Uncategorized

Cops are the only ones who can kill a police dog and not be charged with some bullshit charge involving attacking a cop. Above the law.

Women keep screaming about how men should have no say in whether or not women get an abortion. They say “my body, my choice.” Let’s put aside the whole “I want to murder another human being because letting it live is inconvenient” argument for a moment.

Let’s just suppose for a moment that a developing fetus is not a living organism. The women claim that denying them access to abortions is akin to slavery by forcing them to provide sustenance to a developing child against their will.

Ok. Let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion.

No more welfare, food stamps, or other forms of public assistance. That includes Medicaid. Forcing me to support your freeloading ass while you fuck, party, drink, and get high is slavery. Find a way to earn your own living. Beg on the corner. Get an OnlyFans page. Suck dicks for money. I don’t care. Just don’t expect me to pay for your lazy ass.

How is that? Fair trade?

Kids prevented from going to school by an alligator blocking the front doors.

Hackers are breaking into EV charging stations. Just wait until they load some ransomware onto your car, and require you to pay $2,500 to unlock it.

Take a look at this article: The Buffalo Shooter Isn’t a ‘Lone Wolf.’ He’s a Mainstream Republican. The “othering” continues. The road looks like this:

The left began with “Anyone who says things that I disagree with is a racist,” which has turned into “Anyone who says things that I disagree with needs to be prevented from speaking.” A quote from the article:

He may have, as he claims, become radicalized by over-enthused browsing of the Internet’s sewers, principally 4chan. But his fixations mirror those of the right wing more broadly, from violent transphobia to a loathing of immigration to a preoccupation with the possibility of civil war.

Enter the new Disinformation Governance Board. Expect there to be a wholesale attack on things like 4chan. Note that the line is now: “Anyone who says something that I disagree with is a mass murderer.”

How long before it turns into “Anyone who says something that I disagree with needs to be eliminated?”

From Reuters:

Ukrainian border guards repelled an incursion by a Russian sabotage and reconnaissance group in the northeastern region of Sumy on Monday, the governor of the Sumy region said.

The picture with the article:

Is that what $80 billion gets you?

My wife and I took my sister to lunch yesterday. My sister brought her youngest daughter, aged 14, with her. We had a conversation about economics. It started because my niece made the statement that people should get things that are necessary for free, because we all have a right to the necessities of life. She used feminine hygiene products as an example. I don’t hold it against her- she is a child and has no idea how life works.

So I told her that I wasn’t picking on her, but pointed out to her that, since no one was paying for tampons, there would be no money to pay the people who worked in the tampon factory, so why would anyone work there for free?

Her first reply was, “Wait! There is a tampon factory?” (Again, a child)

I said, “Well just where do you think tampons come from? Is there a tampon tree somewhere?”

She replied, “Well, in that case, I suppose you could get women to work there and pay them with free tampons.”

I said, “What would that be worth? Everyone gets tampons for free in this scenario, so how is this woman going to eat, buy gas, or buy a house?”

She said, “That’s my point. Money is stupid. Why can’t everyone just trade and barter for stuff? Why should we all have to go to work just to be able to afford the things we need to live? The government can just print all of the money we need.”

Sigh. That began my attempted explanation of how money works. She tuned me out after the first couple of minutes. The thing is, this is the exact same attitude that her 21 year old sister has.

Her older sister is 21 years old, still lives at home with mommy but is saying that she is an adult and doesn’t have to follow rules. She doesn’t have a drivers license and depends on her mother for rides to work, shopping, etc. She went to college for a year, but decided that was not what she wanted, so now works as a waitress and refuses to help with rent, food, or any other expenses or chores around the house. She expects mommy to cook, clean, and do her laundry for her. No surprise: she is a hard core left wing Democrat and dresses like a walking freak show. A lot like her mother was when she was younger.

My sister finally gave her daughter an ultimatum: she has to move out by October 1. My patience would have run out about 2 years ago.

This is a large portion of the youth of today. They want socialism because they don’t want to do anything but party. I don’t know how we can reach them. It seems to be a lost cause. Instead of working for a living, they are voting for a living. It’s been going on for a decade.

I sound like an old man bitching about “these kids today.”

On last week’s post about the use of force to prevent arson, there were some commenters who pointed out that all arson doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. That is correct, especially in one person’s example of someone burning your garden shed. Burning a garden shed or a backyard doghouse usually wouldn’t be a forcible felony. (Although it could be) Still, it is more complicated than that. Of course it is, because any time lawyers get involved, it always is.

Even armed robbery is not always a justification for the use of deadly force. For example, if the other side’s attorney can prove that, for some reason, you knew that the assailant’s firearm wasn’t functional, then you can’t use deadly force. Let’s say that you knew that the pistol in the robber’s hand was either unloaded or that the firing pin was missing. Even if some critter is pointing a gun at you, you can’t just blow his ass away, no matter how much you want to.

Some argued that, if a structure isn’t occupied, arson isn’t a forcible felony. The courts in Florida don’t see it that way. In fact, this particular legal argument has been made numerous times, and Florida courts have struck it down each and every time. See Woody v. State, 847 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Perez v. State, 840 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Rodriguez v. State, 826 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), rehearing denied with opinion, 837 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, No. SC03-444, 848 So,2d 1155 (Fla. 2003); Diaz v. State, 837 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Delsol v. State, 837 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Early laws in Florida (before 1979) stated that setting a building on fire was only arson if the building was occupied. That definition was changed in 1979 because many people were finding and using loopholes.

So my thought here, and I can’t find any case law to the contrary, is that an occupiable building (like a church, a house, a business, etc) is presumed to be occupied and this makes it arson. Going back to the “reasonable” belief standard that all gun owners are familiar with means that if you KNOW that no one is inside the building, shooting someone to prevent the arson would be seen as not reasonable.

However, seeing someone beginning to toss a “destructive device” at an occupiable structure would, absent other mitigating factors, be legal, IMO.

Spain is proposing a law that would force employers to give women up to 5 days’ paid leave each month so they can stay home when having menstrual cramps.

If this comes to the US, I am going to declare myself to be a tranny so I can get a week of paid leave every month.

Seriously, though: why would any employer hire premenopausal women under such conditions?