it isn't allowed.  And because any argument that does slip through the cracks is met with a "no you're wrong" approach which we're then told "proves" the argument wrong.  Not to mention that the skeptic is of course being paid to deny global warming.

When rational, honest to God scientists tell you that you simply can't argue against a conclusion anymore, and that there's no room for skepticism, then I smell a rat.

My final thought is this:  If everything "proves" global warming is happening, then nothing "proves" it.  You can't have it every way.

*************

We now return to my normal attitude, where the assumption of global warming is regarded as a load of crap.

At long last, an update

Wow. Three solid months without a thing to say. Actually, that isn't true: I had things to say, just lacked the energy and interest to say them. Too much ground to cover, so I'll keep it short and sweet.

Bush sorta sucks. McCain kinda sucks. Clinton sucks. Obama really sucks. Carter sucks far worse than even Obama. Iran sucks. North Korea sucks. So do Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Sadr, Matt Millen, and most everybody else. The ex-wife of one friend sucks. The soon-to-be-ex-wife of another friend sucks even more (and not in the good way). The "friend" who kept telling me how much she wanted to see me and then blew me off sucks. Microsoft and Sony suck.

Hope I haven't missed anybody.

Just remember. When in doubt, assume they suck.

Here's hoping I'll be back soon.

Tic-Tac-Toe, two travesties in a row

Once again, this week we "celebrate" a couple of the biggest travesties in the history of the US. First, we have Michael King Day, and then we have the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

"Michael King Day?" I hear you cry. "What do you mean by that?" Well, you can look it up. Michael King was a plagiarist, adulterer, and possibly a Communist stooge, who was killed in Memphis some years back. Thanks to the imagination of his father, he's better known as "Martin Luther King". But his legal name remained Michael.

It's long been known that his doctoral dissertation was largely plagiarized. According to Boston University, where he "earned" his PhD, revoking the degree that he earned only by violating academic standards in the most basic way "would serve no purpose".

Great. I'll try to remember that if I ever decide to work on a PhD. Cheat, because if you get caught, revoking the degree would serve no purpose.

Of course, it appears that using other people's work without attribution was the secret to King's success. Hell, it's even possible that his "I have a dream" speech was plagiarized. Along with most of his academic work.

Quite the heroic image, no? An intellectual who showed no real sign of intellect, other than the ability to copy the works of others directly from their sources.

And his womanizing was apparently pretty blatant. There are allegations from fairly reliable sources that he was into orgies, possibly (like his self-proclaimed successor Jesse Jackson) using funds from his religious groups to buy the women. Now we all know that temptation exists, especially for a charismatic, famous man. And yes, I understand that it could be hard to resist, and that one can even claim that he's fighting his own weak character as a sinner. Great. But the point is, he failed miserably. Doesn't speak all that well of him, does it? Especially when you compare his failings to that of other religious leaders. Like the popes of the past couple centuries. They take an oath of celibacy, and live up to it. King took an oath of marriage, and couldn't handle that. Who would you say was a better man?

He also worked with a number of people that had connections to the Communist Party. Now, I'm not gonna sit here and prattle on about Commies, the Red Menace and all that. But it's been pretty well established by now that the Communist Party in the US was taking orders from Moscow, and spying against the US. And King knowingly associated with people that were involved there. It's even possible that some of his marches and actions were completely supported by the Communist Party.

And this man deserves a unique honor, by being granted his own holiday? What a crock!

Next we have another great anniversary for the week. Today, January 22, is the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Certainly one of the two worst decisions in the history of the US Supreme Court (the other, for the record, being Dred Scott).

In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution grants women the right to abortion. Interesting, for two reasons. First off, if you actually read the Constitution, it clearly states (in the 10th amendment) the following: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not a legal scholar, so perhaps I'm missing something here. The way I read it, unless the Constitution specifically grants the US government authority on a topic, it's none of their damn business. And I've read the Constitution several times. Try as I might, I've yet to see the word "abortion" appear in it. I've also never seen any mention of "a woman's right to choose", or any other code words.

So as far as I can tell, abortion is a matter for the States. The Supreme Court didn't even have the legal basis to examine the question- it's not a Federal matter. But they took on the case, and then, Lo and Behold! discovered this previously unknown and unmentioned right was there all along. See, look, there it is in black and white.

Except of course that it isn't there. I never read the Constitution before Roe v Wade, and as mentioned, have yet to find the topic in there since. So clearly I don't possess the necessary tools to discover and decide on such weighty issues.

But I do know what the Constitution says about changing the document, or "amending" it. There's a strict procedure to be followed, and it involves a lot more than 7 guys suddenly noticing something that wasn't there a moment before.

I have mixed feelings about abortion anyway. I personally oppose it, but unless I'm directly involved, I don't see that it's any of my business. There are compelling- to me at least- arguments against it on many levels, but no matter. My biggest complaint is that I don't see why I should be forced to pay for abortions for women, by means of my tax dollars. I also think that, unless there's a Constitutional Amendment, the legality of the procedure should be a matter for each state. If one doesn't agree with how their particular state rules on the matter, then it's perfectly acceptable (and allowable) to move to another. Problem solved.

In my case, I don't think I care that much about it. I'd probably stay where I was, and deal with the issue or not.

So what we have is an issue where the highest court in the US decided to violate the highest law in the US (which they are supposed to be the ultimate authorities on) in order to legislate something which the majority of the people were opposed to, as a means of circumventing Congress (which actually has the role of legislating) and the States, which are also involved in the process of amending the Constitution.

How many errors or violations of Law did the Supreme Court commit, according to my description above? By my count, the correct answer is "more than enough to be impeached for abuse of power".

Yet here we are, 35 years later, still bound by this asinine decision. And not only does one political party make it the centerpiece of their platform, but they actually try to make compliance with this piece of judicial garbage a requirement for someone to become a Supreme Court Justice.

(Of course, I could go on at length about the stupidity of this attitude. After all, isn't a judge supposed to listen to all the facts and then make a decision? Yet here, the Democrats want a nominee to promise they'll cast the proper vote, based on a purely theoretical question. Imagine a potential juror stating that, in a murder trial for which he might be chosen, he would find the defendant guilty, regardless of the circumstances. Even worse, imagine him announcing that he would cast such a vote in a trial 20 years down the road. Absurd, no? But yet, the left insists that there's nothing wrong with this type of demand.)

To sum up then, it's a great week for American history. A week where we honor the patron saint of plagiarism and adultery, and then follow it up with a celebration of (possibly) the most disgusting display of tyranny in the history of the US Constitution. A moment when a group of 7 men decided that the US needed to go in a different direction, and it was up to them to decide how things should be.

In my mind, I imagine Burger, the Chief Justice at the time of Roe nodding to his allies and announcing, in his best Captain Picard voice "Make it so". And thus, out of nothingness, a Constitutional Right was born.

Michael King would be proud.

Fair is fair

According to an article I found on Yahoo, a scientist has found a possible explanation for syphilis. It might have been brought back to Europe by Columbus and his merry men.

If true, this ought to bring an end to all the whining about how terrible Columbus was to the Indians. He brought them smallpox and civilization. They (presumably) gave him venereal disease, gold, and chocolate.

Civilization and disease versus hedonistic sensual delights. Quite a trade-off, no?

I suppose I could make a comment about American Indian culture leading to rap "music", but it would be too easy.

Bravo!!

Thanks to a link from GoV, I found an article by the terrific George Macdonald Frasier, creator of the Flashman series.

Here's a link to it. In it, the author rails against political correctness and liberal politicians. In fact, he also rails against conservative politicians, with good reason.

Read it, know it, live it.

And not just this article, but the entire Flashman series, and his wonderful Pyrates.

Offering my services

Wow. So Harvard, carrying on their great tradition of intellect, has just found out something incredible: Most of the newest security measures at airports.... doesn't make flying any more secure.

Wow again. I wonder how long it took them to figure that out. And how much money. But hey- it was likely worth every dime to find out that forcing an 80 year old man to remove his shoes and belt probably won't prevent him from hijacking a plane and flying it into a building.

Sometime after September 11, I recall reading that a senior Israeli intelligence official testified before Congress. He asserted that airport security in the US was excellent for what it was intended to do- make people feel more secure. As for the reality of security, versus the perception?

Not so much.

Oh, and here's another brilliant piece of information that the Harvard group ferreted out:

"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats,"

Wow cubed. I never would have seen that one coming either.

If the TSA is willing to fork over a large sum of money- say $10 million or more- I promise to study the incidences of airport hijackings over the past 10 years or so, and find a darned effective way of finding out whether somebody is a higher risk than others for being a hijacker. It'll take some serious research, and might step on a few toes (though they'll all still have shoes on), and might come to a completely un-PC conclusion, but I have a theory in my mind regarding potential hijackers. And a way to possibly even identify them.

And I could have the results back before say, the end of the year. Or I could drag it out- er, study it more in depth- for another 6 months.

Or, for $20 million, I could study it in a conclusive manner, and take an entire year. And I guarantee my results: I'll manage to root out at least one thing that terrorists have in common. Probably even more.

Toss in a few more millions, and I'll come up with viable methods to protect passengers.

Here let me point out an important fact. Not once has a flight been hijacked and flown into a building with me on board.

Oh, and a final note: Just to show that my services are the best available, I'll give TSA a piece of free advice. Exceptional cases make bad law. Or to put it another way, passing regulations to prevent an incident that already occurred, simply to ensure that you're seen doing something, is a really bad idea.

You're welcome.

One more thing. Just to show how clever I am, and to demonstrate my final point above, here's another quote from the article:

"The U.S. Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal."


Image courtesy of someone I don't recall. Probably either Ace of Spades or Gates of Vienna.

The Hell you say!

Wow. Didn't realize it had been almost six weeks since I posted. I've been trying to find something to write about, but much of what I've seen online has been too boring.

At any rate, here's something new. The Mitchell Report just came out on steroids in baseball. And the top name on the list? Roger Clemens.

Huh. Who would ever have thought that a player, who saw a significant improvement in performance when his numbers should have gone down, might be juicing? Assuming of course his name wasn't Bonds?

It's hardly the first time Clemens has been fingered, but it is the first time he's been officially and with solid evidence, named. At least to my knowledge.

Even I have to scratch my head here. I'm not usually one to look for a racist conspiracy of ex-Klanners behind every tree, but it is kinda odd. Black player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages, and everyone knows he's juicing. White player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages; and everyone shrugs.

So now a couple of the biggest names in Major League Baseball have been officially tainted. What to do....

There will be a lot of discussion about banning Clemens and Bonds (and others) from their place in the Hall of Fame. Normally, I'd be all for it- I still think that Pete Rose deserves to be locked out- but in this case, there's a problem. The steroid problem has been around for years, and everyone knew it. As I mentioned, rumors about Clemens are hardly new, and as for Bonds, everyone knew he was guilty. Ditto for some of the others mentioned.

The problem is, juicing was never looked on with the same sense of outrage as gambling. The owners knew it was happening, but they ignored it, since home run chases and records get fans into the seats. The players knew it, but most ignored it- why criticize someone when you might end up in their footsteps a few years down the road? And the Player's Union ignored it because that's what unions do.

So now the dirty linen is hanging out on the line. My thought is that the players who are named- or the players to be named later- should be allowed into the Hall of Fame, if their careers support it. Clemens was a shoo-in anyway, as was Bonds. Others, perhaps. Even Jose Canseco can make a strong claim to membership. Let them in, perhaps with an asterisk. Or even better, put their plaques front and center in a wing of the Hall devoted to Cheaters. Give them a shot, but make sure that everyone knows their inflated numbers (particularly for those like Clemens and Bonds, whose numbers got ridiculous at the end of their career) were the result of cheating.

Maybe just come right out and call it "the Hall of Shame".

It's too bad it came to this. But everybody knew what was happening, and thus everyone must bear a bit of the blame. Don't sanction those who did it, because they felt it was necessary. Would any of us do the same, if we had the opportunity to lengthen a very very profitable career? Not to mention the fact that inflated statistics mean inflated paychecks.

It's a mess. Baseball had it coming, and they can't play innocent anymore. The Mitchell Report blames everyone, and it should. Now let's just get the game fixed, and prevent it from happening again.

That way, the next time someone cheats, the people in charge will have an easier choice. After a cheating scandal rocked baseball many years ago, they made gambling illegal. Thus when that piece of slimy crap named Pete Rose was caught, there was no difficulty in deciding what to do.

Let's make it just as easy for the future commissioners. Sanction the guilty here, start a serious testing regimen, and make the rules explicit.

Problem solved.

Damn Al Qaeda to Hell

Found this picture linked at a great and usually funny site.

Beautiful. And tragic.

In the comments on the original post, there was some discussion of what the image brings to mind. One commenter, Mad Insomniac, said the following:

'I keep thinking about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address when I look at that photo, especially the last two sentences:

"It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."'

Amen brother, amen.

Best. Video. Ever

Funniest thing to ever come out of JibJab.

And scary true!!



Oh, and a special Tip to the charming and delightful Emily Zanotti at The American Princess, who apparently actually created this version...

...Or perhaps stole it from another blog. Don't know for sure, but a big thank you to Whomever it was.

A shoe-in winner

Here's a prime example of why I came up with the "WTF were they thinking?" award.

Thanks to Dymphna at Gates of Vienna.

Parents abusing children

I decided to go out today and wander around the shopping mall. Quite exciting, if you're into watching zombies walk around and spend money. It was a nice reminder of why I so rarely go to the mall anymore.

But there was one interesting moment. I was walking past one of the ear-piercing carts (I estimate there were about 428 of them), and saw a guy just taking a seat in their chair, with an infant in his arms. I remember thinking that he was probably getting the baby's ears pierced. A few minutes later, I was walking past again, and I saw that the obvious conclusion was correct. The baby was screaming like her (?) little heart was breaking- I have no doubt that getting this done was pretty painful.

And next to them stood Mom, smiling proudly at her crying baby.

What the hell is wrong with these people? This child was literally an infant- I would question whether the baby was even a year old- and I doubt very much that she was able to communicate to her parents that she wanted her ears pierced. So they did it on their own, to satisfy their own egos.

At the expense of their child.

I wonder how often there are complications from ear-piercing. Because if there is any risk at all- and I wonder how well trained a 20 year old woman is- then I'd suspect it's worse for a baby. And I for one would never subject a baby to that.

But the other thought that crossed my mind was whether this could harm the child in any lasting, psychological sense. A child, especially one that young, is incapable of taking care of him or herself. She trusts Mommy and Daddy to do what it best for her. And then they pay someone to shove a needle through their ears. For what? Again, their own ego, I guess.

I would intuitively suspect that this sort of thing goes deep into a baby's memory bank, and stays there whispering "don't trust them, they'll do things to hurt you" at certain times.

If it weren't for the fact that I would never wish that outcome on anyone, I'd almost hope that this poor little girl grows up to cause massive problems for her parents.

Because they deserve it. I don't know why this is allowed- shouldn't it be considered child abuse? If it's wrong to spank a child on the rear for misbehaving, then why is it acceptable to pay somebody to shove a needle through their tiny and still not quite completely developed ear. Without their consent or knowledge.

Sick, sick, sick.

Do the Democrats read Steyn?

Here's an article by Mark Steyn, discussing health care in Canada. Scary stuff. I just hope that people look over this article and see what it is that Hillary, Obama and all their cronies want to give us.

Especially read the part describing the medical emergency of Mrs. Steyn.

No way do I want any part of this.

Bureaucrats suck!!

Came across this tale today. Thanks to Ace for linking to this tale.

The guy sounds almost too good to be true. He deserves a new nickname, with a nod to Elton John (who wouldn't understand) and Bernie Taupin (who would):

R.I.P. Ben Salomon, aka Captain Fantastic.

Unbelievable

Yet another bit of Islamic stupidity.

Or, perhaps it isn't the Muslims that are stupid, but Britain as a whole. Last week, it was a grocery store that decided to let them decide what they'll sell. Now, it's medical students who refuse to learn about things that offend them- like alcohol, venereal disease, women, and on and on.

And they aren't getting bitch-slapped for it, which is kind of amazing to me. I suppose that, in the end, if they're booted from school, that kinda accomplishes the end result, but still.

What is it with these people? If you're so messed up that you can't control yourself when you see a woman's ankle, chin or whatever, then you need to be locked up, and subjected to serious therapy.

And I suspect most people would be. But not if you're Muslim. Then, you complain to the authorities, and they'll support you. It's happened at least once that I recall- a woman was "blamed" for her own rape, because the man couldn't control himself.

It's becoming intolerable. In some communities in Scandinavia, women are forced to cover their heads to keep from being physically and verbally abused. Others are dying their hair brown, so they don't look European.

And yet, the Islamists still are being allowed to make even more rules for the rest of us.

Britain is very close to the tipping point, if not actually beyond it. It's now an Islamic nation, but it simply refuses to admit it yet.

And I used to be a complete Anglophile. Sigh.

A quick course in reality

This one comes from a great and funny site.

Now one of my favorite internet reads.

Read it, live it, be it.

The Basics of War and Terrorism

Posted by Frank J. at 04:08 PM

A lot of people wonder how the war is making us safer since there are still terrorists out there who want to kill us. Well, when the terrorists come to kill me, I'm like, "Why are you guys trying to kill me?"

And they're like, "Because of the war in Iraq!"

And I'm like, "I didn't have anything to do with that. I've been here in America the whole time minding my own business. You should take this up with the soldiers in Iraq."

And the terrorists are like, "We will!"

So they go to Iraq to kill the soldiers, but the soldiers have lots of guns and they kill the terrorists back. And that's why we've had no terrorist attacks in America in the past couple years but lots of dead terrorists.

I've probably explained this before, but it's always worth repeating.

The 6 P's in action

Remember the six P's? Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance...? I think we might have actual proof of that here.

Once again we have some wacked-out kid going to a school and starting to shoot people. Fortunately, the only person killed was the shooter, who offed himself.

At this point, insert the obligatory "sorry for his family, poor child had problems and was ignored by the system and whatever else" comments.

What strikes me though, is the fact that nobody else was killed. Why? Well, probably there are a number of explanations, but the fact that struck me on reading the article is that there seemed to be a plan for this.

At last! A school that seems to understand that bad things happen, and that if you prepare for it and it never happens, you're better off than if you do nothing and disaster strikes.


'...Student Latisha Hill told one television station students began taking cover when the emergency command was announced and she locked herself in a bathroom until police knocked on the door and let her out.

"All I know is I heard the principal yell 'code blue,"' Hill said.'

The school had a "code word" and when it was announced, it appears that students reacted properly- seeking cover and concealment, like well-trained soldiers do, and waiting for the authorities to arrive. No indications of mass panic, or little sheep sitting there waiting for the wolf to come and get them.

And that's not all: There's another, even more amazing piece of information in the article. The CEO of the school district seems to have a sense of perspective also.

'[School district CEO Eugene] Sanders said he was canceling classes at all Cleveland public schools on Thursday so that parents, students and faculty could "take a breather" and "put this in perspective."'

No bleating about "grief councilors" or any of that drivel. They're simply talking about "put[ting] this in perspective".

Wow. Simply wow. I am so impressed right now with the Cleveland School District. I hope that they keep this up, and don't give in to the whiny leftists who will want an army of councilors to come in and have healing circles for the victims, or whatever else they do.

Someone with an obvious problem came into the school and did something insane. The school district was prepared for it, and apparently helped prevent things from getting too out of hand.

That's the advantage of planning, folks.

I salute the Cleveland School District, and the faculty, staff and students at SuccessTech.

Plan for the worst, and you just might prevent it.

The future of health care

Just got an email from my friend Ed. He linked to this article.

Scary stuff indeed. The absolute best points made about the whole thing are in the comments. Specifically, comments 7, and especially 37.

Not sure how this is even remotely legal. Or ethical. Which takes me back to comment 37.

It's all reminiscent of the whole issue of fathers being unjustly accused of child abuse by bitter, vengeful, psychotic wives, which hopefully peaked back in the late 80s and early 90s. (An issue with which my family unfortunately became quite familiar).

The ultimate example of stupidity with the abuse issue was a man who was almost sent to jail for molesting his daughter. Why? Because when she was being grilled by the authorities (mind you, the girl was about 5 years old) she said that she and Daddy went swimming. They asked her if she and Daddy wore clothes, and she replied that they didn't.

Of course, being 5 years old, she didn't get the nuance: no, they didn't wear clothes. When you go swimming, you wear bathing suits, not clothes.

Fortunately that guy was lucky.

I confess that I don't understand how this doctor could do such a thing. Asking about their parents seems pretty far out of line anyway. Reporting it to the police seems illegal on at least 2 or 3 levels. Not to mention, incredibly unethical.

But hey. Gotta protect the kids, even from Mommy and Daddy. Regardless of whether they're doing anything wrong or not.

God, I hate liberals.