![[flairfail.JPG]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAK5yJ2O_e1hrJoPV95QXPcjUpSaQYCWkHj35FhVtcR1AaU8FTZ2DN_kaWPbRusUCPIjMIX6C0plDrZCS4W9QwMm34ol7-LkrRxOn-GrjNzxAQfTNN_sOnSPiRT8GZzz01T_HCPfG9Pzc/s1600/flairfail.JPG)
4 hours ago
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Great Quote
"Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian."
David Codrea - A wanted man and 'a true success story'
Friday, December 26, 2008
What Would Jesus Steal?
At a loss for words.
Baby Jesus thefts seem to be epidemic
..."My grandson asked, 'Why would someone take baby Jesus right before Christmas?'" Elenbaas said...
...Despite being chained, a Jesus also vanished from the Clover Pass Community Church in Ketchikan, Alaska...
...In Arkansas, a Jesus was recovered -- but it was damaged and marked with "racial slurs, a swastika and a Hitler mustache,"...
With a really liberal interpretation of God, one might be able to get away with not believing, but I doubt one can get off so easily for drawing swastika's on a baby Jesus.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A bit about 'universal' health care
Regarding my prior post 'Yeah, what they said';
The original post at Ranting's of a Sandmonkey, moving towards a divided world - I had to post this in the comments.
Slippery slope it is indeed.
Adam said: “…public healthcare is free at the expense of tax-payers (something most of us consider a good thing,…”
Well, no, most of us don’t consider it a good thing. There are several problems with state sponsored health care. One of which is that taking the profit motive out of health care effectively stops the advances of medical science. Worldwide socialized medicine treats it’s subjects using techniques, pharmaceuticals and equipment developed by profit based medicine (primarily the U.S.). I suppose it’s great that the rest of the world can take advantage of the gift of life given to it by the U.S., but that doesn’t mean that state health care is the best thing since sliced bread.
The other problem is the placing of ones health as a burden on society, and therefore subject to government control as the prior commentators talk of. If one’s body is subject to control by the state it is nothing less than a loss of liberty. Couching it in terms like ‘responsibility’, ‘duty’ or ‘obligation’, while making it more palatable does not negate the loss of freedom entailed.
In a society where the people have already traded their freedoms in order to be cared for, this conversation is really moot. The deed is done and all that is left is the rationalizing we see here.
But a society that is still nominally free must guard against the encroaching tide of state sponsored guardianship in the name of equity. Following that path leads to a uniformity of will that is as oppressive as a jail cell.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Yeah, what they said
Found this over at Ranting's of a Sandmonkey
Moving towards a divided world
An excerpt;
You know, in 10 years or so I can totally see this world divided up into two very different worlds: One, where the citizens of the so called advanced and civilized nations get to have their full political rights and freedom (freedom pf speech, democracy, blah blah), but won't have the right or freedom to do much else, because "it's bad for them"; and the other, made up of "less advanced nations", where you won't really have your full- or any- political rights, but you could do whatever you damn well please otherwise.
A nice bit of back and forth in the comments as well. I thought it went well with my earlier post "A Liberal Dichotomy" although I don't think I expressed myself as well as I wanted to.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Pictures that speak for themselves
Pictures from yesterdays funeral for Woodburn Police Capt. Tom Tennant
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Details from Trauma Surgeon on Woodburn Bombing Victims
First is this from a local TV station;
Doctor: Injuries in Woodburn bank bombing like those seen in Iraq
There is some speculation in the story about whether the explosive is high order or low order.
As I posted several days ago;
This seemed to be confirmed today with the release of the probable cause statement for Bruce Turnidge's arrest.
Officers found two tubes of Tovex, an explosive slurry, and a blasting cap.
Tovex is a high order explosive with a detonation velocity of about 4,000 to 5,500 mps. That is about the same detonation velocity as ANFO, (diesel/fertilizer) but with a better density.
The second link;
A blog entry from the surgeon who worked on the Police Chief
No comment on this
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Woodburn Bank Bombing - Reported Here First
Court documents today confirmed details reported here two days ago.
Court document: Bomb expert thought explosive was fake
...Authorities mistakenly believed the bomb that detonated at the Woodburn West Coast Bank on Friday was a hoax device that could be moved and taken apart inside the bank...
...Instead, the device detonated, dismembering and killing both Oregon State Police bomb technician William Hakim and Woodburn Police Capt. Tom Tennant. Woodburn Police Chief Scott Russell sustained critical injuries, including the loss of his right leg below the knee....
Unfortunately, nobody was here to read it.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Woodburn Bombing New Info
I've received some information that I consider pretty reliable. The story I'm hearing is that the officers scanned the device outside, and determined to to be non-harmful. The device, a briefcase, was then brought into the bank to determine who the owner was. It was at this point that it detonated.
Other information I've received leads me to believe that this was a fairly powerful explosive, based upon the description of the injuries (which I won't relate here.)
The last bit of info is a confirmation that the chief of police did indeed lose a leg (as I reported earlier) and is battling to save the other leg.
Will update as new information arrives.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Bomb explodes at Woodburn bank, kills at least one
WOODBURN -- A bomb exploded at a West Coast Bank branch in Woodburn Friday, killing at least one person, and injuring at least two others.
The bomb detonated late afternoon around 5:45 p.m. at the bank in the 2500 block of Newberg Highway.
A Marion County deputy medical examiner said he was en route to the scene, saying that he was told of at least one fatality. He added that police were concerned about a secondary device in the area.
The bank had been evacuated before the bomb detonated, according to West Coast Bank chief executive Robert Sznewajs. The branch has been there for at least 10 years, he said.
He said two employees sustained some injuries, but not life-threatening. But the blast caused serious injuries to an unspecified number of officers, according to an Oregon State Police release. The ATF said it knew of one bomb technician who had been injured.
Oregon State Police Lt. Gregg Hastings declined to provide much detail. But earlier in the day, an Oregon State Police bomb technician, the FBI and Woodburn Police were investigating a suspicious device at West Coast Bank.
The Woodburn Independent is reporting that that all houses to the south Oregon Way and Evergreen Avenue are being evacuated and U.S. Bank is also being evacuated.
FBI spokesman Jane Brillhart has been confirmed there are injuries, however, the extent of those injuries is not known at this time, the newspaper said.
This bank is close to the Wells Fargo Bank, where earlier in the day the FBI, Oregon State Police and the Woodburn Police Department were investigating a suspicious package, the newspaper said.
However, Brillhart said there was no explosive device at the Wells Fargo Bank, which is located at 2600 Newberg Hwy. Brillhart could not comment further on the West Coast Bank blast as FBI investigators are en route. A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives said the agency had also dispatched a team to the scene.
Sznewajs, of West Coast Bank, said he believed a second call specific to West Coast Bank came in after the Wells Fargo search. Officers checked the property and found something in the bushes, he said.
The sudden blast shook up area residents.
"It sounded like somebody tossing a Dumpster off a three-story building," said Jan Olson, who was smoking on her deck in the nearby Evergreen Estates apartment complex.
Jasmine Colombo, 13, said the blast rattled her apartment complex.
"The lights flickered and we felt the building shake"
I live about a dozen blocks from this bank. As I posted earlier I was in the area (even closer than my house) not two hours before the blast. I even heard it go off. But I'm not close enough for it to piqued my interest that much.
A couple of thoughts though. Not that I want to second guess or armchair quarterback the officers, but...
I can't help but wonder why they would move the device into the bank, if those reports are correct.
If it is a live device, moving it isn't a good idea. Further, moving a live device into a contained area, other than a purpose built bomb container, isn't a good idea either. And if you're going to violate those two bad ideas, the last thing you want to do is put people into the same contained area as the live device. A blast that would be survivable outside and un-contained can be lethal in a confined space.
Update
Local TV news said the Woodburn chief of police is at OHSU hospital in critical condition. I've also got unconfirmed reports that three officers have been fatally injured.
Update 23:00
Confirmed on TV news. Woodburn police officer fatally injured, Woodburn Chief of police in Critical condition, Oregon State Police bomb Technician injured.
Area still blocked off, police say they are looking for more devices. Houses evacuated for area for six blocks.
Bomb at the Bank
Live as it happens
Looks like there's an injured bomb tech, hope he's alright. I've done some study on IED's, met some tech's. Brave people, cool as ice, not a job I'd volunteer for.
I had lunch and went to the bank (different one) across the street from this not two hours before the blast. Now there's helicopters all over the place. Most active this place has been since I moved here.
Burn it all
John Lott posted this:
Paying even higher energy prices to avoid high oil prices?
I especially like this quote:
Why is it so bad that we are using oil just because we are using it?
There is no doubt that the world is going to pump up and burn every drop of oil. Even if the west switches to alternatives the second and third world will still have to burn the oil. And that's not taking into account the other products like plastics that we get from oil - even if all our energy was derived from alternatives, we'd still use up the oil.
So if we're going to burn it all anyway, there are only three questions.
- How much will we pollute the earth before we run out of oil
- Who is going to have the economic strength to take advantage of a non-oil world
- Who is going to have the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy
How much will we pollute the earth before we run out of oil
Due to cleaner, more efficient technology the west pollutes less per drop of oil than the second and third world. Our auto's and plants are cleaner than those found is less modernized nations.
Imagine if we stopped all oil usage today, the third world would still burn up every drop of oil. Except they would burn all that oil using smoky, nasty polluting technology.
From the environmental perspective it would be better if the west burns that oil - it would produce less total pollution.
Who is going to have the economic strength to take advantage of a non-oil world
At the rate China, India, Indonesia and other second world countries are mushrooming economically, the west is in real danger of being overtaken economically. These countries economies are even more oil dependent than the west. It would be in the west's best interest to use up all the oil as fast as possible before we become the second world countries.
Who is going to have the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy
Currently only the west has the industrial and technological capability to switch to a non-oil economy. But, as time passes, the second world will be more capable of making the switch, and do it easier and cheaper than us. Therefore, again, the faster we burn up the oil the better positioned we will be when it runs out.
Ancillary bonus to running out of oil
Once we pump out the last drop of oil that will finally take some of the more troublesome countries of the world out of play. Such countries who make fortunes from their oil production, all the while hating the west with every breath. The faster those countries run out of unlimited income, the less likely we will have hostile, nuclear armed countries sprouting up everywhere.
So I say burn it all, burn it fast, don't look back.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
A Liberal Dichotomy
With all the hub-bub over the recent passage of California's proposition 8, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a friend of my sister during the last holiday season.
No Smoking
The conversation started innocently enough, the group was talking of sundry things when 'Elle' said that she would be glad when the new law banning smoking in bars took effect in the upcoming year.
Now, I'm an ex-smoker, but unlike many reformed smokers I am not militant about people not smoking. Further, I have a bit of a philosophical opposition to...well, let's say government involvement into many things. I don't know what prompted me to open my mouth to make Elle's statement the beginning point of the nights' fireworks, but I did indeed open it.
I asked why she thought it was necessary to pass a law banning smoking in bars. She said that it would be nice to go to a bar and not come home smelling of smoke. I then said that there were plenty of bars that were already voluntarily non-smoking establishments and asked why she needed to ban smoking in every bar. She said that people who don't smoke would like to go to all the bars. I then said if there were that many people who wanted to go to non-smoking bars then there would be, because of the laws of economics, more non-smoking bars already.
Ban it all
At this point she changed tack on me and brought out the liberal argument that smoking is unhealthy and should be banned. Now this immediately threw my nanny-state alarm into overdrive and of course got me a bit worked up. I said there are a lot of things that are unhealthy, but that people should have a personal choice as to what risks they are willing to take. She said that of course it's a free country, but smokers add to the cost of health care for everybody. This prompted a small sidetrack of the argument (yes it had turned to that by this time) where we debated the costs of private businesses (insurance companies and hospitals) and their correlation to limiting personal freedoms. (That itself is a good subject for a future post)
Back on topic we went back and forth about several subjects that are unhealthy and/or risky. Seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, bicycle helmet laws - she's all for them. I asked if she was in favor of laws against unhealthy food. Sure thing, she is. I asked if she ever ate unhealthy foods. Yes, she says, and she would still be willing to ban them.
Flabbergasted
Elle's 'ban everything' attitude flabbergasted me. Never had I run into somebody who was so willing to give up her freedoms. Normally, such people are more than happy to ban things they don't like, but not those freedoms that they do like. I needed to up the ante and try to make a point that hit her where it hurt.
I must at this time reveal that Elle is gay. Her homosexuality doesn't 'bother' me, I'm not anti-gay. She just is, and I accept it, just as I accept that my sister is gay. The reference to her sexual preference is brought up only as a point of argument and not as a judgement. Elle and I had this argument because she is a liberal, not because she is gay.
So I asked Elle how a person who's sexual orientation put them in a class of people who so recently had themselves been discriminated against, marginalized and in essence been banned by the masses, how could she so willingly wish to restrict the lives of others. She got a bit defensive on that point, and said that homosexuality was not unhealthy.
Unhealthy lifestyle
Of course it is, I said. Gays of both sexes are statistically more likely to engage in high risk behaviors than hetero's. Gays have more one night stands, more overall sex partners, more unprotected sex, more sex with strangers and more multiple sex partners than straights. Gays are also more likely to contract a STD, become a victim of domestic violence and gays have a higher rate of suicide.
This is when the argument ended, she stormed away after calling me a homophobic nazi.
The Dichotomy
So, how is it that liberals can harp on and on about the freedom of choice, as long as it's the choices that they are for? Heck, I support people's freedoms, even when I don't agree with what they choose to do with them.
Monday, December 1, 2008
What's next? Gray DUI?
Found this over at Hillbilly White Trash. Somehow I ended up at this post at Slate.com.
Are you serious? Too drunk to "consent" to sex so then it's rape? That sort of justification gives every drunk driver the excuse that they couldn't make an informed decision not to drive because they were legally too impaired to make the decision.
Lois Feldman of Carroll, Iowa. Who says she does not recall stumbling drunkenly into the men's room during a football game at the University of Minnesota Metrodome last weekend, having sex with a stranger 12 years her junior in a stall as a crowd assembled to watch and cheer or even being subsequently arrested by the police
it sounds like she was…raped? Not that Feldman is using that term.
it's possible Feldman was the victim of what Cosmo last year controversially termed gray rape
Are you serious? Too drunk to "consent" to sex so then it's rape? That sort of justification gives every drunk driver the excuse that they couldn't make an informed decision not to drive because they were legally too impaired to make the decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)