Monday, October 20, 2014

Ebola and Cholera and Non-Intuitive Truths

A leftie friend of mine on Facebook just asked why so many people are suspicious of science. Of course his thrust is clear. He wants to make it sound like questioning pseudo-science like the current climate change dogma — which used to be "global warming" — and theories of racial equality, etc., is somehow being "suspicious of science." Well, it isn't. It's suspicion of politicians, left-wing activists, and their academic enablers. Such enablers either intimidated into going along with whatever's trendy, or seeing a chance to win fame and money by kowtowing to the Zeitgiest. Right now such enablers are vacillating between assuring us that ebola is no big deal, nothing to worry about, and pointing out that the failure of Republicans to confirm a political hack as Surgeon General has been the cause of the great ebola catastrophe.

And for the rest of us who are tempted to follow such Judas goats, there is of course the desire to be liked and admired by the established order and the sheep that buy into it, and especially with respect what Greg Cochran terms in the quibcag "non-intuitive truths." Like, it's great fun to show your superiority to those who are a page behind you. Remember the kids in school who took great delight in telling other kids that whales aren't fish? That sort of thing. Some things that seem true aren't true, and you feel so clever when you happen to know about them. Well, that unfortunately results in a tendency to accept any trendy idea that seems non-intuitive, because it's so much fun to tell other people that they're ignorant.

And all this does relate to ebola, and to other diseases. Here's a historical perspective from Greg Cochran at:
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/

The Advent of Cholera

Most of this is stolen from William MacNeill’s Plagues and Peoples.
Cholera seems to have existed in the Ganges delta for a long time, but it only spread to the rest of the world fairly recently.  An unusually severe epidemic broke out in 1817: it spread by ship to Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, China, and Japan between 1820 and 1822.  A British expeditionary force brought it southern Arabia in 1821, and from there is filtered down the east coast of Africa.    It moved up into the Persian Gulf, reaching Iraq and Iran, then Syria, Anatolia, and the Caspian.
In 1826 a new epidemic moved even further, spread through Europe and North America.
It had been some time since the last outbreaks of bubonic plague, and most of the techniques for limiting its spread had lapsed. Some places still remembered: Marseilles, for example, had experienced a late outbreak of plague in 1721 and annually commemorated it.
Two main factors interfered with an effective policy response to cholera (not counting ever-present human stupidity and obstinacy): bad science and 19th century liberalism.
Scientists at the time had convinced themselves that the germ theory of disease was just wrong.  Yellow fever’s decimation of the French force in Haiti made it important, and when yellow fever hit Barcelona in 1822, French scientists were all over it. They concluded that there was no possibility of contact between yellow fever victims in Barcelona, and ruled out contagion.  Mosquito transmission didn’t occur to them.
Worse yet, they generalized their error: they concluded that contagion was never the answer, and accepted miasmas as the cause, a theory which is too stupid to be interesting. Sheesh, they taught the kids in medical school that measles wasn’t catching –  while ordinary people knew perfectly well that it was. You know, esoteric, non-intuitive truths have a certain appeal – once initiated, you’re no longer one of the rubes.  Of course, the simplest and most common way of producing an esoteric truth is to just make it up.
On the other hand, 19th century liberals (somewhat like modern libertarians, but way less crazy) knew that trade and individual freedom were always good things, by definition, so they also opposed quarantines –  worse than wrong, old-fashioned ! And more common in southern, Catholic, Europe: enough said! So,  between wrong science and classical liberalism, medical reformers spent many years trying to eliminate the reactionary quarantine rules that still existed in Mediterranean ports.
The intellectual tide turned: first heros like John Snow, and Peter Panum, later titans like Pasteur and Koch. Contagionism made a comeback.  I am not an expert on that history, but I think that the classical liberals didn’t argue that it would have been better for people to die than survive due to state-imposed public-health methods.
---------
Quibcag: This is Marii from Joshiraku (じょしらく),. She often makes things up.

Minoritarianism and Jim Goad and He, She, Heesh, Sheesh!

We libertarians like to use the word "majoritarianism" to make it clear that democracy, in theory and effect, simply means that the majority can vote to have minorities eliminated, so maybe it's not such a great idea after all. You know the saying — democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Well, here's something from the opposite direction that is worse, if anything  — "minoritarianism." It sort of means that any trendy minority can basically not vote, but use government power through the courts, to violate the will and rights of the majority. And, for that matter, other, contending minorities. And this is such a cool new thing that people lobby to be declared minorities, so they can start the ripoffs. I blogged awhile back about the thrilling new MENA minority HERE.

And now the City of Houston basically wants, in effect, to guarantee the right of men, for whatever reason, to enter ladies' rest rooms. And it's so important, that they're intimidating local clergymen to prevent them from criticizing the idea. Like so many other liberal ideas, it basically comes down to toilets. You can't make this stuff up. At Takimag, Jim Goad writes:

Houston, We Have a Gender-Blind Public-Restroom Problem

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Vulture of Critique Mystique

You see a lot of things at Vulture of Critique that you're not likely to find anywhere else, like this treatment of chicanery in the oil bidness that goes far beyond the usual liberal condemnation of Dick Cheney for making money. Elsewhere, corruption in the Drug Enforcement Agency. But this piece especially interests me, not only because it links back to me.

African-Americans versus USA Police: the case of how 37-year-old cop Joseph Weekley lethally shot 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones

Ex-Army posts a lot of stuff about how African-Americans behave badly. I don’t know. I’m not there. I don’t know what the USA is like.
Clarification: My primary concern is not the fact that poor blacks tend to kill each other in large numbers. My primary concern is that the USA is descending into a downward spiral of totalitarianism – thus violent-and-organized USA police worry me more than violent-but-unorganized USA blacks. This post is not meant to downplay or justify black violence in the USA.
I’m not a big fan of Jared Taylor, but his case seems fact-based in this specific instance.
However, I would like to call your attention to a different case: the 7-year-old girl named Aiyana Stanley-Jones.
The trigger man was 37-year-old Officer Joseph Weekley, who both drove the armored personnel carrier and led the team through Jones’s door. Wielding a ballistic shield and an MP5, the 14-year DPD veteran claimed that he lost control of his weapon, but not for the reason one would expect. He blamed Aiyana’s grandma.
Officer Weekley’s novel defense was that Mertilla Jones rose up as he entered the apartment and “reached for his gun.” In his version of events, contact with grandmother caused him to pull the trigger of his submachine gun, subsequently striking the sleeping girl.
Mertilla Jones gave a very different account. She said that she had been dozing in and out of sleep on the couch when she was startled by the shattering of glass and the deafening incendiary device hurled through the window. Ms. Jones claims she reached to protect her granddaughter and made no contact with any officer, according to the Detroit Free Press.
“They blew my granddaughter’s brains out,” said Ms. Jones. “They killed her right before my eyes. I watched the light go out of her eyes.”
Officer Weekley was no stranger to controversy. Previously during his six years on the Special Response Team, he had been named among several officers in a federal lawsuit regarding no-knock raid in which officers aimed rifles at small children and shot two family pets in 2007.
-------
Now, everything Vulture says there is no doubt true, and there are many other cases like it. But they are not unrelated to the fact of Blacks behaving badly, plus hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal, also behaving badly, either because they want to, or don't know any better. Just about any government has totalitarian tendencies. It's human nature. But governments that preside over halfway civilized people have to come up with reasons to move towards totalitarianism that are fairly acceptable to those people. And what better way to convince the populace that we need brutal, militarized police than to cultivate a violent, lawless underclass that seems to require suppression by such police? Such an underclass is easy to create. Just put people on a few generations of welfare, with bonuses for any any all forms of dysfunctional behavior and lifestyle, with bigger bonuses for having illegitimate kids. Then make it as hard as possible for good, honest cops to keep order in the underclass neighborhoods by doing everything you can to avoid seriously punishing lawbreakers once the cops have caught them. Then have the whole MAG (Media, Academia, Government) constantly telling members of that underclass, especially the nonWhite and immigrant parts of it, that none of their problems are their fault, but are caused by other people, especially White people, and that rioting and looting are "understandable." And add that because of racism, the underclass can't hope to get ahead, and might as well stay on welfare and commit whatever crimes seem appropriate to the situation.
Do all that, and then try to recruit good, honest cops. A vicious circle, brought to you by generations of smarmy, know-it-all, White liberals.
------
Quibcag: This is the charming Tokyo cop, Yumi, from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Horton Hears an Ebola Virus

From: Judy Priory Cromer

EBOLA – AS EXPLAINED BY DR. SEUSS

I am so mad, I am so sad.
How did things ever get so bad?
Obama said, “No need to worry,
no need to rush, no need to hurry
No need to cry, no need to fear
Ebola isn’t coming here.
No need to fret, no need to care
About this silly Ebola scare
On a bus you will not catch Ebola
So take mass trans, and not your Corolla
You can not catch it on a plane
You can not catch it on a train
You can not catch it on the bus
Let me be clear, trust us, trust us.”
And then a few more weeks go by
He goes and give it one more try.
A patient dies, a nurse has caught it
“I don’t think the voters bought it.
So I’ll cancel today’s fundraising
And make a speech with guns a-blazing,
I’ll talk about the sick in Dallas
Right here, in the white house palace.
And I won’t be playing golf today
Eh, it’s raining anyway.
I’ll name a new Ebola czar
A lawyer…yes, he passed the bar
He’s not a doctor but you see
He’s been very loyal to me
He does not know about Ebola
He does not know shit from Shinola
We’ll give the base something to remember
So that they vote “D” in November
We will try it, the base will buy it
Dammit, Michelle, go on a diet!

Catching up with Neale Osborn

Finally I'm reprinting a Neale Osborn the same week it came out originally, sort of. I'm caught up, anyway. Guess how he starts! Right. Next, most of what you get these days about Islam is hippy-dippy "Islam is a religion of peace" nonsense on the one side, and Islam is some sort of Satanic horror on the other. Both are wrong. Islam is a so-so religion that is just fine in Islamic countries, and which has no business in non-Islamic countries, because it's incompatible. Anyhow, Neale presents a balanced view of the whole business next, falling into neither extreme. Then, an interesting paper on mass shootings. Then, a story about a woman who doesn't need feminism because she has a gun. That would make a nice graphic, come to think of it. And something on "rape culture," which may be the most idiotic feminist ideas yet. See HERE. Then more wedding cake stuff, drones & shoguns, and the right of association and free speech, which liberals oppose because they're not nice. Then New Jersey, the scourge of people dressed up like pirates with plastic swords. (I think actual Somali pirates with guns are being encouraged to immigrate.)  And then some quotes. The illustration seems to be from something called Angel Beats! (エンジェルビーツ! Enjeru Bītsu! ). And now to Neale:

Neale's Gun Rant for 10-12-2014
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com




Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Anybody forget how I tend to start these off? I didn't think so. So here she comes, Mama Liberty! (in Burt Park's voice) [Link] This week, she discusses guns (shocker), retention of same, and what to do if you ARE disarmed anyway.
The anti-gun people often tell us that a criminal would simply take a gun away from you and, probably, use it to kill you instead.
OK, it could certainly happen, and probably does sometimes. We read often enough about victims who manage to take the criminal's gun and use it against him or her. It's a possibility either way. Is it the most likely outcome of using a gun in self defense? Does that make it pointless to have a gun in the first place? Of course not.
But let's just take it a little farther and think about what might happen in that situation. Are you all done defending yourself then? Should you just curl up and let the criminal attacker do whatever they please to you and any others around you?
Do I really need to tell you what to do next? I didn't think so. So go do it!

I e-mail the rant to a select group of people (you all know who you are) some of whom have taken exception to my writings about Islamic terrorists in several of my rants, culminating in last week's rant, where I pissed off quite a few of them, friends and enemies. Several took the time to let me know they weren't happy. I sent them all this response—(If you read TLE, you might get this response twice—it most likely will appear in either letters to the editor or as an article [ It was going to appear, but why print it twice, eh?—Editor ]) In addition, it is published several places where comments on this specific part have not all been complimentary, and I feel I ought to extend to you, dear readers who aren't blessed by e-mails of this missive, the same response. So here it is.
I've been pissing off friends AND enemies with my stance on this subject, and so, I shall make one last attempt to make myself clear to those whose opinions I value (the friends). Any enemies on this mailing list PLEASE inform me so that I may remove you from it.
I'm going to start at the very beginning, and work through to the end, so bear with me.
I lost my religion a loooong time ago, when it became clear to me that not only were ALL Christian religious leaders hypocrites (because none of them follow the tenets of their own faiths, in which I happen to be quite well educated), but because ALL of it stems from fairy tales told by Neolithic goatherds to explain life, the universe, and everything. And ALL religions I have studied require one to suspend your intellect, ignore evidence, and take those fairy tales "on faith". As the late great Robert A. Heinlein said, "A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both." I prefer reason. Now, to Islam.
As I have oft repeated, there is much to admire in any faith, Islam no less than any other. Islam's rules on hospitality and charity, for instance, are admirable. It's a shame their staunchest "supporters" do not practice either, but see my comment about why Christianity and I parted ways.......... ANY Muslim, as an individual, is most likely a nice enough person. As with all of us, they each have their flaws, and their strengths. When you get to flaws, however, is when I find a major problem with Islam as a whole. Read the Old Testament. It's full of vile shit—dashing babies brains out, angels slaughtering all male children in certain areas, God demanding his faithful to sacrifice their children to him, torturing a faithful man to see if he can beak his faith. But by and large, Christianity and Judaism have forsaken these things as no longer acceptable. Christian zealots who advocate ANY return to Old Testament treatment of non-believers are immediately and vociferously denied by their co-religionists, who loudly assert that "The Westboro Bible Baptist Church (to use one recent example) does not represent all Christians." And, in fact, the Baptist Conference has removed them from the rolls, from what I understand. What all this is leading to is that, generally speaking, the Judeo-Christian faiths have, by and large, grown up to the point they no longer support "Christian" ideas such as the Inquisition, the Auto da Fe, and conversion by the sword. Islam has not.
NO—I am not painting Islam with a broad brush. I am, reluctantly, pointing out a fact. When a fanatic Muslim decides it is time to behead an infidel for Allah, does most of Islam rise up and denounce his actions? Sadly, no. When 19 brave young Jihadi heroes fly airplanes into 3 buildings and a corn field, does most of Islam cry out in horror, and offer to help us in our hour if sorrow? No, sadly. Instead, they dance in the streets all over the world, celebrating the "victory" over the "Great Satan". When a Muslim "cleric" sentences a rape victim to being stoned to death for adultery (after all, she DID have sex with a man who was not her husband, who cares if she WANTED to or not), does the village refuse to allow the sentence to be carried out? Sadly, no. They pick up rocks and report to the field. And last, but certainly not least, when Muslim "clerics" proclaim fatwahs against infidels, or announce that they want to force all the world into Allah's tender care whether we wish to go there or not, does most of Islam deny this goal, and support our right to NOT believe as we so choose, to live our own faiths or lack thereof in peace and happiness? Again, sadly, they do not. Republicans insist that That jackass in the WhiteHouse is a closet Muslim. A lot of evidence supports that at one time he was, I cannot say what he is now, and I do not care. I don't want to bomb the shit out of Iraq and Syria to "stop" ISIS/ISIL/ Whatever the hell they call themselves now. And I'll be honest—as long as they are killing each other for not being the correct flavor of Islam, I don't really give a shit what they do to each other—it's a family fight among Muslim Hillbillies. WHEN, however, they come across the pond, and begin to try their crap here, I'm not going to be so mellow.
You may rest assured that I won't be leading mosque burnings, or so-called hate crimes against Muslims. You may ALSO rest assured that I will not tolerate ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to forcibly convert anyone around me. I will HAPPILY invite any religionist into my home to discuss their faith, and I will be respectful of them as long as THEY remain respectful of me. I will not tell them their faith is something that makes me laugh, I will not waste my time trying to show them how ridiculous I find their basic tenets. And I will not try to make them into atheists. I don't give a shit about their souls, and I do not choose to have mine saved. And, last but not least, I will fight to the death ANY attempt to force any conversions on me or mine, or to force me to become Dhimmi, and to pay jizyah. (look the terms up, they are interesting, to say the least) There is, currently, a very small, but very active, attempt going on to subvert the Constitution by using the Constitution to protect their activities. Fine, speech is actually free. Actions to enforce your version of right, however, is NOT. If this doesn't help you, there's not much left I can do.
A very good friend of mine, known colloquially as Tony From The Right, sent me this link. It is the FBI's unclassified report on all the active shooter (aka Mass Shooters) in the US from 2000 to 2013. It contains a lot of excellent information and statistics, without any bias I can find in either direction. It's Just the facts, Ma'am. It is very hard to block quote from this report, so grab a cuppa joe, kick back, and start reading. It's fascinating. As Tony pointed out, it does NOT deal with the topic of gun free zones, where 24% of all active shooter events took place. Tony was concerned it might be deliberate. I don't—I feel that the FBI doesn't really care about that, so they just ignored it. All the report is dealing with is active shooters, and how the incidents went down. I'll have to read the whole thing a few times to truly absorb it all, so I might have overlooked something Tony saw. People—links like this are really important—send them to me if you can. (Thanks, Tony!)

I don't like the photo that accompanies this article, but the article itself is spot on. It's a shame more women do not do this. [Link]
According to a local Fox affiliate, a woman who had been dealing with a stalker for months finally gained the upper hand recently when he forced his way into her apartment.
Reports indicate the unnamed woman had complained to authorities and in social media posts about the unwanted contact and increasingly invasive actions of 22-year-old Douglas Jackson, a man she had a short relationship with in the past.
Want to know where it goes from here? Read the linked article.

These two articles go hand in hand. [Link] [Link] Like it or not, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Laws to the contrary do not change this. As an operator of as gun shop for a few years, I was told by the government to discriminate against people—If a person tripped my suspicion meter, I was not only allowed to refuse them service, I was required to. EVEN if they passed the NICS check. so discrimination IS legal and a business owner's right. Of course, posting a sign "No Negroes Allowed" is not going to fly anywhere, it should be the owner's right to do so. And the townsfolk's right to bankrupt him by refusing to shop there. And, like it or not, a maker of wedding cakes has the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage if they so desire.
Christian bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein just wanted to make a go out of their Oregon-based business. However, they weren't willing to compromise their beliefs for the sake of making a buck. When a lesbian couple approached them in 2013 to ask for a wedding cake, they politely declined. That's when the you-know-what hit the fan. Feeling discriminated against, the lesbian couple — Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman — filed an official complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Oregon officials naturally ruled in their favor.
As a result of the "violation," the Kleins may have to pay exorbitant fines to the state. They have already lost their physical business location due to the furor created by gay right advocates. Now the Kleins operate their business out of their home.
Let's be clear. If the Kleins are experiencing a severe downturn in their business because customers are voluntarily boycotting the store, that's the nature of free speech and free market capitalism. You have the right to say what you want in this country, but customers can choose what they do with their spending dollar. If the Kleins want to complain about how they've been treated by the community, that's a separate issue and one I'm not particularly interested in.
What is much more interesting is whether anti-discrimination laws that force business owners to serve everyone equally are really Constitutional. We've already seen from the Supreme Court's controversial Hobby Lobby decision that federal law can't force an owner to betray their own religion. Perhaps it's time to draw the natural conclusion that this should also apply to couples unwilling to bake cakes for lesbian weddings.
As pointed out, the bakery closed because of a boycott—perfectly acceptable. But the fines they face are not. And this scene has been repeated several times across the country—where a person's religious views are forcibly violated by the government—the very government that is supposed to protect their right to those views. Views specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. The same Amendment that protects hate speech. YES, you have a right to spew racial epithets, to denounce a persons sexual or religious practices, to say nasty things about people. As long as you do not lie about them (libel) it is your right.
There was a time when to be a liberal, you had to believe in concepts like free speech. In fact, that was one of their primary platforms. Nowadays, it seems that the First Amendment, like the Second, has fallen afoul of the liberal plan for a totalitarian, socialist America. According to a new poll from YouGov, 51% of those respondents who identify as Democrat support creating laws making hate speech illegal.
This really takes the cake. For several years, conservatives have warned that loony left-wingers had hijacked the mainstream Democratic Party. Now, it appears that may not be the case; this kind of craziness extends to the rank-and-file voters as well. Perhaps it is an inevitable consequence of this "social justice warrior" phenomenon that is sweeping the Internet, turning formerly-apolitical sites into hotbeds for some of the nuttiest ideas you've ever seen in your life.
While no one wants to hear a rant full of racial slurs, it is the right of the ranter to spew forth. I care not for what you have to say, Sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. (Don't bother to say it—I know Voltaire never said it—he should have, and I do say it)

One finds the logic of this article impeccable—so of COURSE the left despises it's message. [Link] Of course, common sense NEVER trumps liberal ideology.
Some so called feminists on Twitter claimed that women's self defense enables rape culture. Rather than teaching women to defend themselves, they said we should simply teach men not to rape. We only need to tell predators "Don't hurt others" rather than teaching women to be aware, avoid trouble when they can, and to defend themselves when they must. Some so-called feminists went further and claimed that refusing to be a victim "enables rape culture" and so promotes sexual assault. I disagree. Preparation does not cause violence.
Locking your front door does not enable burglary culture
I understand the attraction of utopian fantasies. Claiming you're against rape by choosing to be vulnerable is a fantasy virtue with strong emotional rewards. It is a Tinkerbelle ideology of crime prevention, and a perfect meme for our age of hash-tag activism. The so called anti-rape culture clams to stop an attacker if we all think "be nice" real hard. The so called anti-rape culture claims our nice thoughts will somehow stop assault, rape and murder. That style of feel-good activism is enough for some people. The feel-good emotions of the anti-rape fantasy sell on campus and academia. Reality is not that pretty.
As Rob repeats throughout the article, common sense safety measures do NOT enable bad activities—seatbelts do no enable car crashes, earthquake straps do not enable earthquakes, and learning to shoot, and how to defend yourself does not enable rape. As anyone with even two braincells to rub together can figure out.

Apparently, the law prohibits you from preventing spying over your property EVEN if the spy isn't the government!!! [Link] Yes, a man, flying a drone helicopter over his neighbor's property TO TAKE PICTURES OF SAID PROPERTY, called the police when said neighbor shot the drone down with a shotgun. For the gun-ignorant here, shotguns fired into the air do not pose a huge danger to the surrounding area—the falling shot will feel like a handful of sand or light gravel tossed into the air falling on you. But in NJ, defending your privacy is a no-no.
(BizPacReview) — A New Jersey man was arrested on charges that he fired at his neighbor's remote control drone with a shotgun.
The incident happened last week, when a resident called the Lower Township Police Department claiming that his remote-control helicopter had been shot down, CBS reported. After picking up the drone, he found holes in it.
Authorities said the resident was using his remote control helicopter to take pictures of his friend's home. While taking the aerial shots, the resident said he heard multiple gunshots and instantly lost control of the drone, according to CBS.
Police later arrested Russell J. Percenti, 32, on charges of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose and criminal mischief and confiscated his gun.
I am SOOOO glad I escaped from New Jersey in a balloon during the Reagan presidency.........

Ahhh, the ever stupid "Zero Tolerance Policy" rears it's ugly head once again. [Link] We have the asinine calling the Gestapo because a teacher wears a pirate costume on "Talk Like A Pirate Day", complete with plastic sword. First, the asinine idiot calls a plastic pirate sword a gun. (Huh?) Then, the Gestapo lock down 4 damn schools because of the imaginary gun.
Four North Carolina schools were recently placed on lock-down by police, after a "suspicious person" was seen entering Richlands Elementary School on September 19th.
An initial investigation turned up empty handed, but two weeks later the police announced that they solved the mystery behind the suspicious person at the school.
The "suspicious person" that caused the lock down was not actually an intruder, but was one of the school's teachers, who had decided to celebrate "talk like a pirate day", by dressing up for students.
A school representative explained to local reporters that the district has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to reports of suspicious people.
"We have this new psy lock system, there was an immediate lockdown done of the school and check in with all the teachers to make sure to make sure everybody was safe and secure. Law enforcement of course came to the scene," Suzie Ulbrich, a spokesperson for Onslow Co. Schools said.
The staff member, whose name has not yet been revealed by police, was allegedly wearing a full pirate costume, complete with a pirate hat and a plastic sword. Another member of the staff who was not in on the joke was apparently threatened by the teacher's costume, and notified the school office, who then called police.
According to multiple reports, the staff member was under the impression that the person was carrying a gun, not a plastic sword.
I'm still flabbergasted over the entire thing. Zero Tolerance Policy? No. Zero Brain Policy? You Betcha!

Don't cry, even though the rant is almost over, we still have the Quote of the Week to do!

"Since the criminals, being criminals, are NOT going to obey bans, the law-abiding citizen MUST have the ability to fight fire with firepower." Neale Osborn, January 27, 2011

"I know not what course Y'all might take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Die, Motherfucker DIE!!" Neale Osborn and A.X. Perez, November, 2010

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."—Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;" ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson

Bye, Y'all. Gotta ship this'un to th' editor!

Too Cool to Restrict African Flights

To Obama, an "expert" is any Obama supporter, especially a political flack or fund-raiser. This from:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Obama Claims 'Experts' Told Him 'What We're Doing' is FAR More Effective than Any Africa Travel Ban

First Dear Leader told us we couldn't ban travel from east African nations with Ebola victims lying rotting in the streets because it would 'hamper aid efforts'... like the United States of America doesn't have an Air Force or anything-

NOW the story goes that his bungling, incompetent administration's reactive,
paralyzed-by-some-racial-narrative response to the crisis is 'more effective' according to 'experts in the field' that he's consulted.

And you know what Obama 'experts' look like.

But as Churchill once said, 'No matter how beautiful the strategy, one should at least occasionally look at the results'... indeed.



I can understand him not wanting to cut ties with land of his birth and all... but since when did 'what we're doing' and a flight ban become mutually exclusive? What kind of BS argument is that?
-------------
See the whole thing and more here:

Friday, October 17, 2014

Jack Kerwick on Political Correctness and Ebola

Lefties and other Obama sycophants on the net are assuring me that any kind of travel restrictions, including checking people to see if they're sick, would be totally ineffective and stupid and evil and racist, and that ebola is no problem, and it's not contagious, and that it's going to come here anyway, and that... I should just shut up about it and let Obama continue to welcome any and all Africans to come here for free medical care, now that he's appointed a public relations flack to head up the ebola operation.  Jack Kerwick has a possible explanation:

Political Correctness and Ebola

Jack Kerwick

That there is a sensationalistic dimension to the Ebola coverage is something of which I have no doubt.
Sensationalizing events is what the media does best. There may even be a sense in which it can be said that sensationalism is intrinsic to mass media. Sensationalism serves the interests of two groups of people: media personalities and the politicians with whom they collude.
Both the reputations and wallets of media figures are likely to inflate as long as they continue creating “news” that arrests the attention of citizens who find it increasingly difficult to attend to anything for very long. And the politicians on whose behalf journalists and commentators advocate (in one way or another) are well served by the manufacturing of “crises.” This, to be sure, is a bi-partisan phenomenon: Virtually every politician—particularly at the national level—agrees wholeheartedly with Rahm Emmanuel’s belief that a “good crisis” is something that must never be permitted to “go to waste.”
This being said, the fact remains that no more than a month or so ago, President Obama declared with all of the assuredness with which he prefaces all of his errors, that Ebola had basically no chance of making its way to American shores. And now that Obama has been proven wrong once more—and with such neck-breaking speed!—he not only refuses to concede having stuck his foot in his mouth; he has dug in more deeply, refusing to appropriate the most elementary measures, like a travel ban vis-à-vis such Ebola-ridden “hot zones” as Liberia, to protect Americans from this deadly disease.
There are reasons for this, ideological reasons, that shouldn’t be lost upon us. Yet lest we misunderstand, it must be noted that the ideology supplying the conceptual lenses through which Obama and his fellow partisans view this phenomenon (and every other) is, to a not insignificant extent, shared by many of his Republican opponents.
For the sake of simplicity, we can call it “Political Correctness” (PC).
That’s right: for all of their bellyaching against PC, GOP politicians and their mouthpieces in much of the so-called “conservative” media have imbibed hook, line, and sinker this leftist claptrap.
First, Ebola originates in Africa. Thus, a travel ban would adversely impact blacks who desire a better life in America. But for a (still) predominantly white country, especially a superpower like the United States, to do anything, for any reason, that could be so much as remotely construed as harming blacks sounds suspiciously like “racism.”
Beyond this, courtesy of the pernicious (to say nothing of idiotic) doctrine of “disparate impact” that, in one way or another, has long been exploited by “liberals,” “conservatives,” and “libertarians” for ideological and political purposes, the very fact that there is an “unequal” distribution of Ebola among Americans and Africans, whites and blacks, may be read as implicating white Americans as the actual culprits!
And if we denied just these poor, disease-ridden Africans entry into America, wouldn’t we be guilty of engaging in the “racist” practice of “profiling?” Or, what’s infinitely worst, wouldn’t we be guilty of “segregating” ourselves off from these people of color? Why, from this vantage point, the imposition of a travel ban would make Bull Connors of us all!
Secondly, to restrict immigration in this respect is to imply that we could restrict it in all respects. In other words, something like a travel ban on flights from West Africa speaks not just to the issue of “racism” toward blacks, but to the issue of immigration as well.
Of course, considering that the overwhelming majority of immigrants that has been flooding the country since the middle of the 1960’s consist of non-whites from the Third World, immigration has become a race-related issue. Yet it is precisely because of this fact that it is enthusiastically welcomed by those—like our esteemed President—who regard America’s historical white majority as a cause for lamentation.
The absolute last thing that immigration enthusiasts want to do is to show Americans that immigration can be halted.
Make no mistakes: the PC Zeitgeist regarding “racism” and immigration compose the paradigm through which the Ebola “crisis” is being approached.
But there is another prevalent idea that also serves to impede our efforts to deal sensibly with Ebola carriers from the Dark Continent.
This is the idea that America is not historical country, but, well, an idea, auniversal concept or ideal.
Here’s the problem: ideas do not—because they cannot—have borders.
An idea is an immaterial or incorporeal entity, and as the Christian philosopher Boethius once noted, it is self-evident that “incorporeal things cannot exist in a place.
If America is an idea, then Americans are citizens of the world. This in turn means that all of the world’s citizens who affirm “the idea” that is America are Americans.
Borders, then, to say nothing of—horror of horrors!—bans, are egregious.

As we watch the national debate over the topic of Ebola unfold, we should bear in mind that the forgoing constitutes the framework within which it transpires—even if no one will admit, or maybe even notice, it.
The original is here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2014/10/17/political-correctness-and-ebola-n1906550/page/full

-----------
Quibcag: An amazing number of cute anime girls turn out to be immigrants from alien planets, Narue, of The World of Narue (Japanese: 成恵の世界 Narue no Sekai) is one of them.