Fat People Are Environmental Hazards, Cause Global Warming…

Check this article out…

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/is-being-overweight-a-climate-problem/?hp

According to this article fat people should be considered an environmental hazard because they help advance global warming. Direct from the article…

“The study concludes that being overweight or obese ‘should be recognized as an environmental problem’ because of its contribution to climate change from additional food and transport emissions.”

Expect to hear from Al Gore soon on how we should round up all obese people and execute them to save the planet. Seriously though this whole bull shit with global warming is getting out of hand. Every prick and yahoo out there is willing to do a study to prove X causes global warming so they can get grant money.

I’m all for reducing pollution and such but let’s think critically about this. According to the global warming chanters there is no longer a debate and anybody who things otherwise is mentally insane. On the other hand no study has actually been performed looking at any other possible causes then human caused.

And there is a reason behind this, if you say anything that countermands the idea that global warming (shit I forgot it’s called the redundant phrase “climate change” because this year was a record cold year and the ice caps are at their highest since the ’70’s) you can’t get any grant money. So much for the scientific process but I digress.

Oh well I guess we should just start charging fat people for more carbon credits. Hey that’s a new tax scheme, don’t base it on a person’s income base it on their weight. Oh I’m so patenting that idea!

Just like everything causes cancer soon everything will be labeled to cause global warming.

22 Shot Dead in 24 Hours… In a Gun Free Zone

And tragic but eye opening article…

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2009/04/22-shot-in-under-24-hours.html

22 people have been shot dead in 24 hours. Sounds like the Brady Campaign’s wet dream come true, tragedy to exploit in order to press for more gun control laws. But wait it happened in Chicago which is a gun free zone.

For those of you who don’t know Chicago has a complete ban on handguns and sever (pretty much a complete ban) on long guns. The mayors have said less guns equals less crime. Sadly the article points to the real reality, gun free zones only take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Due to Chicago’s restrictions law abiding citizens have no means of defending themselves. Meanwhile criminals have the run of the place because they have the only guns beyond the ill-equipped police. These kinds of tragedies shouldn’t happen, and in fact most likely wouldn’t in a place where people could defend themselves.

Think about it, people claim gun free zones are safer because people can’t bring guns in. In reality this means law abiding citizens can’t bring in guns. A criminal by definition is a person who breaks the law. A person willing to break one law such as murder is not going to hesitate to break another law such as not bringing a gun into a gun free zone.

Many criminals who wish to commit mass shootings chose these gun free zones because they know the people there will be unable to defend themselves. These people are generally cowards who surrender or kill themselves at the first sign of confrontation.

How man tragedies do we have to suffer until law makers realize gun free zones like the entire city of Chicago are costing lives? Columbine, Virginia Tech, the recent shootings in Germany, all three events occurred in gun free zones. All three of these events could also have been stopped early if there were armed citizens these who could have confronted the aggressors.

Not a University Student or Faculty? Have a Concealed Carry License? You can Carry on Campus! At Least in Minnesota

I was talking to somebody today who mentioned it is illegal to carry on a state college campus period. It was then that I realized that many people, even those with concealed carry licenses, don’t know the entirety of Minnesota’s permit to carry a pistol law. At the end of this note I have pasted in the law dealing with carrying on school property but I’m mainly interested in pointing out sections i and f…

(i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school;

(f) Notwithstanding section 471.634, a school district or other entity composed exclusively of school districts may not regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components, when possessed or carried by nonstudents or nonemployees, in a manner that is inconsistent with this subdivision.

So under Minnesota law a licensed person can not carry on any K-12 school. But no mention of universities is made. Then section f states that school districts may not regular anybody who isn’t a student or a faculty member of that school. Hence universities can not prevent you from carrying your gun on their campus if you have a permit so long as you aren’t a student or employee.

So those of us with state issued permits to carry pistols can go onto college campuses armed after graduation. This is a good thing to know if you plan on visiting anybody on campus after you complete your degree or participate in any alumni events.

Here is the entirety of the Minnesota carry law dealing with school property…

Subd. 1d.Possession on school property; penalty.

(a) Except as provided under paragraphs (c) and (e), whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a dangerous weapon or uses or brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun while knowingly on school property is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

(b) Whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a replica firearm or a BB gun on school property is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) or (b), it is a misdemeanor for a person authorized to carry a firearm under the provisions of a permit or otherwise to carry a firearm on or about the person’s clothes or person in a location the person knows is school property. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

(d) As used in this subdivision:

(1) “BB gun” means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter;

(2) “dangerous weapon” has the meaning given it in section 609.02, subdivision 6;

(3) “replica firearm” has the meaning given it in section 609.713; and

(4) “school property” means:

(i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school;

(ii) a child care center licensed under chapter 245A during the period children are present and participating in a child care program;

(iii) the area within a school bus when that bus is being used by a school to transport one or more elementary, middle, or secondary school students to and from school-related activities, including curricular, cocurricular, noncurricular, extracurricular, and supplementary activities; and

(iv) that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use.

(e) This subdivision does not apply to:

(1) active licensed peace officers;

(2) military personnel or students participating in military training, who are on-duty, performing official duties;

(3) persons authorized to carry a pistol under section 624.714 while in a motor vehicle or outside of a motor vehicle to directly place a firearm in, or retrieve it from, the trunk or rear area of the vehicle;

(4) persons who keep or store in a motor vehicle pistols in accordance with section 624.714 or 624.715 or other firearms in accordance with section 97B.045;

(5) firearm safety or marksmanship courses or activities conducted on school property;

(6) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms by a ceremonial color guard;

(7) a gun or knife show held on school property;

(8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center; or

(9) persons who are on unimproved property owned or leased by a child care center, school, or school district unless the person knows that a student is currently present on the land for a school-related activity.

(f) Notwithstanding section 471.634, a school district or other entity composed exclusively of school districts may not regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components, when possessed or carried by nonstudents or nonemployees, in a manner that is inconsistent with this subdivision.

New Administration OK with Unconstitutional Warrantless Wire Tapping

For those of you in the know you remember the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit againt the Bush administration because of their enacting of warrentless wire tapping.

This lawsuit started in October of 2008. The then administration asked to delay any response until April of 2009. The EFF decided this would be good for their case since there would be an administartion change.

We have that new administration now. They ran on a platform promising government transparency and change. No longer would American citizens have to live under such unconstitutional laws as warrantless wire tapping.

Well at least that’s what they promised. They down right lied. Here is a good article with the bew administration’s response on the case along with a detailed analysis…

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Notice anything familiar? The response sounds exactly like the justification the previous administartion gave for enacting the act.

All of this is done to fight terrorists and national security would be at risk is they devildged what exactly was being recorded. Civil rights be damned.

So much for change huh?

So How is Obama and Friends Change?

Although I know the majority of people on my friends list will probably want me hanged for the title alone take a good look at this…

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

A new piece of legislation dubbed The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is trying to establish control over the Internet for Obama. In a very Bush era bill this proposal would allow the president “to declare a cyber security emergency” at which point he could order the shutdown or restriction of any “critical” information network such as the Internet.

And of course just as Bush this bill is being proposed in the name of “national security.” So somebody explain to me how this is “change” from the last administration.

Make Protests Work, Use Pitchforks and Torches

As the astute man of observation I am (almost) I’ve been noticing that there is an ever increasing number of protests going on. People are protesting everything, the war in Iraq, the banks, abortion clinics, churches, and anything else they can get their hands on. And what do these accomplish? Jack shit.

But why is that? Well from what I can see it’s two fold. The first being there are just too many of them. If you want to make a statement about something you need to reserve the method of doing it. When people see hundreds of protests in a year they just begin to ignore them. It’s like any other event you see a hundred times a year. Seriously how many people even pay attention for more then three seconds when they see a cop pulling somebody over? Almost never because you see it all the time. How many people pay attention when a police officer arrests somebody at gun point? Almost everybody in the area because it’s not something you see every day.

The other problem with protests is how they are done. You have a group of angry people yelling through a bull horn and holding signs with phrases they think are catchy. This really accomplishes nothing. Seriously nobody even cares what the signs say. There is a lack of symbolism there. Instead of saying this is a group of united people against a cause it’s saying we are a group of people with signs and bull horns that like to yell loudly at people passing by.

Now protests should accomplish something. This is why two things need to be done. First of all let’s save them for things that actually matter. Nothing is going to change the fact that the banks fucked a lot of people over. Protests won’t help here isn’t the damage is done.

Now protesting something like AIG giving their top brass large multi-million dollar salaries would actually be bringing attention to something that’s happening now. Our tax dollars, which was stupidly handed out en masse by our government, is being used to make a few rich people richer instead of keeping a company afloat.

Of course standing outside AIG with bull horns and signs isn’t going to accomplish anything. People don’t give a shit what you yell, especially top brass who here people bitching on a daily basis. So I have a proposal.

Replace those worthless bull horns and signs with pitchforks and torches. These two items together in a mob of people send a symbol, somebody fucked up and justice is demanded. Way back when if somebody really fucked up, was able to get around the law, and everybody knew about it they grabbed the pitchforks and torches and went after the criminals.

Of course they also ended up lynching the person which I think takes thing too far. Killing people is not the answer to anything either so don’t take this as me advocating violence, because I’m not. I’m saying that a group of people together holding pitchforks and torches sends a message. The mob doesn’t even have to yell anything but it helps (just don’t use a bull horn, that destroys the fear factor).

Think about it. Let’s say a group of people was standing outside of your house with bull horns and signs yelling at you. What would you do? Probably not give a shit or call the police. Now replace those people with a different group standing outside of your house with pitchforks and torches yelling at you. What would you do? Probably initially shit your pants and then call the police.

So that’s my proposal on making protests work. Get out of the good old pitchforks and oil soaked rags wrapped around large sticks. Raise the pitchforks high and light the rags on fire and stand outside the place of protest. Send a real message, one that says justice is demanded. It gets a message across and look way cooler to boot.

Professor Calls Cops on Student Who Gives Pro-Gun Speech

Another article brought to you by the bastion of free speech known as college campuses…

http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation/?wtf

A processor called the police on a student who gave a speech in class. The student’s speech dealt with the idea of allowing students and faculty with concealed carry permits to carry on campus. He stated that school shootings such as the one that occurred at Virginia Tech could have been stopped much sooner if students and faculty had been armed.

Well the professor must not have agreed with him because he called the police. The student was told to report to the police which he did. When he arrived they began listing off all the guns he owned and asked in questions about where they were stored. The professor said he did this because the student’s speech made other students uncomfortable.

It’s nice to know that the first amendment is so well regarded on college campuses these days. Just talking about guns is apparently grounds for calling the police and having the student interrogated.

Can’t say I’m surprised. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised if this exact same scenario occurred at Winona State with how gun friendly they are /sarcasm.

Friday Minnesota Gun Registration is Heard

This just came across the wire from the NRA-ILA…

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF0953&ssn=0&y=2009

Friday Minnesota is holding a hearing for HF 0953. This bill would require all transfers of pistols and “military style” rifles to be registered. This includes private citizen to citizen sales.

Let people know and get on the horn with your representatives and make a stink about it.

For thoroughness here is the contents of the e-mail…

“Minnesota Gun Registration Scheme to be Heard Friday!
Please Contact the Members of the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division!
On Friday, March 6, House File 953, introduced by State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL-64B), will be voted on by the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee.

This bill was designed to not only regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows, but to regulate the sale of firearms between law-abiding persons, all across Minnesota. As a whole, HF 953 will only affect law-abiding gun owners, and in no way keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

A particularly troublesome provision in HF 953 creates a de facto registration system by requiring records of all transfers to be maintained by the state. These records would be made available to all authorities, including for use in “civil” cases, which are often brought by anti-gun government officials and are designed to damage or interfere with lawful commerce in firearms.

HF 953 is a direct attack on Minnesota’s gun rights. It also removes the carry permit holders’ exemption from the purchase permit requirement for all handgun or semi-automatic rifle purchases, not just those completed at gun shows, and increases the waiting period from five to seven days.

Please contact the members of the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to protect our Second Amendment rights and oppose this bill. Contact information can be found below.

State Representative John Lesch (DFL) Chairman
Phone: 651-296-4224
Email: rep.john.lesch@house.mn

State Representative Ron Shimanski (R) Vice Chair
Phone: 651-296-1534
Email: rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn

State Representative Debra Hilstrom (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-3709
Email: rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn

State Representative Kory Kath (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-5368
Email: rep.kory.kath@house.mn

State Representative Paul Kohls (R)
Phone: 651-296-4282
Email: rep.paul.kohls@house.mn

State Representative Jenifer Loon (R)
Phone: 651-296-7449
Email: rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn

State Representative Dave Olin (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-9635
Email: rep.dave.olin@house.mn

State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-4199
Email: rep.michael.paymar@house.mn”

Wow Fuck You IBM, FUCK YOU!

I was never a fan of IBM to begin with but this latest story just makes makes me realize how horrible their top brass are…

http://infotech.indiatimes.com/News/IBM_to_laid-off_staff_Go_to_India/articleshow/4085361.cms

So after laying off a chunk of their workforce they decided to make an “innovative” (their words not mine) offer to some of their employees.

They would be allowed to keep their jobs if they were willing to move to a country that it would be cheaper to keep them on. In other words if you are willing to move to India and take regular Indian working wages and conditions you can keep your crummy job. Wow THANKS IBM!

Do note the offer of a pay reduction is not valid if they want to stay in United States, only if they are willing to move elsewhere.

At least IBM is willing to pay part of their expenses for moving to another country which is just some paper work, finding a place to live, leaning new laws, etc. I doubt this offer is valid for classes to learn new languages.

New Hampshire Goes States’ Rights

It looks like New Hampshire has just joined the small but growing number of states fighting the federal government for the right to govern themselves…

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87987

The government of New Hampshire is telling the federal government where to stick is. They got all fired up “because plans for a federal handgun license, ‘hate crimes’ laws to regulate Christians’ speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama’s youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to “balance” talk radio are none of them constitutional.”

To this effect they have introduced this nice piece of legislature…

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

It pretty much establishes state rights based on Jeffersonian ideals. But the bullet point list is the part that sums this up nicely. This is a list of items gives a nice set of rules that the federal government can’t enforce…

1. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

2. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

3. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

4. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

5. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

6. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition;

I say go New Hampshire! I wish Minnesota would get behind this.