Now surprisingly I know little about Justin Bieber but this is pure hilarity.
I thought I'd accidentally clicked on the dailymash by mistake but no- aunty's got it on there.
Brilliant - my votes on Kim Jong-il being a massive fan, perhaps even performing a duet with him, or at least telling his loyal underlings how it was his idea to launch what appears to be a midget in a shiny suit on America to undermine it musically.
Gen.E.Us.
5.7.10
Yay!
Cept in my case it's likely to be coinage
Have just been offered a very good job indeed.
Yes I am bricking it, particularly as initially is contract, but it is too good to pass up.
Virtual Trebles all round!
4.7.10
Benefits?
DK provides a succinct rebuttal to Shuggy on the subject of the poor, benefits and choices.
This morning at Breakfast Mrs Tomrat and I discussed the insanity that is out education system; she relayed a story her student teacher told her about one of our youth group members, who's first placement had been at their school- they told us they were one (of many) who was provided with a PE kit whilst the teachers washed and dried their school uniform and any other clothes they had brought. Another needed to be provided with sanitary towels.
In neither case was this a result of financial poverty; were it, the parents could have asked a half dozen agencies for help; no, this was a result of parents not caring- the former being sent in with dirty clothes by work-shy wasters, the latter by a parent telling their daughter to use school toilet roll.
What have we become? I cannot conceive in my head using my child as a meal ticket*. Nor can I fully comprehend the sheer level we have debased ourselves to for a few scraps from our leaders tables, filled ironically from our own pantries.
I've an alternative suggestion that I've mooted before: make the individuals tax free allowance exchangeable, tax-interchangeable and set no minimum/maximum pricing for it's sale (unfortunately requiring an income tax for obvious reasons).
So married couple want to have a stay at home parent/part time worker; this is made easier to achieve by transfer of all/part of their tax credit, leaving more money for them to make more choices.
A NEET uses his to subsidise training and work placements, bartering for accommodation and a living wage whilst doing so via his company, who use it to lower their corporate tax take.
An unemployed middle-aged man cashes his piecemeal at a negotiated rate to a private friendly society who sell it as a commoditised corporate tax subsidy - charities and business alike shoot up to thrive in this environment; businesses carry charity and friendly-society logos on their websites stating they give competitive rates of exchange/services in return for their tax credits.
Their is a natural cyclical nature to how the subsidy works: in a recession the tax take goes down as does the costs of maintaining the unemployed, carried by those surviving businesses building up the necessary capital to be profitable, invest and create jobs. As more people are laid off there is more tax credits competing for less money, incentivising the owners to seek the best use of their voucher, whether by work or by exchange.
You will not fix the problem of worklessness, faux-entitlement and children-abuse with schemes encouraging sucking at the teat of the state; they need to take charge and see the consequences of their actions - that needn't be starving children because of greedy, frankly evil and conceited parents, nor do we need to put them in such an impoverished state they have few places to turn, merely getting people addicted to responsibility and the freedom it affords will be enough.
* = yes as a father I do claim tax credits and child benefit and I do so with a straight face- as far as I'm concerned this is a tax rebate and would swap it tomorrow if I could for a smaller state, lower taxes and less fanning around.
Whilst I'm sure folks like the Popular Front of Judea would balk at the prospect of taking the man's money so regularly I am perfectly content - I become more or less tax neutral at my current salary and I have no problems with the waste coming out of other peoples pockets, after all, if you don't like it, stop voting the twerps in.
But the money given to the poor is supposed to serve a certain purpose—that is, to allow them to stay alive. Even Beveridge maintained that benefits should only be at a "subsistance level".
If there is a social contract, it is that those of us who work agree to be taxed to ensure that those who have no work are not lying about, starving in the streets. This is a cost of living in a society, and it also answers the demands of basic humanity.
But the money does not belong to the poor to do what they want with it, it is not provided to give them "choices": it is there for a specific purpose—to ensure that they can stay alive. If they want "choices" then they must go out and earn their own cash.
This morning at Breakfast Mrs Tomrat and I discussed the insanity that is out education system; she relayed a story her student teacher told her about one of our youth group members, who's first placement had been at their school- they told us they were one (of many) who was provided with a PE kit whilst the teachers washed and dried their school uniform and any other clothes they had brought. Another needed to be provided with sanitary towels.
In neither case was this a result of financial poverty; were it, the parents could have asked a half dozen agencies for help; no, this was a result of parents not caring- the former being sent in with dirty clothes by work-shy wasters, the latter by a parent telling their daughter to use school toilet roll.
What have we become? I cannot conceive in my head using my child as a meal ticket*. Nor can I fully comprehend the sheer level we have debased ourselves to for a few scraps from our leaders tables, filled ironically from our own pantries.
I've an alternative suggestion that I've mooted before: make the individuals tax free allowance exchangeable, tax-interchangeable and set no minimum/maximum pricing for it's sale (unfortunately requiring an income tax for obvious reasons).
So married couple want to have a stay at home parent/part time worker; this is made easier to achieve by transfer of all/part of their tax credit, leaving more money for them to make more choices.
A NEET uses his to subsidise training and work placements, bartering for accommodation and a living wage whilst doing so via his company, who use it to lower their corporate tax take.
An unemployed middle-aged man cashes his piecemeal at a negotiated rate to a private friendly society who sell it as a commoditised corporate tax subsidy - charities and business alike shoot up to thrive in this environment; businesses carry charity and friendly-society logos on their websites stating they give competitive rates of exchange/services in return for their tax credits.
Their is a natural cyclical nature to how the subsidy works: in a recession the tax take goes down as does the costs of maintaining the unemployed, carried by those surviving businesses building up the necessary capital to be profitable, invest and create jobs. As more people are laid off there is more tax credits competing for less money, incentivising the owners to seek the best use of their voucher, whether by work or by exchange.
You will not fix the problem of worklessness, faux-entitlement and children-abuse with schemes encouraging sucking at the teat of the state; they need to take charge and see the consequences of their actions - that needn't be starving children because of greedy, frankly evil and conceited parents, nor do we need to put them in such an impoverished state they have few places to turn, merely getting people addicted to responsibility and the freedom it affords will be enough.
* = yes as a father I do claim tax credits and child benefit and I do so with a straight face- as far as I'm concerned this is a tax rebate and would swap it tomorrow if I could for a smaller state, lower taxes and less fanning around.
Whilst I'm sure folks like the Popular Front of Judea would balk at the prospect of taking the man's money so regularly I am perfectly content - I become more or less tax neutral at my current salary and I have no problems with the waste coming out of other peoples pockets, after all, if you don't like it, stop voting the twerps in.
22.6.10
A Correction. Squared.
The BBC is doing what it does best with it's politico hat on; acting as the unquestioning mouthpiece of government and roundly abusing the english language.
But this really takes the biscuit:
*facepalm*
If you are extorting less from the tax payer it is not a giveaway, more a takeaway-less.
And the fact that they are actually just taking the difference from those who's efforts and skill you feel duty bound to punish means it's not even a takeaway-less, it's just a punish-the-rich-who-can't-afford-tax-accountants ploy. But then it must be ok because it's a Bory, definately not a blue-socialist.
You'll notice the only groups where there is not an express, defined change taking place in the budget? That's right - the public sector or the EUmpire.
We need to start taking the intelligentsia to task on these simple meaning-inversions; not doing so is the path to New Speak.
The toughest package of tax increases and spending cuts in a generation is expected to be unveiled by Chancellor George Osborne in his first Budget.
But this really takes the biscuit:
The chancellor must find £3.5bn to pay for the giveaway - which will be clawed back from top rate taxpayers - and Labour are likely to argue it is irresponsible in the current climate.
*facepalm*
If you are extorting less from the tax payer it is not a giveaway, more a takeaway-less.
And the fact that they are actually just taking the difference from those who's efforts and skill you feel duty bound to punish means it's not even a takeaway-less, it's just a punish-the-rich-who-can't-afford-tax-accountants ploy. But then it must be ok because it's a Bory, definately not a blue-socialist.
You'll notice the only groups where there is not an express, defined change taking place in the budget? That's right - the public sector or the EUmpire.
We need to start taking the intelligentsia to task on these simple meaning-inversions; not doing so is the path to New Speak.
21.6.10
How A Tax Freeze Works
...in our minds:
Your a local council leader. You sit down with a piece of paper and an excel graph open on your terminal; you realise that as you have taken on more responsibilities and presided over the largest recruitment to the public sector in history your council tax receipts have been gradually decreasing when adjusted for inflation.
You say a great big mea culpa on local television announcing a halt to a hundred non-essential but eye-wateringly expensive schemes, fire the majority of new starters* to minimise redundancy payouts and redeploying senior staff in those same areas to cover the gaps (and if this leads to a pay cut tough; the zeitgeist of this coalition is "we are in this together", so jump in or jump off).You create a Human Resource department led mandate to strengthen your dismissals procedure; no more "sicky-woo" excuses where you go off for 6 months full paid leave with "stress". Where you can't redeploy, fire or dismiss you make provision for redundancies in your budget for that year with a view to lowering the c-tax take the tear after by the resultant amount; if you can once you've balanced the books you encourage your business-development staff to find ways of encouraging business; rates' cuts, internalize or remove unnecessary regulatory hurdles and so on. You announce you will not seek an increase in central government funding and hand back any state-largesse; increase central funding when your in a deficit is just a tax rise elsewhere, and is just morr buggery without the courtesy of a reach around and you'll have no part of it. In an act of solidarity you announce you and your senior executive will take a pay cut of 25% with a view to increasing it back to pre-cut levels in line with the %-deficit cut, then %-c-tax receipt changes year on year.
Conclusion: Services are cut; there a fewer council galas and events, life is harder for a lot of people but gets better with time; no deficit means local government can be at the front of a real, lasting recovery rather than pulling from behind, slowing everything down. Money is concentrated in the hands of those who will be the most judicious with it, pensioners punish any attempt by central government to undermine the value of their pensions, I.e CGT rises; eventually a new mindset emerges where we become more self-reliant and aware of our limitations, and in doing so see the value in mutual voluntary cooperation
...and in the minds of our political masters:
As above- the local council leader sits down with a piece of paper and an excel graph open, realises c-tax receipts are dropping in line with increases and deficits are looming.
And then the boy Osbourne goes and tells you he will bugger in other ways so you don't have to make those painful but necessary cuts.
There is so little vaguely conservative about the conservatives nowadays just as there is so little vaguely liberal about thesocial liberal democrats that both have become as big an irrelevance as the Labour'ious government before them.
This is not a "tax freeze"; this is jut someone ripping you off from a different angle, keeping the client state in the manner it has parasitically grown acustomed too.
*= This is hard
Your a local council leader. You sit down with a piece of paper and an excel graph open on your terminal; you realise that as you have taken on more responsibilities and presided over the largest recruitment to the public sector in history your council tax receipts have been gradually decreasing when adjusted for inflation.
You say a great big mea culpa on local television announcing a halt to a hundred non-essential but eye-wateringly expensive schemes, fire the majority of new starters* to minimise redundancy payouts and redeploying senior staff in those same areas to cover the gaps (and if this leads to a pay cut tough; the zeitgeist of this coalition is "we are in this together", so jump in or jump off).You create a Human Resource department led mandate to strengthen your dismissals procedure; no more "sicky-woo" excuses where you go off for 6 months full paid leave with "stress". Where you can't redeploy, fire or dismiss you make provision for redundancies in your budget for that year with a view to lowering the c-tax take the tear after by the resultant amount; if you can once you've balanced the books you encourage your business-development staff to find ways of encouraging business; rates' cuts, internalize or remove unnecessary regulatory hurdles and so on. You announce you will not seek an increase in central government funding and hand back any state-largesse; increase central funding when your in a deficit is just a tax rise elsewhere, and is just morr buggery without the courtesy of a reach around and you'll have no part of it. In an act of solidarity you announce you and your senior executive will take a pay cut of 25% with a view to increasing it back to pre-cut levels in line with the %-deficit cut, then %-c-tax receipt changes year on year.
Conclusion: Services are cut; there a fewer council galas and events, life is harder for a lot of people but gets better with time; no deficit means local government can be at the front of a real, lasting recovery rather than pulling from behind, slowing everything down. Money is concentrated in the hands of those who will be the most judicious with it, pensioners punish any attempt by central government to undermine the value of their pensions, I.e CGT rises; eventually a new mindset emerges where we become more self-reliant and aware of our limitations, and in doing so see the value in mutual voluntary cooperation
...and in the minds of our political masters:
As above- the local council leader sits down with a piece of paper and an excel graph open, realises c-tax receipts are dropping in line with increases and deficits are looming.
And then the boy Osbourne goes and tells you he will bugger in other ways so you don't have to make those painful but necessary cuts.
There is so little vaguely conservative about the conservatives nowadays just as there is so little vaguely liberal about the
This is not a "tax freeze"; this is jut someone ripping you off from a different angle, keeping the client state in the manner it has parasitically grown acustomed too.
*= This is hard
11.6.10
5 Come Along At Once
So I go for months with nothing but silence and rejection from potential employers, earning a pittance in insecure temp jobs when all within the same week I get 6 consecutive calls from recruiters for full time, well paid posts within my area (more unusually doing jobs that would let me sleep at night knowing Im not ripping the taxpayer off).
What the hell is going on?
More later when I do the upcoming interviews for 3 of them...
What the hell is going on?
More later when I do the upcoming interviews for 3 of them...
8.6.10
What Has Labour Done To Scotland?
Via Old Holborb on the tickertape of banality comes this frankly disturbing story. The last paragraph is really all you need though:
What has Labour done to Scotland?
"Lord Bannatyne ordered the three year sentence to follow a 26-month sentence Taylor was currently serving for snatching a 66-year-old woman's bag at knife-point."
What has Labour done to Scotland?
4.6.10
Whilst It's Topical
In the aftermath of the Cumbrian shootings it'd be wise to point out that whilst heartbraking you cannot regulate tragedy out of existence; incidents like Dunblane or any number of violent gang-related murders in the UK will tell you that regulation will NEVER be the panacea the politician want it to be; it is a comfort that David Cameron and Theresa May appear to recognise this.
That said, >this is a good list of reasons why Gun Control doesn't work. Enjoy:
40 Reasons to Ban Guns
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Okay, you know which one of these I really find repulsive? #33, the banning of cheaper guns. This infuriates me. The government already has set up the system in such a way that poor people have a much harder time protecting themselves. And considering that their neighborhoods can frequently be worse than the middle-class, who have the money to own firearms and purchase their multi-hundred dollar concealed carry permit, I find this situation untenable.
A US perspective of the problem naturally but still valid.
I do take issue with #10; medical professional may not be the first port of call for handgun operation but I would go to Guns&Ammo for a treatise on GSW treatment. Other than that some points to think about.
That said, >this is a good list of reasons why Gun Control doesn't work. Enjoy:
40 Reasons to Ban Guns
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
Okay, you know which one of these I really find repulsive? #33, the banning of cheaper guns. This infuriates me. The government already has set up the system in such a way that poor people have a much harder time protecting themselves. And considering that their neighborhoods can frequently be worse than the middle-class, who have the money to own firearms and purchase their multi-hundred dollar concealed carry permit, I find this situation untenable.
A US perspective of the problem naturally but still valid.
I do take issue with #10; medical professional may not be the first port of call for handgun operation but I would go to Guns&Ammo for a treatise on GSW treatment. Other than that some points to think about.
1.6.10
Social (Mis)care
Was introduced to Rob Fisher's blog today via Samzdata to this article; I would like to say this surprises me but it does not and I'll explain why.
In my adventures in temp-land I have had some odd jobs; perhaps one of the oddest was that working for an Adult Social Care unit; these are those groups tasked with providing care to those with learning difficulties who's parents are unable (and in a few rare but very sad cases unwilling) to care for their full-grown children. They are run by local authorities (Lord knows what would happen had Brown ever realised his National Social Service idea - *shudders*) on a relatively small budget.
My boss managed a clutch of independant living sites where the mentally handicapped could garner some semblance of dignity; I say "managed" because what was the predominant focus of each day was the damage control presented to him by his supervisor.
Every day was a battle to get reliable levels of staffing, the bottom 2 tiers in particular letting the side down massively; an example would be a member of staff calling in sick on the grounds of "not been mentally prepared for work" - no illness, no disabilities themselves; just an insane non-excuse.
Other junior staff accused senior management of using service restructuring (as in staff and their charges being moved to newer, better facilities) as a means of "harming their friendships and 'rights'" rather than merely trying to make sure people with genuine needs for constant supervision were supervised.
From my viewpoint I saw whining junior staff who were always on the fiddle whenever they could; it is unsurprising that this attitude was more widespread in other staff.
It will not surprise anyone reading that the predominant decade many of these staff gained an education was through the late 90s to noughties; when there were junior staff with a good work ethic they were either immigrants or promoted or both! Zanu New Labour have enriched an entitlement culture that will hit it's victims hard when reality bites hard.
The fish rots from the head; time to throwthe whole rotting carcass in the bin.
In my adventures in temp-land I have had some odd jobs; perhaps one of the oddest was that working for an Adult Social Care unit; these are those groups tasked with providing care to those with learning difficulties who's parents are unable (and in a few rare but very sad cases unwilling) to care for their full-grown children. They are run by local authorities (Lord knows what would happen had Brown ever realised his National Social Service idea - *shudders*) on a relatively small budget.
My boss managed a clutch of independant living sites where the mentally handicapped could garner some semblance of dignity; I say "managed" because what was the predominant focus of each day was the damage control presented to him by his supervisor.
Every day was a battle to get reliable levels of staffing, the bottom 2 tiers in particular letting the side down massively; an example would be a member of staff calling in sick on the grounds of "not been mentally prepared for work" - no illness, no disabilities themselves; just an insane non-excuse.
Other junior staff accused senior management of using service restructuring (as in staff and their charges being moved to newer, better facilities) as a means of "harming their friendships and 'rights'" rather than merely trying to make sure people with genuine needs for constant supervision were supervised.
From my viewpoint I saw whining junior staff who were always on the fiddle whenever they could; it is unsurprising that this attitude was more widespread in other staff.
It will not surprise anyone reading that the predominant decade many of these staff gained an education was through the late 90s to noughties; when there were junior staff with a good work ethic they were either immigrants or promoted or both! Zanu New Labour have enriched an entitlement culture that will hit it's victims hard when reality bites hard.
The fish rots from the head; time to throwthe whole rotting carcass in the bin.
What Could Happen If you Dont Do Have a Blockade
What could get through without the Gazan blockade:
This new incident is hardly free of suspicion and were it the "aid workers" entirely innocent I doubt they would attack IDF soldiers with iron bars as they tried to board...
I will admit that I have a prediliction for supporting Israel (though I am against the UK state-coerced exotrtion to support both Israel and palestinian Arabs just as I am against "development spending" in all it's mission-creep glory); I have a childhood friend who was serving in the ambulance service only to be called to work in the IDF's "legal corps" (he's a trained lawyer); his abilities at justifying Israel's actions to the swivel eyed lunatics seemed more valuable than saving the lives of Israeli and Arab civilians (who are mainly on the receiving end of this violence from terrorists).
Stop taking the piss, the both of you.
On May 21, 2003 Israeli naval commandos intercepted a fishing boat, the Abu Hasan, sailing from Lebanon to Egypt carrying a Hizbullah explosives expert bound for Gaza. Also seized were CD disks with instructions on how to assemble bomb belts for suicide bombers, a radio-activation system for remote-control bombs and 25 detonators for Kassam rockets.
This new incident is hardly free of suspicion and were it the "aid workers" entirely innocent I doubt they would attack IDF soldiers with iron bars as they tried to board...
I will admit that I have a prediliction for supporting Israel (though I am against the UK state-coerced exotrtion to support both Israel and palestinian Arabs just as I am against "development spending" in all it's mission-creep glory); I have a childhood friend who was serving in the ambulance service only to be called to work in the IDF's "legal corps" (he's a trained lawyer); his abilities at justifying Israel's actions to the swivel eyed lunatics seemed more valuable than saving the lives of Israeli and Arab civilians (who are mainly on the receiving end of this violence from terrorists).
Stop taking the piss, the both of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)