October 30, 2007

Scared Criminals = Bad?

Did you know that, according to the LA Times, that criminals scared of breaking the law is bad? Apparently, again, according to the LA Times, criminals should not be scared to break the law. I guess the Times would prefer that criminals and law enforcement just be peaceful. Perhaps in their world, crimes would go like this:

Criminal: Hi, I'm here to rape, rob, and murder you.
Victim: Oh great. I just need to finish up mailing this letter, then I'll be right with you.
Criminal: That's fine, I can wait a couple minutes.
Victim: Okay, I'm done, you can go right ahead with your crime.
Criminal: Thanks for cooperating.

* Criminal the proceeds to rape, rob, and murder the victim. As the criminal finishes, the police show up *

Policeman: Hey, you there, are you committing a crime?
Criminal: (zipping up pants) Who, me? No, not at all. I just found this person here.
Policeman: Really? Are you sure? It sort of looks like you just killed that person. After all, you've got blood all over you, and that's her purse in your hand.
Criminal: Okay, you got me. I'm sorry. I'm the one who did this. I killed her.
Policeman: That's better. I'm glad that you admitted it. Now how do you feel about your crime?
Criminal: I feel really bad, sortof. I just don't know.
Policeman: Well let's sit down and talk about it, m'kay?

Hey LA Times, perhaps you're not aware of it, but there's bad people in the world. There's people who break the law. And there's people, who if they're not stopped, will continue to break the law and do violent and bad things to other people. I'm sorry that the LA Times cannot understand something so simple.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:07 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Jefferson on the Constitution

�They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.� �Thomas Jefferson

Once again, R.I.P. America.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:09 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Jessica's Law Now NC

The folks at Jessica's Law Now NC sent along this little tidbit that I thought I'd spread around:

This person works in the General Assembly and cannot reveal his name, but he is a big supporter of Jessica's law. Here are this comments: This is important. The thing will never get to the floor or out of committee unless you can get Rand and Basnight on your side. Make it worth their while. Pressure the heck out of them. (This comment is all OFF THE RECORD).

This is how things REALLY WORK in the Senate. It's not above board, like in the House. That's why this bill keeps passing the house but never gets thru the Senate.

Comment:
You might want to mention that Senator Berger is the Senate Republican Leader, Senator Brown and Senator Tillman are also supporters. This bill has very little chance of being heard unless you can convince Senator Rand to hear it.

Basnight is king of the Senate. What he says goes, period. It is nearly impossible to overrule him. Indeed, he has more power than the governor, because the governor is term-limited, while he has been there TWENTY-FOUR YEARS. Indeed, if you want something in the state of North Carolina, talk to the king. If he's on your side, no one can stop you. Of course, if he's not on your side, there's no chance that your issue will ever see the light of day.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:05 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Very Good article:

The New McCarthyism - Human Rights Watch Addresses Difficult Problem

http://tinyurl.com/2dgn8b

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 03:17 PM (BcHsU)

2 Interesting article. And certainly, I'm conscious of unintended consequences of laws. But I'd question the article's claim that sex offenders don't have a high recidivism rate. I'd like to see concrete data on that one before I believe it.

I also don't have much compassion for a law that requires someone who rapes children to have to live "far from their family."

Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2007 03:23 PM (oifEm)

3 Laws need to be passed on EMPIRICAL DATA and not emotion created by media hype and polititians need for votes.

White Papers, Studies, Official Government Reports, Empirical Information

Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies
2007 Jill S. Levenson, Yolanda N. Brannon, Timothy Fortney, Juanita Baker 25 Pages; 536 KB
The hypothesis that community members hold inaccurate beliefs about sex offenders was supported. Respondents estimated sex offense recidivism rates to be around 75%. In contrast, the best available evidence suggests that sex offense recidivism rates range from 5 to 14% over 3- to 6-year follow-up periods (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005) and 24% over 15-year follow-up periods (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Although official recidivism data underestimate true reoffense rates (Hanson&Bussiere, 199, ample evidence suggests that the majority of convicted sex offenders do not go on to commit new sex crimes. It might have been interesting to ask respondents about their sources information, but we speculate that the media furnishes a substantial amount of this type of data to most people (Lotke, 1997; Proctor et al., 2002; Sample & Kadleck, 2006).

Respondents were accurate in their assessment that many victims know their abusers, but overestimated the number of sexual assaults committed by strangers. Apparently the myth that many rapes occur in dark alleys remains prevalent, despite evidence to the contrary (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002, 2004). Also, there continues to be a perception that sex crime rates are on the rise, probably due to the attention that these crimes receive in the media. In fact, rape arrest rates have decreased steadily since 1991 (Maguire & Pastore, 2003), and child sexual abuse rates have also declined (Finkelhor & Jones, 2004; Jones & Finkelhor, 2003).

In sum, these data have important implications for public policy. Our hypothesis that the public is poorly informed about sex offenders was supported. Specifically, myths of extraordinarily high recidivism rates and stranger danger prevail, and the public appears to view all sex offenders as posing a similar threat to communities. These widespread beliefs perpetuate the development of increasingly restrictive policies as politicians endeavor to serve their constituents. In actuality, sex offenders represent a diversity of offense patterns and a wide range of risk for reoffense (Doren, 1998; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004; Harris & Hanson, 2004; Prentky et al., 1997). As a result, one-size-fits-all policies are not likely to be cost efficient, nor are they likely to afford maximum protection to the public.
www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/0701Levenson.pdf

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 03:23 PM (BcHsU)

4 Excellent information, thank you. One part I'd also like, because I didn't think that recidivism rates were that high -- is how often that a person who commits a sex abuse crime has committed one in the past. In other words, I realize that many who commit the crimes don't commit more, but if the vast majority of those who DO commit this type of crime have done it in the past, I see an inherent risk in allowing people like this to go free. And believe me, I take it quite seriously taking away someone's liberty.

And I also do realize that many things that are considered "sex crimes" should not be crimes at all, much less "sex" crimes.

Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2007 03:29 PM (oifEm)

5 White Papers, Studies, Official Government Reports, Empirical Information

Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa
February 14, 2006 Iowa County Attorneys Association 5 Pages; 108KB
The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000 foot residency restriction for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirements and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures.
www.iowa-icaa.com/ICAA%20STATEMENTS/Sex%20Offender%20Residency%20Statement%20Feb%2014%2006%20for%20website.pdf


Twenty Findings of Research on Residential Restrictions for Sex Offenders and the Iowa Experience with Similar Policies
2006 Compilation of experts
1. Housing restrictions appear to be based largely on three myths that are repeatedly propagated by the media: 1) all sex offenders reoffend; 2) treatment does not work; and 3) the concept of 'stranger danger.' Research does not support these myths, but there is research to suggest that such policies may ultimately be counterproductive. Sex offender residence restrictions. A Report to the Florida Legislature, October 2005, Jill S. Levinson, Ph.D.
4. There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction. Iowa County Attorneys Association
10. The sex offender residency restriction was a very well intentioned effort to keep the children of our communities safe from sex offenders. It has, however, had unintended consequences that effectively decrease community safety. Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault
19. A significant number of offenders have married or have been reunited with their victims; and, in those cases, the residency restriction is imposed on the victims as well as the offenders. Iowa County Attorneys Association
www.dc.state.ks.us/publications/sex-offender-housing-restrictions

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 03:31 PM (BcHsU)

6 Indeed, the perception that all sex offenders re-offend is out there. I have also heard reported (as you can see by my comments) that treatment doesn't work (short of castration or the like). I've never bought into the concept that strangers are the worst offenders. I've always thought the concept of telling kids to beware of strangers just creates a horrible world and society.

These are great links and reports, thank you for sending them along. I know some of the people from Jessica's Law stop by and read here now and then, I'd love to hear their reactions to some of these.

Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2007 03:35 PM (oifEm)

7
Banishment or Facilitated Reentry: A Human Rights Perspective

November 17, 2005 Corinne A. Carey, Esq., Human Rights Watch, ATSA Conference 31 Pages; 181KB
The consequences of violating privacy rights: • Employment; • Housing; • Family integrity; • Human dignity.

What are we doing wrong? Registration and community notification laws sweep far too broadly.
� Result: Far too many people are subject to stigma and restrictions; resources and attention are unfocused. By labeling a person a 'sex offender,' the state justifies denying that person fundamental human rights.
� Result: 'Sex offenders; are alienated, have little investment in the responsibilities that accompany human rights; there is a strong disincentive to register as a 'sex offender.' Registration and community notification laws sweep far too broadly.
� Result: Far too many people are subject to stigma and restrictions; resources and attention are unfocused. By labeling a person a 'sex offender,' the state justifies denying that person fundamental human rights.
� Result: 'Sex offenders' are alienated, have little investment in the responsibilities that accompany human rights; there is a strong disincentive to register as a 'sex offender.'
www.soclear.org/MultiMedia/Documents/CorrineCarey-SLC_ATSA-1.pdf
www.soclear.org/MultiMedia/Documents/CorrineCarey-SLC_ATSA-1.ppt (PowerPoint 30 slides)

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 03:41 PM (BcHsU)

8 I agree with those conclusions -- but if an adult sexually attacks a child under age 10, they SHOULD be stigmatized. They should be denied fundamental human rights. Hell, they should almost be put to death, in my opinion.

Again, I think the definition of a "sex offender" is way too broad currently.

Posted by: Ogre at October 30, 2007 03:45 PM (oifEm)

9 I'm searching for more on treatment. lol Great question.

States Aim To Stop Sex Offenders: Will New laws Keep Children Safe?
Fall/Winter 2006 Lori Robertson - The Children's Beat 4 Pages; 907KB
Nancy Sabin is the Executive Director of the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, an organization founded by the parents of Minnesota boy who was kidnapped when he was 11 years old and has never been found. 'Jacob's Law.' a 1997 federal act mandating greater registration requirements for sex offenders, is among the foundation's legislative accomplishments. But Sabin criticizes the narrow focus of the recent spat of laws. 'If your charged and convicted, that represents 10% of the (sex) crimes,' She say's explaining that the largest groups of offenders are those who are unknown (graph below) or uncharged. So, the question she has: Why are all the resources targeting this tiny group?

When you factor in the small percentage of that group that will reoffend, the focus becomes even narrower, she say's. Sabin would like to see more dollars spent on education and awareness programs, treatment and transition into society. 'What I'm saying, is we're not turning the water off at the faucet,' Sabin says. 'How quickly are we going to reduce the problem?'

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 03:51 PM (BcHsU)

10 "Are Sex Offenders Treatable?
A Research Overview
Linda S. Grossman, Ph.D.
Brian Martis, M.D.
Christopher G. Fichtner, M.D.
Few issues in the mental health
field are capable of stirring
more controversy than the
psychiatric treatment of sex offenders.
Recent legislation in a growing
number of states providing for civil
commitment and preventive detention
of sexually violent persons (1,2)
has fueled long-standing debates on
the diagnosis of paraphilias, the nature
of mental illness, and the treatability
of sex offenders (3).
Objective:
This file is way too big for here. but if you go to http://sosen.us/ join their National and look at their file section under "Reports and Studies," you will find much valuable research and emperical data

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 04:01 PM (BcHsU)

11 This is very interesting

The Influence of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws in the United States

October, 2005 Arkansas Crime Information Center: Jeffery T. Walker, PhD, Sean Maddan, Bob E. V�squez, Amy C. VanHouten, Gwen Ervin-McLarty 19 Pages; 53.5KB
The key finding of this research is that the passage of sex offender registration and notification laws have had no systematic influence on the number of rapes committed in these states as a whole. Most of the states in our sample (five of ten) showed no significant differences (increase or decrease) in the average number of rapes committed before and after the sex offender laws...

These findings beg the question of what is occurring concerning the relationship between sex offender registration and notification and subsequent sex offending. It is possible, as Sample’s (2001) research indicated, that this was knee jerk legislation based simply on keeping the constituency happy. If that is true, sex offender registration and notification laws are failed legislation...

[T]he rationale behind sex offender laws would assume that a majority of the offenses committed within the confines of any year would actually be sex offenders who are re-offending. A potential alternative assumption is that in those states with increases (roughly half of the states examined here), it would be expected that these offenders would be first time offenders or offenders who have never been caught before. This is supported by Walker and McLarty (2000) who found that 73% of sex offenders in their study committed a sex offense as their first offense. If this is the case, it would be expected that sex offender registration and notification is not able to control this population because a substantial number of them are committing sex offenses as their first offense. Hence, there is no name on the register and no way to inform the community...
www.acic.org/statistics/Research/SO_Report_Final.pdf

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 04:06 PM (BcHsU)

12

Societal Myths about Sex Offending and Consequences for Prevention of Offending Behavior Against Children and Women
James Krivacska, assisted by James Free, Richard Gibb and Drew Kinnear
Ultimately, society's interests are not served by preservation of myths about sex offending behavior. Especially in these times, when it appears that incidence of sex offending behavior is increasing despite the heightened punishments that are being put into place, society needs to understand how sex offending behavior develops and what it can do to prevent offending behavior. Community/Internet notification represents after-the-fact prevention. As noted in the outset of this article, society needs to begin addressing prevention before the fact, since most offenses are committed by first time offenders. In fact, between 10% to 20% of male community samples (e.g., university students, hospital staff, etc.) admit to sexual offending (Hanson & Scott, 1995; Lisak & Roth, 1988; Templeman & Stinnett, 1991). As part of the recovery effort and treatment program at ADTC, and as part of a personal commitment to "No More Victims," many inmates at ADTC have spent considerable time and energy exploring the nature of the offending behavior in which they engage. The ultimate challenge to a society which wants to protect its citizens, young and old alike, from sex offending behavior is to look realistically at the problem and to recognize that a potential sex offender may be living in their community, working in their business, residing even in their homes. They most also recognize that dynamics are currently in place in contemporary society to foster the growth of the next generation of sexual offenders among their own children. Society's ability to effectively and proactively prevent sexual offending behavior in the future may be directly related to its willingness to abandon the pursuit of interventions based on the myths which hithertofore have remained impervious to rational challenge and revision.
www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_2.htm

Posted by: Linda at October 30, 2007 04:10 PM (BcHsU)

13 Thanks for all this information and links. I've got some reading to do!

Posted by: Ogre at October 31, 2007 11:53 AM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 29, 2007

Carolina Ren Fest

Ah, the Carolina Renaissance Festival continues to roll on!

I haven't blogged much this year about the wonderful Renaissance Festival. It's not because it hasn't been great, but actually because there's just so much going on right now. One reason I get the season tickets is so I can just run by on some afternoons and spend just a few hours there and not feel bad about paying for a full price ticket. This is what I've been doing a lot of days, especially on Sundays.

I'm rather disappointed that Blackenshear isn't doing a show this year. I talked to Mister Blackenshear himself (he's there, playing instruments), and he's disappointed, too. If you're disappointed too, you can go here and send an email to the Entertainment director. I did.

But the other acts that are there are wonderful. I hope to spend all day this Saturday there with camera so I can post lots of fun stuff. Thom Selectomy is back after a 3-year hiatus. And of course, my all-time favorite, Dextre Tripp is there. And one that is growing on me is Manolete and his fire show -- completely new (and scary if you're the one on stage as I was) this year!

And again, the biggest attraction to me isn't even all the shows -- it's the atmosphere. All week long I see what's happening. I watch the news. I keep track of politics and the evil that is inherent in the entire government system today. And when you get to the fair, everything disappears. There's no politics. There's no judgment. There's just fun and relaxation. This is a place where the people who "work" there seem to be honestly having fun. They're not there because they need to earn money, they're not there because they were told by the government to be there -- they're just doing something they really like and happen to be good enough to earn some money for it. The entire atmosphere is wonderful. I have yet to meet someone at the fair that wasn't just a seemingly good and nice person (even if some of them are escaped hippies).

So if you get a chance, and if you want to relax, come on by the fair. I'd get you in free if I could, but I just have tickets for me, they don't give me spares. Come on out and relax some, won't you?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

US Continues Surrender

We give up. Sorry, but the jihadists have won. It doesn't matter if you, personally, have not surrendered, the United States already has. If you, personally, have not surrendered, welcome to my world -- the world of Don Quixote.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:09 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Edwards: I Can Spend MORE!

Wow. In the midst of the election season, the Democrats are trying to outbid one another. Each one says that they can spend more money than the others. And of course, that's money that you earn that they're bidding to spend. And Edwards even admits that he's going to raise taxes -- a LOT.

He wants to force 3-year old children into schools. It's not enough that the government brainwashes children from age 5-18, now he wants to start at age 3. Why? Because the school system NEEDS to take your children from you earlier so they can program them before you do. Seriously. Government schools are evil and they will destroy your children. And adding a couple years at your expense is what Edwards will do as president.

He wants to put banks out of business because he wants to create a new federal bank savings program -- just for "poor" people -- that will give them free cash. Again, he will have to take that money from people who actually work to earn it so he can give it to "the poor." He's calling it "matching savings accounts." I think I want to be poor so I can get a 100% return on my money. In fact, just in case he becomes president, I think I'll start working now on creating two or three new identities (I think I'll be from Mexico) so I can launder money through federal accounts with 100% interest.

He wants a $9.50 minimum wage. Well that makes sense because he needs "poor" people to support with his other various programs and the quickest way to create more poor people is to make the economic market so screwed up that more people will have to be fired -- or work under the table. The more government screws with the capitalist system, the more people will work to find ways around it. Then again, that might be a good thing because then we could all be "poor" and get a 100% return on our savings accounts.

He wants to give away a million houses to "the poor." Don't you want to be poor now? Not only do you get a 100% return on savings investments, you also get a free house! And like other crappy Section 8 programs, if you don't take care of your house and you destroy it, running it into the ground, the government will just give you another one to destroy.

But wait, there's more!

Yes, not to be outdone with his spending, Edwards also wants to disrupt the entire economic system of higher education by giving away college educations for free, too! It's called "College for Everyone." Awwwww. Isn't that special? Yes, Edwards is going to take enough money from working people to force children into school from age 3 to 23 now. Twenty years of your life will be spent in government education buildings. Government will decide what and when you shall learn for twenty years. You WILL go to the government education camps buildings.

Oh, and you'll have socialized medicine "instantly" according to Edwards. Let's vote for this guy and just be done with this experiment we called "Democracy." It will be better if we end it quickly.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

School Choice -- in Ghana?

I was send a link to a video about school choice and education issues in Ghana. I haven't had time to view the whole thing yet, but it looks at least reasonable. I did notice, early in the segment, statements about the MASSIVE problems with government-provided education -- that the government system absolutely and completely fails to educate, well, anyone. Does that sound like a system you know?

If you want a list of TV stations that plan on broadcasting the show, that's here. Or, if you like, you can just check out the previews for the segment.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Government Employee Whining

Hey, guess what? Lazy government employees are complaining they're not getting more free stuff than people who work and produce things. I'm shocked, I tell you. This time it's government academic employees who are whining about insurance. Are you ready for what they think they "deserve" for "working" for government?

civil servants hired in North Carolina after Oct. 1 will have to work 20 years before qualifying for 100 percent state-paid medical coverage. The length of time was previously a wait period of only five years.

Oh, and how many of you get health coverage FOR LIFE like government employees do? You didn't know that? Yes, government employees in North Carolina get free health care for their entire life, even once they stop working for the state, once they've met the requirements.

Government "has to compete" claim those who support free crap for unproductive government employees. My answer to that is that government SHOULD NOT compete. If there's something that government is doing that private industry will do, government shouldn't be doing it. Government should NEVER compete, because they always win (because they have unlimited cash).

Here's a novel idea: how about letting people be free? How about getting the government out of ALL insurance company and health regulations? How about letting people buy whatever insurance THEY WANT instead of forcing them to buy crap they don't need? And don't blame the costs on the insurance companies -- the costs are high because government FORCES people to buy crap they don't want.

For example, I'd like to buy catostropic coverage. This would insure me only in case of serious injury. I don't want doctor visits covered. I don't want insurance against AIDS. I don't want a chiropractor visit covered. I don't want insurance for alternative medicine. I don't want to buy insurance for mental heath coverage and alcohol rehab inpatient services. But know what? I am FORCED by government to buy all that stuff. I simply don't have the option NOT to pay piles of money for all these things I don't want -- because government requires it.

Government should do less, not more -- and we would be a more free, and a more healthy country.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:05 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 27, 2007

NC GOP Tailgate Contest

Planning on attending a sporting event this fall? Why not make it a political event? The NC Young Republicans Club is against sponsoring a Tailgate Contest -- you could win $500 for supporting a Republican candidate this year.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 You mean "again" of course and not "against"

Posted by: joated at October 28, 2007 12:15 AM (AiJXe)

2 WHoa. Now that's a neat typo! You are correct, of course.

Posted by: Ogre at October 28, 2007 07:27 PM (2WD8n)

3 You have "operatives?"

Neat.

Posted by: Ogre at October 29, 2007 03:55 PM (oifEm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Social Services is Limited?

I honestly cannot believe this story. It claims that a judge actually ruled that social services employees actually have to obey the law. Well, he didn't actually rule that, instead he allowed a lawsuit to go forward that is against social services. I expect the lawsuit to fail.

In this case, social services did what social services does -- they used force of government to break various laws because "It's For The Children." They used an anonymous tip to clearly and openly violate Constitutionally protected rights. They used threats of unstoppable, unquestionable government force to bully people into doing what they wanted to. They threatened violence against people who had committed no crime -- backed up by FOUR men with guns.

Basically, social services showed up at someone's house. The people had committed no crime. NO ONE had any evidence or suspicion that anyone had committed a crime. Even after openly breaking the law, the government STILL found no evidence that any sort of crime had ever been committed by the people. But none of that matters. Social Services wanted in that house, and they were going in, or they were going to kill someone (literally).

They brought a pile of armed government thugs with them (sheriffs). They continued to threaten violence against the homeowners unless the homeowners let them in to search their premises for, well, any damn thing they wanted -- they are social services, and they have guns. These government goons said that they were going to inspect the house -- and if the people refused, these thugs were going to arrest them, use violence against them AND take their children away from them by force.

Now if I were to do that to someone, I'd go to jail for a VERY long time. But these were government goons, so they're literally allowed to do anything they want because no one can stop them.

So far, the lawsuit has been allowed to proceed -- only after the government actually filed a motion claiming that since they're government, they're literally above the law! Yes, government actually filed a motion in court that says they don't have to obey the law because they're government employees. That's the position of social services departments around the world. But the lawsuit has not been won yet, it's just proceeding. I honestly hope these people do win the lawsuit to show at least a few government employees that they do have to obey the law.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if you have children that you have a plan to escape. I suggest a small pile of cash, a bag with clothes and supplies, and a plan of a place to head OUT OF STATE in case social services ever shows up at your doorstep. This is, in my opinion, the most evil of the government services: social services. They are not bound by any laws and they will take your children and THEN let you try and prove your innocence. Your current best defense is to flee, hide the children, and then fight them.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:08 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Government "Cost" for non-education?

It's amazing how far away from freedom this country has really moved. How about a study that measures the "cost" to government for public school drop outs? Yes, this group claims that it costs the state of North Carolina $169 million a year due to students that drop out of high school -- because of medicaid costs, less tax income, and prison costs.

How stupid is this? Presumably, based on this report, if the government would just issue kids high school diplomas when they turned 18 (we could just mail them), then the government would "save" $169 million each year. Since it's such a big savings, perhaps we should just include a check for a couple million in each diploma government mails to them.

What crap.

How about we stop paying for Medicare for people? Yes, it IS possible for people to get healthcare without government buying it -- it's happened for hundreds of years. Yes, it's possible for people to earn a living without a (useless) government diploma that says they've learned, well, nothing. It's been going on for thousands of years.

How about a study on how much money the state would "save" if they stopped spending money on a failed education system that simply does not educate anyone? How about a study on how much the government would save if people learned by themselves and at home, where they will learn a great deal MORE than they could ever learn in a government institution? My guess is we'd have a MUCH more educated society AND save tens of billions of dollars a year.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:04 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 26, 2007

The Prime Directive

I think I need to put this on my Christmas list:

If you don't get it, don't worry, you're just not geeky enough.

(H/T to VW Bug).

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I laughed so hard when I saw this shirt...

Posted by: vw bug at October 26, 2007 08:10 PM (FPOeI)

2 I think I actually need 2 or 3...

Posted by: Ogre at October 26, 2007 09:36 PM (2WD8n)

3 LOL!

Posted by: William Teach at October 27, 2007 12:42 AM (NaHh8)

4 Ah, someone gets it!


Geek.

Posted by: Ogre at October 27, 2007 12:29 PM (2WD8n)

5 Now if I would only stop breaking the PD, like Captain Picard was accused of always doing in "The Drumhead."

Massive geek attack that I actually remember the name of that episode, eh? Was my favorite one.

Posted by: William Teach at October 27, 2007 02:04 PM (iS/pK)

6 Since when does anyone follow the Prime Directive.

Posted by: Mindflame at October 28, 2007 02:34 PM (/CArA)

7 We have to! Or else...

Yup, Teach, you are indeed a geek.

Posted by: Ogre at October 28, 2007 07:25 PM (2WD8n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Searching for Chuck Norris

So, you want to Search for Chuck Norris, huh? I don't think you'll find him.

That's funny, right there, I don't care who you are.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:04 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Fred on Immigration

Well, it seems that Fred Thompson has released his immigration plans. They sound good. Then again, most of the people running for president right now are saying all sorts of things they don't really mean, support, or have ever done before. I don't know enough yet about Thompson to support him. Of course, I don't know enough about him yet to oppose him, either.

Then again, if immigration is your single issue, Tom Tancredo is the only way to go. Seriously. No one can beat Tom on immigration. Duncan Hunter is right there with Tancredo. Ron Paul's got great long-term solutions to immigration. Rudy McRomney all support amnesty and no international borders at all. Take your pick.

ABC News (D) has up a quiz to "help" you decide your candidate. It's pretty bad. Admittedly, you can only have so many options in a multiple choice test, but still, the questions are VERY slanted. For example, one says, "What is the best way the federal government can get more people covered by health insurance?" There's no answer for "The federal government should shut up and get out of all associations with health insurance, including any and all regulation of insurance at all."

I still ended up with Ron Paul #1, Tom Tancredo #2, and Duncan Hunter #3. Well, those are the three I certainly support the most at this time (even if I did disagree with them on this quiz a whole bunch).

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

US to God: Get Lost!

The open campaign to remove God from America continues. This time it's happening at The Washington Monument. We simply cannot, and will not, have any references to God Almighty in the country. It cannot be permitted. Why? Because in order to fully implement socialism, there can be NO higher power than government.

As usual, the government employees fall back on "I'm just doing my job."

I wish there were somewhere I could go that was interested in freedom. I wish there was somewhere I could go where I could worship whatever God I wanted without fear of history being changed against God. I wish there were a country that allowed full freedom of religion. Unfortunately, there's no such place today.

Sure, you can worship on your Sunday mornings (if the government gives you permission to do that in a certain place). And you can have your private thoughts about religion (for now). But any public expression of religion, if it's related to Christianity, simply will not be tolerated. If there is a historical event related to God, it will be censored. I wonder how soon it will be before all references to any higher power will be removed from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

But at least we're not in fear of immediate retribution from God. While Soddom was destroyed because not one believer could be found, America still has a few left who honor and worship God. Those people may soon be in jail, as they have been in Canada and other countries, but for now America isn't jailing you for saying, "Jesus." Well, as long as you do it in the right place.

Oh, how I yearn for truth and freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Road Taxes for Roads?

What a absolutely radical idea! According to this report, Fred Smith, if elected governor of North Carolina, will actually use money that is collected via taxes for building roads to -- wait for it -- BUILD ROADS! This man is clearly a serious radical.

For decades now, the Democrats (who have controlled the North Carolina state government for LITERALLY over 100 years -- the Republicans have NEVER, ever, in all recorded history had a majority in the Senate) have been collecting money from things like gas taxes and motor vehicles taxes. When these laws were passed, the reason the taxes were placed on those vehicles was to pay for roads. However, the Democrats just didn't want to build roads. Instead, they decided they wanted to, well, basically just give the money to their friends. They have been taking billions from the highway and roads funds and putting it in the "general" budget. If you've driven on any roads in North Carolina in the past 10 years, you can see the effect this has.

Fred Smith, who is running for governor, says that he's had enough. He says that money collected from taxes to build roads should be used to build roads. I just can't grasp the concept. Here in North Carolina, we just don't need roads. After all, according to mayor Pat McCrory, building a big train set will solve all the world's problems.

But hey, maybe if you support building roads (and repairing the pothole ridden things we have now), perhaps you should think about supporting Fred Smith for governor.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:05 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

October 25, 2007

Military Motivator

This place is pretty neat. I love those posters. I think my two favorites from the site are this one (because I can SO related to that) and this one (because he is such a bastard).

(Hat tip to Kat).

Posted by: Ogre at 07:06 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Schip. Again.

Well, it's coming back again. Folks, we ARE going to have socialized medicine. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. It doesn't matter that it will hurt and kill people, just like socialism does every single place on the planet it's ever been tried. You see, socialism works for two reasons: because it's for the "greater good" (even if it kills some people, others will be better off) and because, at least in America, there's many good people.

You see, there's a lot of people in America still left that just won't give up. There's a lot of people who still see the value in hard work, so they're going to work hard, no matter what. There's people who, even if the income tax rises to 75%, are still going to work hard. Of course, that number continues to shrink as more people find out that if they don't work, government will provide, well, everything for them.

But there's still that mass of people who just ignore government, ignore politics, and continue working. There's the mass that doesn't realize that 20-50% of their earnings are being taken from them -- they just don't care because they're going to work hard. As long as there is this mass, socialism and socialist medicine will continue to expand, and will continue to work in America.

Of course, once more students from public schools graduate -- who have not been taught that hard work is good -- and more people retire and simply give up -- it will be harder to sustain the socialist system. The next generation is in serious trouble -- but no one cares about them. And after all, socialized medicine will "help" some people.

So socialism continues. Socialist medicine (SCHIP) will be implemented. And good people will continue to work hard -- at least as long as they can. And freedom will continue to decline until it just simply doesn't exist -- but you won't know, because you'll be working too hard.

Raven has more gory details.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Blame for Fires

Well, I'm glad we've finally figured out the solution to all the fires in California. You see, while Barbara Boxer blames Bush, it appears that she was wrong all along. Instead, according to liberal, unelected bureaucrats (who are never, ever, ever, wrong), it was just lack of money. All we have to do is give up MORE money that we earn, and there will be no fires in California. Isn't that great news?

Therefore, all you liberals must immediately agree to send 80% of your earnings to California. It's for the "public good" and will "benefit everyone." And if you do, according to the bureaucrats, there will be no fires (or at least none that cause any damage). Isn't utopia wonderful?

Oh, and if, after you send them 80% of what you earn there are still fires, it only shows that you didn't give them enough money or the wrong people were in charge. A "new plan" will fix that (with a few more dollars, of course).

Liberals (Democrats/Socialists/etc) -- is there anything they can't do (with your money)?

Posted by: Ogre at 03:07 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Don't forget that it's for the children too.

Posted by: Trench at October 25, 2007 04:18 PM (VEZiY)

2 I'm sure it is -- but they didn't actually tote that line out this time -- YET...

Posted by: Ogre at October 25, 2007 04:27 PM (oifEm)

3 Hey, it's not like the fires come around all the time in Southern California:
http://www.echozoe.com/?p=16
Check the date on that post.

Posted by: Echo Zoe at October 25, 2007 11:28 PM (nIDjA)

4 Nope, fires never happen there. Guess it was a slow news week. I'm thinking they start positioning the satellites when fire season comes around just for the pictures.

Posted by: Ogre at October 26, 2007 12:07 AM (2WD8n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

More Victims of Homosexuals

Hey look, more children have been sacrificed by the homosexual lobby. These people do not care who gets hurt or damaged as they reach towards their goal of absolute and total approval of their lifestyle. Any hint of criticism of any homosexual act will be met with destruction.

In this case, an untold number of children who need help, who need foster homes, will now not be allowed a kind, loving home. Some unknown number of children will instead live without a family because of the homosexual agenda. And it's not because someone decided they wanted to say homosexuals were wrong. They didn't even want to say that homosexuals were bad. What did this couple do that was SO EVIL that they're now unfit to be foster parents?

They refused to teach their children that homosexuality was normal, acceptable, and they approved of it. That's the situation in England now. If you do not ACTIVELY PROMOTE and open approve of men putting their **** in another man's ****, then you are an unfit parent.

I only wonder how long it will be before people are jailed simply for NOT speaking "Gay is great."

This is not about acceptance or approval. In case you missed it, these people, and dozens of children, are being punished because they refused to stand up and tell 11-year old children that homosexuality is good. They didn't even have the option to teach nothing -- they are not permitted to remain silent. They HAD to explain to 11 year old children that putting your **** in another man's **** was a good thing.

Wow. What a completely and totally screwed up country. But don't worry, I'm sure we're close to that here in America. Anyone want to start a country with me where people have freedom to have religious beliefs and rights to say whatever they believe?

(H/T to Raven).

Posted by: Ogre at 01:38 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0939 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0782 seconds, 104 records returned.
Page size 94 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.