Voter fraud IS disenfranchisement

SayUncle points us to a story about a small business in Chattanooga that was recently killed by excessive regulation. It’s an interesting story, and I encourage you to read it, but what I want to talk about comes from an off-topic subject in the  article’s comments, by user “happywithnewbulbs”, who says:

The amount of voter fraud is inconsequential. The effects of disenfranchisement? Admitted even by the proponents of these ID measures.

That stupidity irritated me enough that I actually went ahead and created an account there, just so I could respond to it. My response?

Voter fraud IS disenfranchisement. For every fraudulent vote, one legitimate voter who cast a ballot a different way has had his or her vote nullified – effectively disenfranchising them. So, no, voter fraud is NOT “inconsequential”, it has the exact same consequences as disenfranchisement. It’s just harder to pick a specific person who lost their vote.

It’s simple. Every invalid vote cancels an opposite valid vote, taking away that legitimate voter’s vote. That is, in fact, the entire purpose of voter fraud – to achieve the desires of the people organizing the fraud, in direct opposition to the desires of the legitimate voters.

That is far from inconsequential.

END OF LINE

Basic gun safety, lesson 2: Use a holster!

Otherwise, we see headlines like this one.

SPARKS, Nev. – Police say a man accidentally shot himself in the buttocks at a Nevada movie theatre during a showing of “The Bourne Legacy.”

Police in Sparks, Nev., say the 56-year-old man’s injuries are not life-threatening and no others were hurt.

Authorities say the man had a permit to carry a concealed firearm. The man told officers the gun fell from his pocket Tuesday night as he was adjusting himself in the seat and that it discharged when it dropped to the floor.

Pocket carry without a holster is a bad idea! Especially if your carry gun isn’t one designed to be drop-safe (and even with a good holster, you should upgrade to a gun that is drop-safe, because stuff happens).

Spending a mere $13 could have been enough to prevent this headline. This guy is lucky that his negligence didn’t kill anyone.

Don’t be That Guy. Use a holster!

END OF LINE

[Source: AP article on Yahoo! News, retrieved 8/15/12]

Ready for your Physical Jerks?

You’d better be, because there will eventually be a fine tax for not exercising!

‘Thirty to forty group!’ yapped a piercing female voice. ‘Thirty to forty group! Take your places, please. Thirties to forties!’

Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.

‘Arms bending and stretching!’ she rapped out. ‘Take your time by me. ONE, two, three, four! ONE, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! ONE, two, three four! ONE two, three, four!…’

Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell

Think it’s fantasy? Think again! With the .gov now in charge of our health care, and able to fine tax us for doing and for not doing anything, this latest study is the final knock that swings the door wide open.

A lack of exercise is now causing as many deaths as smoking across the world, a study suggests.

The report, published in the Lancet to coincide with the build-up to the Olympics, estimates that about a third of adults are not doing enough physical activity, causing 5.3m deaths a year.

That equates to about one in 10 deaths from diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and breast and colon cancer.

Researchers said the problem was now so bad it should be treated as a pandemic.

With the .gov running health care, and managing responsibility for the costs, how long do you think it will take for daily exercise to become mandatory, with a fine an increased tax burden for those who fail to comply?

Those who value freedom understand that Obamacare must be repealed, today. Unfortunately, I have little confidence that it will ever actually happen. We are well into the “panem et circenses” phase of our Republic, and I fear its decay and eventual collapse has become inevitable.

END OF LINE

[Source: Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. Excerpt retrieved from Project Gutenberg Australia on July 18, 2012. Use of this excerpt falls under Fair-Use guidelines, and all proper attribution is given herein.]

[Source: BBC News Health article, retrieved 7/18/2012]

Quote of the Day – 2012-06-28

From Divemedic, commenting at SayUncle’s on Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold Obamacare.

The next Republican who tells me that the Supreme Court nominees are a good reason to elect a Republican, I am going to be sorely tempted to punch them in the face.

No s#@t!

END OF LINE

What government does

Closes pools for not having equipment that isn’t available.

Hotels may be forced to close their pools this summer. May 21 is the deadline to comply with new regulations that require all public pools to be handicap accessible.

But the equipment they need isn’t available.

[…]

The General Manager ordered the wheelchair lift the first of the year but it’s now on back order.
He’s not sure when it will arrive.  The lift and installation will cost the Quality Inn about $6,000.

Uncle mentioned this back in March when the original deadline hit. That was extended, but that extension runs out just before Memorial Day weekend, when most hotels open their pools for the summer – and get a lot of business from people expecting to be able to use the pool. The Feds are supposedly considering another extension, but “no decision has been made” yet. And, of course, we see this onerous and retroactive requirement (there is apparently no grandfathering) in the middle of a recession.

Good job, FedGov!

END OF LINE

[Source: WDBJ7 News report, retrieved 5/15/12]

Reality check, for the win!

From a story at In Jennifer’s Head.

“Let me make sure I understand this correctly.  You signed a contract saying you were accepting financial responsibility for these new [cellphone] lines when you knew that you would not be able to afford them and now you want us to take care of your problem for you?  Is that correct?”

“Well, I’m just trying to help out the 99%, ya know”

“Sir, I am part of the 99% and I don’t expect anyone to take care of my bills but me.  Maybe you should see if the Occupy crowd will bail you out, since that’s what you are wanting – a bailout, just like the big banks you are protesting.”

For. The. Win.

Stupid hurts, doesn’t it?

END OF LINE

The Media Lies: Part II – The Dowdification of George Zimmerman

Les Jones did a post based on a comment I made at Weer’d’s blog, and I thought I should probably do my own post on it as a follow-up to yesterday’s post. It’s a contemporary and easily verified example of the media lying by misquoting, in what can only be a deliberately misleading and malicious attempt by MSNBC to paint George Zimmerman as an unapologetic and open racist.

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” Zimmerman told a police dispatcher from his car.

The thing is, that’s not really what he said. If you look at the transcript of the 911 call, or listen to the recording, you can easily see that for yourself. And while the words MSNBC published did come from Zimmerman, you’ll see that an important part of that conversation is missing. A part that makes what he actually said incredibly different.

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

That paints an entirely different picture, doesn’t it? One that’s far less damning to Zimmerman in the court of public opinion.

If they’re going to lie that brazenly about something that’s so easily verifiable, what else are they lying about, in this case and in others? I and others pointed out the problem with their quote in comments at their site four days ago, but it has not been changed and no retraction or correction has been published that I am aware of. This means it can only have been deliberate.

Do not trust the news media. Whether it’s to boost their ratings, to advance their political agenda, or simply because they’re too lazy to learn the truth, they cannot be trusted.

END OF LINE

[Source: U.S. News on MSNBC.com article, retrieved 3/23/12 (for my comment at Weer’d World) and again on 3/27/12]
[Source: Examiner.com transcription of George Zimmerman’s 911 call, retrieved 3/23/12 (for my comment at Weer’d World) and again on 3/27/12]

(h/t SayUncle)

Remember, the news media lies

… and sometimes we don’t learn about it until 40 years later.

Kitty Genovese was beaten, stabbed, raped, and killed in full view of dozens of New Yorkers on March 13, 1964. It became an infamous case, an example of urban disinterest and apathy. Nobody called the cops. Nobody cared. She was horribly killed in front of people who just didn’t want to get involved.

[…]

Or is that really how it really went? Again, not exactly.

Most of the basic elements of the story are accurate. Miss Genovese was stabbed to death while crying “help me!” by apartments containing 38 people. One witness later on admitted that he “didn’t want to get involved.” But here’s the rest of the story.

See, it turns out that the attack happened at 3am, only one person was woken up to witness it, she was only attacked twice, and one of those attacks was in a secluded location where nobody could see it.

Go. Read. Learn.

And remember how the media lies. Remember that story (any story) you saw on a subject you know about, and how they got easily researched information totally wrong? Why do you then trust them to get the details right on the very next story? This is known to many as the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Remember all this when you hear all the news media reporting about how the “racist monster” Zimmerman “stalked and chased down” Treyvon Martin and “killed him in cold blood”. When you go and look at the verifiable facts (police reports, 911 tapes, etc.) and compare them to what is being reported by the media, two things become apparent.

  1. The media is lying through it’s teeth, by omission, by malicious misquoting, and by the use of images designed to prompt specific reactions and biases.
  2. What actually happened is not as clear-cut as most people believe.

I think Tam has the best summary of what is known.

An honest assessment would say that this is what we know:

  1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.
  2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.
  3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn’t follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.
  4. ???
  5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman busts a cap in Martin.

The entire case turns on what happened in the ???, but don’t tell that to the media, the folks playing poker with a deck full of race cards, the victim disarmament crowd, or apparently the frickin’ President of the United States of America.

Note that the police and prosecutors are saying that they are not releasing all the evidence in order to protect the investigation and prosecution. This is normal procedure in any investigation where there is a possibility of charges being filed. So, how about everybody drink a big glass of calm the frell down and wait until all of the real facts are known before calling for Zimmerman’s public lynching? And while you’re at it try and remember how our legal system is supposed to work, too – they have to be able to prove that Zimmerman did something to nullify his self-defense claims, not just say “no it wasn’t”.

END OF LINE

[Source: Word Around the Net blog, retrieved 3/26/12]
[Source: Seeker Blog, retrieved 3/26/12]
[Source: View From The Porch, retrieved 3/26/12]

(h/t Firehand)

Quote of the Day – 2012-03-13

Today’s QOTD comes from Linoge, by way of yesterday’s QOTD at Walls of the City.

No, a third party is not going to win this election, and it does not even really have a chance of placing that well in the overall poles… which is primarily due to the fact that no one votes third party, which is due to those people convincing themselves that third parties cannot win, which is due to the fact… And ’round and ’round we go.

What can I say? Circular logic makes me giggle.

That is exactly what has been running around and around in my head (how appropriate!) most of this election season, but that I haven’t really been able to put into words in a coherent fashion.

Third parties don’t have a chance because everybody assumes they don’t have a chance, and because nobody wants “the wrong lizard” to win because a third party has split the slightly-less-wrong lizard’s vote. So nobody votes for the human, and we are forever ruled by lizards.

I have a novel idea. Let’s try voting for the human, this time, okay? If everybody who is sick of voting for the lizards votes for the human for a change, he might just have a chance.

END OF LINE

Kalifornistan strikes again – Achievement unlocked: Science Fail

No, not some new anti-gun law this time. This time, they’ve passed a law that is forcing both Coke and Pepsi to change their recipes to avoid having to put a carcinogen warning label on the cans.

Coca Cola and Pepsi will make a manufacturing process modification for the soft drinks caramel colouring to avoid a California law that would have forced them to label the drinks carcinogenic.

Coke, for one, insists it is not “changing our recipe or formula in any way.”

“The Coca-Cola Company asked its caramel suppliers to make the necessary manufacturing process modification to meet the requirement of the State of California’s Prop 65,” company spokesman Ben Sheidler said in a release. “As a result, no warning is required.”

So, where did this come from?

An American watchdog group accuses the world’s two biggest beverage makers of using unsafe levels of a chemical called 4-MEI they say has been linked to cancer in animals. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban the colouring agents that contain 4-MEI.

Well, if that’s the case, why hasn’t the FDA banned it? Carcinogens are bad, right?

“A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents,” FDA spokesman Doug Karas said in a statement.

Over 1,000 cans a day. If my math is right, that means you would have to drink one can every 86 seconds, for 24 hours straight, to reach the levels in the studies. Fail.

If your hypothesis can only be verified by using an unrealistic premise, then it is wrong. Yes, 4-MEI can in fact be linked to cancer. But the dosages where that link exists are only realistically achievable in either an industrial accident directly involving the undiluted chemical, or in a laboratory setting. The follow-up hypothesis, that since Coke and Pepsi contain 4-MEI they can cause cancer, can easily be falsified with basic math and critical thinking.

Heck, drinking that much that fast could conceivably kill you from hyperglycemia as you outrun your body’s ability to produce insulin and your cells’ ability to take up the sugar. Either way, you’d be dead from obesity induced diabetes long before you have to worry about cancer.

Government stupidity from the nanny state, in its finest form.

END OF LINE

[Source: Edmonton Sun article, retrieved 3/9/12]