Mark of Texas

The frightening part, is, her school district says she is a "valued employee and one of our best teachers". I suppose the fact that she's an insane maniac who refuses to have her fingerprints taken and want's to work with your children is really not important. Why search for previous convictions on someone who is so obviously close to god..... Ah..Texas.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/mark-of-the-beast/

The best and the brightest (Republican style).

...and this is what the police are like at the highest levels of organization...but make sure you toss out your rights and do what they say when they say it when the lowest levels get in your face..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8345292.stm

Sigh....

Evil evil..kill the nudies. I guess the city of Boulder has no real crime...although they seem to have quite a large police force. Maybe Boulders citizens should get together and see if they are spending entirely too much money for services they clearly don't need if this is a priority. Although, to be honest, I wonder what the cop on the street feels like being pulled off of real work for this bullshit? (Not that he could say and keep his job of course. That would take a free society, and almost all police organizations are run as if they are military and not civilian. I wonder why they so often clash with civilians, who believe they have rights, while their military organizations suspend their rights and talk about their duties.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8336308.stm

I got it half right.....^_^

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8325579.stm

You will never see "Americans" in this headline...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

Odds and ends..

OCTOBER 14--A South Carolina teenager is facing a felony charge for throwing a "deadly missile" at a moving vehicle. The armament in question was a burrito. (various sources)

Regarding the above...it doesn't matter what it was.  He claims "it was only a prank".  A jest..a simple jape...no harm here.  Bullshit.  Anything winged through the open window of a car traveling next to you at speed is criminal.  Period.  What could possibly be "prankish" about it?  "Gee officer, I only meant to distract him long enough for him to lose control and crash...it was only a prank".  In fact..I'm not even sure the window being open should be considered.  I know that I would have pulled hard right upon something hitting my window...that I would have seen..at best..with my peripheral vision at the last second.  I'm annoyed that this is being reported as a "joke" story.  This was dangerous, and well worth the felony charge.  Don't let him off the hook.

I was going to continue here by lambasting the authorities for PC above and beyond the bounds of PC...but upon reading further than the headline things become less clear.  The story was about parents being arrested for washing their 8 years olds mouth out with soap...(something many of us managed to live through, and we managed to be more circumspect around elders, if not each other..^_^).  However..this is also described as being forced to "eat" soap (which I might consider going a touch to far), and more importantly...not getting aid for the child when she had an allergic reaction to the soap, however..that may not be true either, since they did call for aid, which is what brought the police in the first place.  You would think that a news organization would at least attempt to get the full story before bothering to run it for everyone else to make fun of.  There is just too much here that is unknown.

OK..unlike most of the news reports..I did look a bit further.  The mother has had run ins with child services before it seems...and while she was finally taken to a hospital, it was long after she should have been..and it seems only then because the mother got afraid she would be in worse trouble if the girl died...not out of any compassion for the child.  I think I may now switch position, and rather than swearing at a government agency for being to aggressive, I should swear at them for maybe not removing the kids from that home sooner...^_^.

PC

I'm pretty sure this is a PC rule of some sort....maybe they think that it's an advantage of rich runners...in which case I would think a limit on which shoe you could use would be more to the point.  I'd feel more sorry for the 'victim" in this case if she hadn't won because the person who did win was disqualified for getting a drink of water from a non-authorized spectator (hey...after 15 miles or so she should have been paying more attention to the clothes being worn by spectators..you know..to pick out the right ones from the wrong ones).  Maybe the organizers should lose their license to run this race for not controlling the audience better?  Seems to me they are at least as responsible for un-authorized persons being on the course as the runner is for accepting liquid from them...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10372586-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop