What government does.

Threatens to sue a man for cleaning up 40 tons of garbage from an abandoned lot. It was city property, see, and the city not only refused to do it themselves, but refused when he asked for permission to do it himself. So the city wants him to put it back.

But the Daily News reports that Feibush went ahead with his plans anyway, reportedly spending more than $20,000 of his own money not only to remove the trash but also to level the soil; add cherry trees, fencing and park benches; and repave the sidewalk.

[…]

However, the city agency was less excited, demanding that Feibush return the vacant lot to its previous condition and saying it is considering legal action against him.

Why would the city do this? After all, they got a free cleanup and significant improvements to city property, right?

“Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property,” Paul D. Chrystie, director of communications at the Office of Housing and Community Development told the paper. “This is both on principle (no property owner knowingly allows trespassing) and to limit taxpayer liability.”

Hmmm. I smell bovine excrement in that answer. I bet the real answer is that he either made someone look bad, or that there was some backroom deal that he inadvertently interfered with. In the eyes of city hall, either one is an unforgivable offense that must be punished.

The “unauthorized alteration” of city property may be a legitimate issue, but it’s certainly a threadbare one. That trash-filled empty lot was very probably hurting his business. But, technically, the “proper” way for him to address that problem would be to spend thousands of dollars to take the city to court (costing the city money at the same time), suing them for the damage to his business, and tying the whole issue up in the courts for the next couple of years while trying to define the nebulous amount of any damages his business was suffering because of the city’s failure to properly maintain its property, with little to no chance of success.

Every city employee involved in this fiasco needs to be fired, publicly humiliated, permanently barred from public employment and office, and run out of town on a rail. Tar and feathers optional, but strongly encouraged.

END OF LINE

[Source: Yahoo! News article, retrieved 9/20/12]

A hint for our chief executive

Warning shots – like those being fired by the security forces at our embassy in Yemen – only work if the people being warned believe that there’s a chance you’ll actually shoot them if they don’t stop. So far, we have not given them any reason to believe this.

These “protests” are invasions of sovereign American soil, and are acts of war. Treat them as such, and shoot the bastards.

END OF LINE

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]

Our global village idiot.

Whether he was right or wrong, this image sums up how utterly and mind-bogglingly stupid Obama’s comment was.

Seriously? You’re going to tell people whose votes you need that they didn’t actually do something they’re proud of? That all the work they put in to building their business was unnecessary and pointless?

Not that I would mind if he was just trying to throw the election, but WTF?

END OF LINE

[From didntbuildthat.com]

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

I assume he failed the course

Husband accidentally shoots self, wife at Bedford County gun safety course

A firearms safety course went awry in Bedford County on Saturday afternoon when a participant shot himself in the hand with a .45-caliber handgun and the bullet passed through his hand and struck his wife, seated next to him, in the leg.

Look, gun safety is not that hard. There are only four simple Rules:

  1. The Gun is ALWAYS loaded.
  2. Never point the gun at anything you do not want to destroy or kill.
  3. Keep your finger away from the trigger until you are ready to fire.
  4. Be sure of your target, what is near your target, and what is BEHIND your target.

Obey those Four Rules, and you will never shoot someone unintentionally.

There is also an oft stated Fifth Rule: “Never try to catch a dropped gun.” Most modern guns are drop safe, and there is a good chance you’ll accidentally pull the trigger trying to catch it. Letting it hit the ground may be bad for the finish, but it won’t get anyone shot.

Oh, by the way, this was done negligently, not “accidentally”. There is a pretty significant difference. Number one, he was fiddling with a gun unnecessarily. Number two, he probably assumed that it wasn’t loaded. Number three, he wasn’t watching where it was pointed. Number four, he pulled the trigger. Even if nothing else did it, that last point would make it negligence.

Stop giving the anti-Rights cultists more ammunition to use against us. It’s really simple – just follow The Four Rules.

END OF LINE

[Source: Roanoke Times article, retrieved 4/24/12]

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]

 

Broken thought process

Courtesy of GayCynic, we see an example at the Seattle Times of the broken thought processes of the Anti-Rights crowd.

An 8-year-old Bremerton girl was shot and seriously injured at her elementary school. Separately, an unloaded handgun was found in the backpack of a Seattle middle-school student.

In the Bremerton case, police believe a 9-year-old classmate got the handgun during a visit with his mother, a felon whose right to own a firearm has been revoked. The gun was in his backpack when it accidentally discharged.

Guns are already banned at school. But it is appalling that a third-grader was able to get the gun at his mother’s house. Safe gun storage might have prevented it.

The quoted editorial article is calling for the Washington state legislature to enact a trigger lock law.

Now, ignoring the inherent stupidity of trigger locks for a moment, how on earth do they reconcile “the mother broke the law against felons possessing a firearm” and “the mother would have obeyed a safe storage law”? While they are not really mutually exclusive, they are pretty contradictory. If she’s breaking the law by having the gun in the first place, why would she care about obeying a law regarding how it should be stored? There’s been a significant failure in their critical thinking process.

Criminals who are actively breaking laws tend to not worry about any other laws they might be breaking at the same time. Duh.

END OF LINE

[Source: Seattle Times editorial, retrieved 3/9/12]

(h/t – GayCynic at FreeThinker)

%d bloggers like this: