atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#3416: It's excruciatingly nice outside.

Unbelievably nice, ridiculously nice.

This weekend is Crete's big garage sale weekend. Taking a walk around the bunker I can see at least three garage sales within my neighborhood.

But the nice weather is also kind of problematic, because it has not been raining very much in the past month. The rain we had last Thursday was a good start, but we really need more than that. The grass has begun to dry out again.

...the dewpoint is in the low fifties, which is stinkinously low for June in the Fungal Vale. This is great for my electric bill, though, so I'm not really complaining.

We might get some rain on Monday.

* * *

Florida is ignoring Holder's warning not to continue to verify that all its voters are eligible. Eric Holder, being a Democrat, doesn't want any precedent set that might induce other states to say, "Yeah, maybe we ought to remove the ineligible voters from our system." You know, double registrations, illegal aliens, corpses, and so on.

Here in Illinois such a program would never fly, because the Illinois Democrats need those illegal aliens and dead people to vote as often as possible, lest they lose elections.

* * *

And to make up for the people who don't vote because they realize they were sold a bill of goods in the last election. I'm not surprised that plenty of lefties won't vote for Obama: he did very little of what he said he was going to do, and most of what he did manage, he did by accident.

"Many liberals...argue instead that Obama hasn’t fought hard enough for progressive priorities on taxes, health care and the economy." I think these people need to cut their guy a break, though. He's trying; and in the liberal world, trying is good enough. Bill Clinton did all kinds of things where he tried just as hard as he could, and libs love him to this very day. (Well....except for the part where he's saying that Obama's tax increase idea is a bad idea when you're in an economic depression.)

Oh, yeah--ObamaCare was a failure from a liberal perspective because it didn't accomplish a single-payer system in one fell swoop. It brings the entire medical system under government control and--if unchecked--will lead to the liberal wet dream of a single-payer system just like Britain's and Canada's, but it doesn't do it now now NOOOOWWW!!!! so it's a "failure".

Taxes--Obama's been advocating raising taxes all along. Congress has refused.

I don't know what Obama could possibly do for "progressive priorities" with regard to the economy that he's not already doing, but since he followed the liberal playbook the economy responded the way it usually does to those procedures. His EPA is making energy more expensive, which is a liberal desire. His FDA is cracking down on public health concerns. ("Raw milk" mainly.) He's raised the debt ceiling several times, and is spending all kinds of money the government doesn't have, exactly the way Keynes says you're supposed to.

It's not his fault that the government doesn't apply the entirety of Keynes' theory. Keynes was smoking crack anyway, but it's just possible that his theory might work better if, you know, they didn't ignore the "pay off the debt during economic boom" part. (I said "better", not "well".) If you're going to regard some idiot socialist economist as the Second Coming, I'd think it would behoove you to, you know, employ the whole theory rather than just the "spending more than you've got is a-okay when you're a government!" part.

Now, I think these liberals have a point when we get to foreign policy. Obama said he'd bring the troops home--and here we are four years later and not only hasn't he brought them home, but he got us involved in Libya, too. He said he'd close Guantanimo Bay--and hasn't, because he realized there's no better place to keep prisoners of war than Club Gitmo.

My own attitudes about our foreign policy have changed significantly. I was against Iraq in 2003; as things wore on I came to see the sense of it. Obama, however, de-emphasized Iraq and doubled down on Afghanistan (as he said, prior to being President, that Afghanistan was more important than Iraq, this makes sense).

In 2012, though, now I've come to the conclusion that we've done what we can do over there and it's time to stop trying to help goat herders who love the 8th century so much that they actively resist entering the 21st. It's time to get out of Afghanistan. Past time, in fact.

I'll be honest: if liberals are looking for a good alternative to Barack Obama, they should seriously consider voting for Mitt Romney.

I'm serious.

Look: Romney is Obama. The only thing he lacks is the tan; although he purports to be a conservative Republican now, he really isn't, and liberalism has no better chance to succeed than by electing Romney. If they reelect Obama, it's going to set the Democrat Party and liberal politics back by decades. Look at what Carter managed in four years. Well, Obama's there; you give him another four and he's going to make Carter look like a friggin' genius.

These liberals understand this on some level, else they would be champing at the bit to reelect Obama.

Now, Romney is their ideal Republican: he agrees with them on every major policy, and it's just that the little (R) after his name keeps him from saying, "Hell yeah I'm gonna fix ObamaCare." No, he's got to talk "repeal" since he couldn't get nominated without that--but just you wait until he's in office, and you'll see him make a 180 so fast it'll make Linda Blair look slow.

(The Exorcist...the turning head...? Oh, never mind.)

But these people don't look at policy; they only look at the letter after the name. So Romney is an evil conservative, no better than Bushitler or Nixon or Reagan.

And the ironic thing is, only the latter of those three reviled men is actually a conservative.

* * *

Don't go hitting yourself on the head. Take piano lessons instead. Yeah, just because that guy turned into a musical genius after diving into a shallow pool--

You know, there's a reason they tell you not to dive into shallow water. Most of the time, when people do that, they don't come up suddenly able to play eight different instruments. If they come up at all.

So, bravo: this guy did something egregiously stupid and profited by it. Don't try this at home.

* * *

Arse Technica: "t was a bit of a surprise to find out that the physicists running the LHC actually do see odd behavior caused by the phase of the Moon."

No, it really isn't surprising, not even a little bit. LHC is a big instrument and it's calibrated to nanometers. The tidal force exerted on Earth by the Moon is not trivial, either.

It's cool, yeah, but it's not surprising.

* * *

Borepatch comments on the "Aurora CO popo detain nineteen innocent people for the crime of being in the same intersection as some bank robbers" story.

...and gets more comments than me because I'm a hack who does omnibus posts on LiveJournal. Also, he did a better job of commenting on the story than I did.

Reading the comments at Tam's place I learn that there were shotguns and riot shields involved, so it wasn't just one cop saying, "Hey, I'm there! Hang on while I stop traffic--get over here, guys!" This really sounds like a full-court press...and yeah, some serious civil rights violations.

Not a video:

Now here's something interesting: The first picture at this page shows "innocent bystanders" sitting on a curb, handcuffed. Now, the article I linked to the other day said that people were released from cuffs after their cars had been searched--but it doesn't take long to look through someone's car so why are there at least five people sitting there in cuffs? Especially when the cops were looking for one person?

And why weren't all the adults cuffed? Some women weren't handcuffed but all the men were. Discrimination!

Oh, but, "Police were looking for a man," says the article. Then why cuff any of the women? Well, if you were a woman riding in a car with a man at that intersection, you got handcuffed. If you were a woman riding alone, or with kids, you weren't.

Look: they knew where the bank robber was, generally speaking. He had the money. He hadn't shot anyone. He didn't have any hostages. As long as he didn't feel threatened he wasn't going to do anything, and he didn't know there was a tracker in the money. That being the case, there was no reason to do it this way.

Except, of course, it was easier for the police to shut down the intersection and shove shotguns in two dozen peoples' faces and handcuff them and detain them for two hours.

Hell, the guy just sat there and watched the cops taking people out of their cars and handcuffing them and searching their vehicles without doing anything! He didn't run or shoot or anything; he just sat there and waited to be arrested.

...and what of the people handcuffed and sitting on the curb? If the bank robber decides to get violent, they're sitting ducks.

The video at that link spins the whole thing as, "Wow, this is really unusual!" and not the way it ought to be spun.


If I were a lawyer who was licensed to operate in Colorado, I'd be carpet-bombing Aurora, Colorado with my business card right now. The contingency fees would dance in my head like sugarplums as I snuggled into my bed at night. Civil rights lawsuits, reckless endangerment lawsuits, false arrest lawsuits--oh, it goes on and on!

* * *

Oh, Tam asked what I'd do? Well, now that I've got the whole story, I can answer the question.

Let him drive on. Let the light turn green and let the guy go, thinking he's gotten away with it. I do that because I don't have probable cause to aim shotguns at, and detain, 23 other people in order to get one guy.

* * *

One other thought:

What if the "person of interest" they arrested was just the one guy there who refused to let them search his vehicle? Well--okay, they did find a beekeeper's mask in the truck, so it's likely that he's their guy (to say nothing of the LoJack transmitter saying he was there--and I expect they found that, too) but what would have happened to someone who actually had the gall to insist on his rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments?

* * *

This is really, really annoying.

I got up around 11:30. I was hungry, right? So I made myself a nice ham and cheese sandwich--two slices of meunster cheese, four slices of ham, two slices of bread, your standard ham and cheese sandwich. Along with the sandwich I had a generous handful of potato chips and a couple of pickles. A typical everyday lunch. (Okay, technically it was breakfast for me. Shut up.)

2.5 hours after I finished eating it, my stomach is empty and growling at me.


Granted: potato chips are carbs, and bread is carbs, and they don't have staying power. But the ham and cheese--especially the cheese!--ought to have done something for me. now it's not even 3 PM yet and I've got to think about dinner?

Ridiculous! No wonder I spend so much f-ing money on food.

  • #7557: Whose fault, exactly?

    Kid is ranked 62 out of 120 with a GPA of 0.13. What's his mother have to say? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their…

  • #7556: Yakisoba night!

    I don't get to make it very often, but I saw a really nice piece of round steak at the store the other day, so I bought it. 1-1.5 lbs beef (round…

  • #7555: And it's only nine o'clock! *sigh*

    Today I watched the Jeep blow its taillight fuse. It blew when I went home for lunch; I drove back to work with no taillights. Before leaving the…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment