Why governmentally run healthcare sucks

Yet another in the Orwellian Nightmares series;

Via Billy Beck,

The next time some socialist is blathering on about how great it'll be once we ALL get government-mandated and taxpayer-funded healthcare, remember the implications behind what's going on over at that link, and by what's being perpetuated by the Brit.gov, and RUN straight at that fucker, and punch him or her as hard as you can, right in their filthy sewer, making a sincere effort to knock their teeth down their throat.

Seriously.

No more fumbling for that cell phone while driving.

The most amazing (or scary, if you are so inclined, as I am) thing about this is that there is NO BATTERY!

The device is powered by the glucose and oxygen in your blood supply.

I wonder if Morpheus is trying to get Neo out of his coma yet?

Yikes.

Seen over at Tam's place.

Fine point, indeed.

QotD, from Marko;

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but exhorting people to vote for McCain withthe “he’s less bad than Hillbama” argument is like urging them to pick rapist #1over rapist #2 on the grounds that #1 is a little less well endowed, and that he promised to let you pick the position"

Yup, and that's as good an analogy as I've heard about the situation, and the rest of the post gives a good indication as to why voting for any of the three viable candidates from either of the two establishments is an exercise in the reduction of liberty.

QotD

From Jeff Soyer's blog, Alphecca, regarding supposed Constitutional Scholar Obama's (excuse me while I laugh here) position on the Second Amendment;

"he also plans to use California gun control legislation as a paradigm for a
national policy to contain the spread of gun violence."

To which commenter Keith replied;

Talk about using someone else’s dick to piss into the wind with…

Yes, exactly.

I am reminded of something over which I was arguing with some dolt, a short time ago, when reading that bit over at Billy's place.

I really have no respect for most people I must deal with on a day-to-day basis, and I haven't for quite some time, as illustrated by the thick-headed follower in that last link.

The crux of that sentiment directly stems from some of the idiocy I must routinely endure in a professional sense, what with attempting to comply with certain building codes, some of which are onerous to the point of stupidity.

The important part of the argument here is that, simply because it is the law, doesn't mean that it's moral.

Does anyone else understand this?

I know that I can name about half a dozen people, most of whom I don't know in any traditional sense of word, but whose writings have illustrated this point;

"What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace: the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty. The fact, perhaps, explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take--his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact." (My emphasis)

As far as I'm concerned, passing a law to control something is about the most arcane and abstract way at attempting to deal with any issue, whether it's a real, or more likely, imagined problem.

Really, this is something to think about. Hard.

Controlling one's environment

From an article that was linked over at the Smallest Minority, a comment, from a certian Joe Dokes;

"I hate Walmart too. Not because it is an evil corporation but because of the clientele that shops there, (you'd think they sold tats). The stores tend to be crowded, messy and dirty. Finding someone to help you is an exercise in frustration. All that being said it is sometimes hard to beat the deals they offer."

Jesus Christ on a popsickle stick, that's funny!

Yes, I must agree, and it's the exact same reason that I'm rarely in one of them. That probably makes me an elitist prick. Oh well.

The unraveling of "Climate Change" continues

And the source, a Harvard astrophysicist.

Irony at its finest.

I can't wait to hear the screeching moonbats begin their character assassination of our intrepid scientist. It is most assured too.

The Left can't actually let anyone poke holes into their neat little theory about resource usage, which they wish to control, and supposedly "make jobs" out of thin air, when there won't actually be any true production coming from these phonies, just higher prices for the purchaser of "carbon-based" goods. All done in an effort to save us all from ourselves, or so we are to believe.

I hope the folks who cling to their rotten, green idol die of fucking exposure because they care too much for mother Gaia, or something.

Go, Dr. Bulinas, and please spread your word far and wide.

The stupidity is alarming

So, I knew it was only a matter of time before the loony bin of anti-gun crackpots opened their filthy sewers, demanding shit, because, well, someone was off their meds.

I simply love it when these asshats get the whole thing wrong. They couldn't get it right if I spelled the law out for them in monosyllabic words with a felt pen. Oh well.

We're quickly becoming a nation of, as Lenin put it, "Useful idiots."

Lovely.

Putting me off of my feed

Oh god.

The next bit from the Politician-come-Jesus, who'll save us all with her brilliant economic plan.

From a pamphlet distributed to the unwashed in Milwaukee:

"Over the past seven years, big corporations and special interests have been given a free pass to profit, often at the expense of the American worker. As President, Hillary will make it a priority to scale back special benefits and subsidies to these corporations and put those resources to work for our economy again,"

So, a company (or corporations, as it makes the whole thing into something that's a faceless object) making a profit is either illegal (boy, would she LIKE it to be!), or it's somehow immoral?

It's a sin to make a profit, or that's what she and her camp would have you believe.

Who believes this shit?

The disease continues

Not sure what to think about what has happened, except for the usual of course.


I've just now watched about 2 minutes of Nancy Grace talking about the incident and had to run to the toilet in anticipation of losing my dinner. Usual liberal bullshit about "America's unique gun problem," or some similar rot.

Not too much more of this 'til the proles start demanding things, I fear.

Stumbling at the meaning of a word

Looked at that link and started reading it aloud and liked what I was hearing.

A) I liked the headline, "Senior Taliban figure caught in Pakistan"

B) Challenged by security forces as they (he) crossed from Afghanistan into Pakistan

C) he'd apparently been shot in a little dust-up with Pakistani security forces, and

D) been arrested, and possibly deceased, as "a senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to journalists, said Dadullah had died of his wounds while being flown to a hospital with the other injured men."

E) And then this bit, somewhat countering the earlier, completely unofficial, "report"; "Two Pakistani intelligence officials, declined to be named for the same reason, gave a different account of Dadullah's capture, saying he was nabbed during a raid on a religious seminary in a neighboring district.

Seminary? SEMINARY?!?

I nearly wet myself at that.

So, what is it that these Muzzies do at this seminary? Pray? Like Jesuit Priests, I'm sure. I can't, for the life of me, imagine they are doing anything other than inculcating their next batch of adolescent boys into their time honored traditions of wife-beating, goat-screwing, marijuana and opium production, and not to be forgotten - arms manufacture and trade, mostly in knock-off AK-47s.

Fun stuff.

GunFacts, JadeGold hasn't any

As is always the case with the gun-bigots, they don't have any facts, and do nothing more than spew their bullshit, and try to pass it off as if they know something.

And as anyone knows, the "Assault Weapons Ban" is/was a complete misnomer, as it didn't do anything of the sort. As set forth in USC 18, Section 922 of the Federal Code, it states clearly what is, and is not to be imported, assembled, and what features civilian, versus Gummint-issued, weapons may have. Concisely, from The Federal Observer;

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - A Public Opinion Nightmare

On September 13th 1994, HR4296, the so-called Assault Weapon's Ban, was signed into law. Under the guise of reducing crime, it outlawed future manufacture and importation of several specific firearms, and arbitrarily limited choice features of all future firearms eligible for sale in the United States. Proponents of the bill touted military look-alike rifles as "dangerous weapons of mass destruction" in an effort to win public support for an outright ban on such "evil" features as bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and curved magazines. While they may have succeeded in convincing a narrow majority of legislators to vote in favor of the ban, they did not succeed in convincing the American public, especially not those who even pretended to know anything about firearms. The resulting public outcry among the gun-owning community of the United States galvanized the gun lobby, and has contributed to the outcomes of every subsequent election. Ironically, this law may prove to be the beginning of a marked trend that unifies gun owners as a more homogeneous voting block than ever before.

In a somewhat twisted display of constitutional irony, the Assault Weapons Ban contains a ten-year sunset clause. Unless renewed by a subsequent act of Congress, the law will simply disappear on September 14th of 2004. Weapons and accessories that have been illegal for the last ten years will once again appear new on shelves around the country...

Anatomy of a Ban

In order to fully understand the effects of the Assault Weapon's Ban and how they relate to public opinion, we must first examine the law itself and its implications.

According to information garnered from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence(tm), "the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994."

[1] It is also known as " The 1994 Public Safety and recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (though it has little or nothing to do with protecting any firearms use) or simply as "The Crime Bill".

[2]The law specifically names 19 different firearms as patently illegal, and specifies that three or more of the following features present on a single firearm constitutes an assault weapon.

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
• Muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher.
• Magazine capacity over 10 rounds
  

Weapons manufactured, imported, or configured in such a manner prior to the passage of the 1994 Act were "grandfathered" as having a "pre-ban" status. This had a two-pronged effect on the gun market. One was a steady and almost immediate
inflation in prices of pre-ban weapons and high capacity magazines, their now
limited availability causing an artificial stratification in price structure. Second, was the introduction of various "post-ban" weapons designed to circumvent the particulars of the law, while providing a similar function or appearance to their pre-ban counterparts, albeit minus the full cosmetic effect or hefty price tag. The price of these pre-ban weapons skyrocketed in the months prior to the ban and has been rising slowly but steadily over the last ten years. Manufacturers, fearing the worst, stepped up production of these banned items in order to insure that profitable amounts were on hand once the Bill was inevitably passed. For example, the cost of the AR-15 series of rifles has more than doubled since the Ban first was introduced into Congress in April of 1994.

[3]Post-ban look-alike rifles, though lacking some or all of the banned features, are often functionally identical to their pre-ban predecessors, and fill a market vacuum created by the passage of an ineffective, bean-counting law that a only a tax-collector could be proud of. Indeed the term "assault weapons" is a misnomer. Gun Digest defines true assault weapons as "...fully automatic, selective-fire, or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement application."

(emphasis-Ed.)

The most abhorent part of this legilation, in terms of "banning" anything, was the limitation of the sale of new detachable magazines being limited to 10 rounds. Existing mags were exempt, or "grandfathered" under the law (as were existing firearms, btw.) That was the sticky part of the whole mess, and one that your garden-variety Democrat (and some Republicans) couldn't (still can't) wrap their heads around. If not for this provision, I think most of us gunnies couldn't have cared less about the other crap contained in the law, honestly.

ALL of the actual firearms that this idiot thinks were "banned" were deemed legal for sale by the god-awful BATFE, since that entity controls this through a "sample" test, and were sold, quite legally, to those who wanted to fork over the cash for rifles, sans features. There was no "ignoring" the law, as Guy Cabot is wont to complain is the case. Again, he knows nothing.

I happen to have one of these "post-ban" type rifles, an AK clone, that was imported in late '97, with the offending pistol grip and muzzle device removed and replaced with a unitized, thumbhole (butthole, as it's usually referred to) and a semi-permanent nut welded to the muzzle. These modifications, along with grinding off the bayonet lug, were considered sufficient to pass muster under the aforementioned "features" test, and the importer allowed to distribute, and the dealer to sell.

So, in summary, there weren't any "bans" of any firearms, except those 19 specifically named, and those so named were usually renamed, re-featured, and then sold legally thereafter in complete compliance with the law.

As I've always known, Jade (Guy Cabot) is just a fucking moron.

The Swell

Everyone I know has either called me on the phone regarding this story, or has sent me an email with linkage, including my wife, and she is currently in Europe!

I had heard about the shooting long before any of the calls, that is to say, almost immediately thereafter, and I had already done a good deal of thinking and questioning about the details before the first of those messages started trickling, then flooding, in. The deluge isn't without some profundity, now that I think about it, as some of what I had a feeling about is starting to make it into the mainstream story behind this.

The initial story certainly struck me as being unusual, as a detail that quickly emerged was that it was a black man going on a shooting spree at a governmental building. He was a local. He was a local business owner. He was known by some of the witnesses. "Huh?," I thought. This kind of thing is almost always the territory of the pissed off middle aged white male with a predeliction toward antiestablishmentarianism, so I suspected that there was something more to come.

I was right.

Reading the link confirmed some of my suspicions, and I'm thinking that there are far more details about this man's encounters with the powers-that-be that aren't being reported, in a history of what I suspect was a long and growing agitation of a man who felt put upon.

Not that there is necessarily any excuse for doing what he did. It's just another observed symptom in a long line of previous, and future symptoms, of what I've been contending for the last dozen years or more. It's all looking pretty shitty, and situations such as this one aren't going away, and in my estimation, will only get more frequent, and more expansive, as time moves along.

Keep watching for conflagration. Then we'll know.

I think a just puked a little.

Saw that whole bit a couple of days ago in the news about how Sir Shrillary, "might be willing" to tax the living shit out of everyone (and I'm sure she's got Big Pharma in her sights too on this), in order to give herself the warm fuzzies about "doing the right thing," or some other rot.

Your life, and the products of your labors are not your own any longer, and it's a groundswell in this country that's empowering that bitch to get away with the whole thing.

As Marko tempts me with the IQ standard, as the populace seems far too stupid for its own good.

I seethe.