The Goat Pen

The auto accident was a guy speeding up a concrete incline off-road never intended for cars. It was reckless and he was charged for the death. (I don't know the outcome of the trial).

If only wiz reffed kickball in Utah.

I suspect it's hard not to be a bully for teens that are just stronger and bigger than others. I've seen studies on small kids who are bullied, but not big kids who doing the bullying. But my BIL (the one I don't like married to the wife's sister) just loves to intimidate. His demeanor often is one of intimidation and it spread to the way he treated his son (my MIL said he grandfather was the same way).

How hard is t 4 a teen bigger & stronger than others not to use it?

Oh well, off to church.

Owlman wrote:The auto accident was a guy speeding up a concrete incline off-road never intended for cars. It was reckless and he was charged for the death. (I don't know the outcome of the trial).

Still, unintentional. Most of us did stupid shit as teens, usually egged on by or showing off in front of the group. The slugger is a thug. He didn't shove the ref who then tripped and hit his head, he hit him up side the head with his (I assume) knuckles. Over a kickball game for Pete's sake.

heh. kickball

long but well written article explaining the pro gun position and why they won't budge against the anti-gun position.

3 points that stuck with me.

1. The constitution isn't about majority rules, its about protecting individual rights
2. The debate cannot start with the premise that "guns are bad, pro-gun people are bad"
3. Anti-Gun people don't want to have an honest discussion on guns.


http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... TNNoMobile

The soccer ref died.

Owlman wrote:Most Dangerous neighborhood in the country, allegedly:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/photos/most ... 6??photo=2

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
Neighborhood: Central Pky./Liberty St.
Found Within ZIP Code(s): 45210, 45214
Predicted Annual Violent Crimes: 457
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000): 266.94
My Chances of Becoming a Victim Here (in one year): 1 in 4

I think I know the reason behind this - OTR has become gentrified in a big way. OTR was usually in the top 25, this year its not even listed as Findlay Market has become the cornerstone to drive hipsters, yuppies and small business owners to go in and take over boarded up building and convert them into a trending neighborhood in Cincinnati. The castaways and people living in the shadows of OTR had to go somewhere. To the east you have Mount Adams where all the singles and partiers live, along with some old money neighborhoods. Since Mount Adams cost some serious $$$ to get into, then the singles and dinks who couldn't afford it start buying up OTR housing and rehabbing it which drove the OTR people west.






Yesterday I wanted a real New York style pizza and we have nothing out in whitebread suburbia I live in so we google "New York Style Pizza" and find a place on the outskirts of Norwood called..well "New York Style Pizza" - How can I go wrong?
So we drive 18 miles to this place all the while in my mind I'm think giant triangle slices dripping with cheese that you have to fold to eat and we finally find the place. My first let down is their sign - not only do they have New York Style pizza, but they also have New York Style fish, gyeros, bar-b-q ( the biggest WTF? of them all) and hoagies. Then they have these pictures of the food similar to what you'd see at the Chinese restaurant where every place has the exact same menu. I guess its anti-climatic at this point in the story to say but the pizza I got was rivaled Speedway gas station pizza. I was seriously bummed out about that for the rest of the day, especially given we passed my favorite Indian buffet along the way on our quest for shitty pizza.

"1. The constitution isn't about majority rules, its about protecting individual rights"

Actually, the constitution is, ultimately, about majority rules, b/c if enough people are for something, they can change the constitution...

New information on Trayvon Martin - it has little relevance to the shooting but its worth mentioning since no one in the Martin community will.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... lary-tool/

All that proves is that Treyvon was victimized twice...

He had a screw driver and some women's jewelry in his bag. It makes sense that Zimmerman had to shoot him. I'm sure George could just feel the priors.

handling it as a crime in the first place might mean he is still alive today.

Maybe.

eCat wrote:handling it as a crime in the first place might mean he is still alive today.

And still robbing little old ladies....

Lets call it the Ron Paul effect

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201305 ... um=twitter

Eff techdirt.com and its refusal to allow me to back browser.

But yeah, I remember when a coworker was telling me years back that a law enforcement friend of his was telling him how much cops should be allowed to do to stop terrorism and my response was "of course he's advocating for that stuff. Everyone wants to have all of the things that will allow them to do their jobs the most straight forward way possible...it's just that many law enforcement officers are okay with stripping away civil liberties to do it. Your friend's response is like asking an auditor to design all the things they would want access to in order to complete their audit."

When discussing NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly's assertion that "privacy is off the table" as a result of the Boston bombing, I mentioned I hadn't heard any public outcry demanding the government and law enforcement step in and do something (i.e., curtail civil liberties) in response to the tragedy. The responses we were seeing seemed to be nothing more than legislators and law enforcement officials pushing their own agendas.

This isn't just me not hearing what I don't want to hear. There's actual data available that explains the lack of concerned noises from Americans. A CNN/TIME poll shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans aren't interested in sacrificing rights to combat terrorism.

When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.

This is a vast improvement over 1996, when a post-Atlanta Olympics bombing poll showed only 23% opposed giving up freedom in exchange for fighting terrorism.

Breaking it down further, the poll also shows a bit of split along party lines. Self-identified Democrats are most likely to put their faith in government/law enforcement to make the U.S. "safer" by curtailing freedoms (51%). Republicans are less likely to favor this exchange (41%). For independents, less than a third (32%) are willing to give up some freedom to combat terrorism.

There is a bit of bad news contained within this generally positive indicator that Americans are less willing to give up something of theirs in exchange for the vagaries of "safety." The percentage of respondents who support additional surveillance in public areas has increased to 81% from 63% the week after the 9/11 attacks. On the other hand, there's a growing reluctance among Americans to allow the government to expand its surveillance efforts to cover more private venues, like email or cell phones. Only 38% approve of these efforts, down from 54% after 9/11.

Now, when legislators and law enforcement reps make strides towards reducing civil liberties, they do have some support. Those over the age of 50 (across all political parties) are most likely to support a loss of freedom (50%, as compared to only 34% for those under 50). Tellingly, this is pretty much the same demographic that feels video games are a bigger "safety threat" than guns (72% of respondents over the age of 45).

Unfortunately for the under-50 crowd, the over-50 demographic is historially the most active at the polls. If this perception of widespread support for invasive policies and legislation is going to change, the under-50 demographic is going to need to do a whole lot more voting. If not, these politicians are going to be able to truthfully say they have support for these policies -- at least, the only support that matters: die-hard voters.

eCat wrote:long but well written article explaining the pro gun position and why they won't budge against the anti-gun position.

3 points that stuck with me.

1. The constitution isn't about majority rules, its about protecting individual rights
2. The debate cannot start with the premise that "guns are bad, pro-gun people are bad"
3. Anti-Gun people don't want to have an honest discussion on guns.


http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/a ... TNNoMobile

The Constitution is about telling the Federal government what it can and (most importantly) can't do. The 5 most important words in The Constitution is "Congress shall make no law..." as we need to have laws for the lawmakers.

The Constitution is supposed to Constitute. That is why they call it The Constitution. Part of that Constituting is that although it can change, it takes enormous amount of support in order to change it. That is by design. That is why it has only been changed 27 times. And really, it has only been changed 15 times since the Bill of Rights went in all at once and one Amendment was amended by another.

gotta love this guy - the last line of the interview is the capper
[youtube]kEngjGqWPjo[/youtube]