-->
Can't remember where I saw/heard this (maybe Dick Morris?), but the Democrats are playing the part as expected:
Democrats Demand Legal PapersIt's almost like watching a mouse run through a maze.Democrats said yesterday they will demand that the Bush administration hand over internal legal memorandums written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. while he was a government lawyer -- something the White House has refused to do in the past.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said he broached the topic during a meeting yesterday with Judge Roberts, who replied that any decision about his writings as deputy solicitor general would be made by the White House.
Republicans on Capitol Hill said the request is not likely to be granted.
Demands for those same documents -- deemed legally privileged by this and previous administrations -- led to the rejection of Miguel Estrada, an earlier Bush nominee to a lower court.
Democrats have used this tactic to stall the nomination of John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations.
Some Republicans said yesterday that the demands may be early signs of a stealth campaign by Democrats to kill the Supreme Court nomination by demanding documents they know they won't get -- a strategy one Republican termed "Estradification."
Now the next stage of this will be the shrill cries of 'Extremism' that will echo through the halls of Congress followed by someone in the House of Representatives (probably Nancy Pelosi (D-Moonbat)) announcing that 'democracy is in danger of being exterminated'.
While I haven't really thought much about John Roberts being nominated to the Supreme Court, this type of knee-jerk reaction is sad - expected, predicted, and sad.
ADDENDUM: Writer Keith Thompson is thinking along the same lines as I am about this....
Trackback Information for One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102764Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...'.
Comments on One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised at the nomination of John Roberts. He appears to be a fairly moderate conservative, rather than an ultra-right winger. I haven't read or heard a whole lot on him, and as he's never been a judge, we really don't have any case decisions to go by as to his stance. All I've heard is that he is likely to be a strict constitutionalist, which is pretty much how I see a supreme should be. I think on this one, the Dems would be wise to make a bit of a fuss just for show, and then sit down and shut up.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 01:37 PM ||I agree w/Cait, SCOTUS judges should stick to strict interpretation of the constitution. If the Dems drag this out without good reason, they will just shoot themselves in the foot and confirm their roles as obstructionists. Though he has a short record as judge, his 40+ decisions have garnered just 3 dissenting opinions (if I recall correctly.) Not a bad record at all.
|| Posted by nathalie, July 24, 2005 03:31 AM ||Well, I hadn't realized until maybe yesterday that he had been an appellate judge. Read it somewhere. But, short case history.
|| Posted by Cait, July 24, 2005 06:54 AM |||| , 12:12 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
July 21, 2005
'Bout Time!
Somebody in New York nadded up for this:
Random my ass - check everyone's bags. And profile everyone 'till the cows come home.And of course the ACLU is about to have a litter of kittens over this 'heinous infringement of civil liberties'; maybe the head of the ACLU should be made to view the carnage from two weeks ago in London...in person before he/she start spouting off about crap like this.
Trackback Information for 'Bout Time!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102615Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ''Bout Time!'.
Comments on 'Bout Time!
Well, then Osama has now won. Lock, stock and barrel, so to speak.
Our constitution says nothing about a right to safety, but does say a good deal about a right to privacy and personal freedom. I guess the thinking goes, since privacy rights have already been shredded to hell by the Patriot act, road side sobriety checkpoints, etc., why not add another infringement.
Think about it: The only segment of our society that USED to be treated like this were our criminals. Now it's all of us.
We clamor for "security cameras". We plead with our government to "make us safe". It's sickening. People just don't get it. Our government CANNOT protect us from terrorist cells by tearing down our freedoms. The ONLY successful method is when we infiltrate the cells. Otherwise, if someone or some small group wants to blow your ass up, they can do it.
We're nothing but a bunch of whipped pussies.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 04:27 PM ||How about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is that just bullshit? How is keeping my ass from getting blown up on the subway an infringement of my rights? How is getting a drunk driver off the road an infringement of my rights? If searching my bag and searching Mohammed's bag will keep both of us becoming fireworks, then I'll bite.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 04:32 PM ||Cait, who is stopping you from pursuing happiness, et al? Your rights, very specifically explained in our Bill of Rights - I point you to the 4th, in particular - specifically say you cannot be searched unless there is probable cause or a warrant. Terrorists and drunks - both of which existed when this document was written - are not given as exceptions to our rules.
You are the exact type of American that Osama was targeting. Sadly, it is MOST Americans. You are not worried about our country and what is stands for. You're more worried that some "boogie man" around the corner that MAY get you.
Let's take your rationale to another similar situation. In Oakland and Richmond, CA, they have terrible murder statistics. Truly horrific. Real murders happening almost daily. If the government were going to protect their citizens, they should put checkpoints on every street corner. Clearly, more people are killed in those two cities from guns and knives than from drunk drivers. It's a no-brainer, right?
If you think it would be wrong, how is it any different from Roadside sobriety, or baggage searches?
If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 05:35 PM ||First, what the hell is "If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers." supposed to mean?
Next, the Constitution also did not say that we couldn't search for drunks and terrorists. It says "unreasonable" search. Maybe, just maybe, it might be reasonable to search people with baggage, in light of recent events.
And, finally, "You are not worried about our country and what is [sic] stands for." is total bullshit. It won't stand for a friggin' thing if we let terrorism destroy it. That's when Osama has succeeded. I'm damned worried about this country and the destruction of what it stands for and the fact that there are people who think like you who will let it happen in the name of political correctness. And saying I'm not concerned really pisses me off. Just because I happen not to agree with you on this particular issue doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the welfare of the nation. What an asinine thing to say.
Additionally, the statement " You're more worried that some "boogie man" around the corner that MAY get you." is completely fallacious and condescending. I'm probably less afraid and have less reason to be afraid than your ass. In fact, I'm not at all sure that statement isn't sexist. So much for your political correctness. At least I'm not worried that having cops search people's cars means the end of life as we know it. Christ on a cracker, Mike, have you not figured out that these people want to kill us all? I don't mean they mildly dislike us. They intend to destroy everything we represent. And you don't think extraordinary measures are called for? Keep dreaming. Osama loves you.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 08:58 PM ||So much bullshit, so little time.
First, what the hell is "If you think it should happen, learn your daily Islamic prayers." supposed to mean?
It's pretty straightforward: If you support changing the very basis of American ideals because "the boogie man" is out there in his various forms (drunk driver, terrorist, etc) you are letting them win. You want to cower in the corner and have The State take care of you. If you don't want our way of life, move somewhere else - maybe a place where all of your decisions are made for you, like an Islamic Theocracy. Just what Osama wants.
Next, the Constitution also did not say that we couldn't search for drunks and terrorists. It says "unreasonable" search. Maybe, just maybe, it might be reasonable to search people with baggage, in light of recent events.
Read the whole sentence from the 4th. It clearly states you cannot be searched without probable cause and/or a sworn warrant. It sets "the bar" for unreasonable at having probable cause.
And, finally, "You are not worried about our country and what is [sic] stands for." is total bullshit. It won't stand for a friggin' thing if we let terrorism destroy it.
So, you'd rather live in essentially a police state, but have near perfect safety, rather than a free state, period. Terrorism has already started destroying our country with the Patriot act. People like you are BEGGING Osama to win with your acquiescence to destroying our liberties.
and the fact that there are people who think like you who will let it happen in the name of political correctness.
I laughed so hard when I read that, Pepsi came shooting out of my nose! Man, you just don't get it, do you? In my eyes, if you are a middle eastern male between 18 and 45, and you're carrying a back pack into an airport, THAT is probable cause. You should be stopped and questioned. This random selection bullshit is a gross waste of time, and a violation of our rights.
I'm probably less afraid and have less reason to be afraid than your ass.
Your words clearly do NOT convey that. You willingly allow the police to search you without probable cause or a warrant. You seem pretty scared to me.
In fact, I'm not at all sure that statement isn't sexist.
Where the hell did you get that? I have no idea, and frankly couldn't give a rat's ass what your sex is. How is that even relevant?
Christ on a cracker, Mike, have you not figured out that these people want to kill us all? I don't mean they mildly dislike us. They intend to destroy everything we represent. And you don't think extraordinary measures are called for?
Ya know, it just dawned on me that you totally sidestepped my question about putting up checkpoints to quell murder. Do you know how many people are murdered in the US each year? Give or take 20,000. Every fucking year. Seven times the number killed on 9/11. So by September of this year, around 80,000 Americans will have been killed. Do we line the streets with cops? Do we stop every person that owns a gun or a knife because they are a potential murderer?
No, because we're fucking Americans, and we don't put up with that kind of shit. And we're not going to put up with it because some gimpy bastard hiding in a cave in the Middle East has a hard on for us.
Now buck up, grow a spine, or go move to Spain.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 21, 2005 11:25 PM ||OUR rights are not in the bill of rights. The government's PRIVILIGES are listed.
As for checking passengers: Waste of time. I can derail a train with a sledgehammer. Nothing anyone can do.
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 22, 2005 12:56 AM ||In my eyes, if you are a middle eastern male between 18 and 45, and you're carrying a back pack into an airport, THAT is probable cause. You should be stopped and questioned.
Now you're talking.
And we're not going to put up with it because some gimpy bastard hiding in a cave in the Middle East has a hard on for us.
I agree here, too.
I just don't agree with you about how to protect what we have left in this country. I simply do not consider random checkpoints (to see driver's license and proof of insurance)to be without probable cause, in the general sense. Now, even though I work with police, if I'm stopped and asked by the officer if he or she can search my car, the answer will be "No", just on general principles. And I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm just not giving permission for a search without "probable cause" or a "warrant". There are a lot of things I consider infringement of my rights, not least of which is income tax, requiring insurance, car inspections, and registration, and lots of other governmental crap. But, somehow, checkpoints and baggage searches don't fly up my nose. As to searching Mo and Ali, well and good. But we have others, like Timothy McVeigh, who don't fit the physical profile.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 06:03 AM ||As to searching Mo and Ali, well and good. But we have others, like Timothy McVeigh, who don't fit the physical profile.
And we've ALWAYS had them, yet somehow didn't need to shred the 4th Amendment. We don't need to shred it now.
With that sentence of yours, you are advocating the search of every man, woman and child because the MIGHT be a terrorist simply by living here in the US.
Innocent until proven guilty. No search without probable cause. These are cornerstones of our society. I won't give them up out of fear.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 22, 2005 11:51 AM ||I think we've always traded some freedoms in order to gain or retain others. I think the baggage search issue is one of those tradeoffs. If I'm going to draw a line in the sand, it won't be over baggage searches or checkpoints.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 01:42 PM ||This random selection bullshit is a gross waste of time, and a violation of our rights.
agree with you there. Random searches means there's no probable cause; you're just picking out someone to search, just for the sake of searching someone. Clearly a violation of the 4th amendment.
However...
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 23, 2005 06:06 AM ||Terrorism has already started destroying our country with the Patriot act
You must have cracked your head on that slippery slope.
Rob, the Patriot Act is the single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress. Take the time and read it some time. No warrant searches. No notification searches. No judicial review warrants.
It's positively Orwellian, in the worst sense of the word.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 23, 2005 10:45 AM ||I wonder if a cabby union was behind this somehow...
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 24, 2005 01:05 AM ||Rob, the Patriot Act is the single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress. Take the time and read it some time. No warrant searches. No notification searches. No judicial review warrants.
Oye Mike - do we have to have this discussion again!?!
Short & sweet: you can propose all of the possible civil violations coming out of this, but there isn't one - not ONE - case of this happening since 2002.
The fact of the matter is that this is the society we currently live in - one that is susceptible to bomb attacks and should one happen, there will be metric TONS of accusations against the state and federal governements about why did you let this happen!?! much like the crap about why didn't the Air Force shoot down some of the highjacked planes on 9/11....
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, July 24, 2005 11:22 AM ||Oh, I see. Because there is the possibility that the Administration might take some heat over a bombing, let's just move ahead and trash our Constitution? I don't like that kind of logic.
Were do we stand if they rape the Constitution AND we get hit again? I'll tell you what happens. They come out and tell us how it is impossible to stop any small group of terrorists that are bent on blowing up a group of people. And you know what? They'd be right. It IS impossible. So why destroy our rights, and give Osama his win (making us alter our society) all in one fell swoop?
Because, as I said in my first reply, we're a bunch of whipped pussies.
If Bush were a real leader, he'd stand before our country and tell us that the odds are with the terrorists for a successful hit (hell, Rummy's done it a couple of times). We're too big, too free and too open to prevent it. But we're Americans, and we won't cower to anyone in this world. He'd tell us to be strong, proud, vigilant and unbending in our protection of our values and our heritage.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 24, 2005 10:35 PM ||Has the fact that you've written several rants about losing your rights and the Jack-Booted Smirkychimp McBusHitler Goon Squads(TM) haven't hauled you away (or anyone else) give you any indication that maybe, maybe, you're rights are still safe, even from the Constitution-Killing Patriot Act?
single most destructive piece of legislation ever passed by our Congress
Hardly.
Your hyperbole makes it impossible to take your argument seriously.
Since the Act passed in the Senate 98-1, you should be whining to your 2 senators, unless you live in Wisconsin (Feingold voted "nay") or Louisiana (Landreau didn't vote).
As far as your representative in the House, check http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml for how they voted. Odds are 7:1 it was "yea."
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 06:29 AM ||Oh Rob, I get it. When you don't have a cogent defense to an argument, you break out with the ad hom attacks, and toss in the , "We ain't got no stinkin' Nazi jack boots and black helicopters" tiraid. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
You want to allow the slow degradation of our rights in the name of safety. I don't.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I was looking up some information on different state's laws on gun ownership and registration. I start reading about California (where I live) and I nearly puked. Did you know that if you move to California and bring a personal handgun with you, you have to register that gun within 60 days? You are considered a "gun importer". Holy Fucking Shit.
We have become so used to accepting infringements upon our liberties that we don't even think about it now, at least not for long. Patriot Act. Eminent domain. Private gun ownership. Roadside sobriety checkpoints. States rights.
Keep your head in the sand if that's where you're comfortable. I won't.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 07:09 AM ||You're right, Other Mikey... I have no defense against the rants of a paranoid.
The question then becomes: Are you paranoid enough?
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 07:44 AM ||LOL, well thought out retort.
There is no element of paranoia involved. It's fact. Our rights are being eroded. People like you are OK with that. I'm not.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 09:59 AM ||Now he brings out the strawman:
"He doesn't believe the Patriot Act is the single most devastating piece of legislature in the entire history of mankind, which will destroy all HUMAN & CIVIL RIGHTS as we know them, so he must be in favor of taking ALL of our Constitutional rights away!"
Nice try.
I've NEVER said I was OK with the erosion of our civil rights.
Got that?
I just don't think that the Patriot Act is the Boogeyman you imagine it to be.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 12:48 PM ||Then again, maybe you were right in the last sentence of your very first comment.
That is, if you think a piece of legislation that has never been used and therefore has never been subjected to judicial review frightens you so much, then you are the biggest whipped pussy of all.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 01:25 PM ||Hey Rob, cut back on the caffine. What strawman are you talking about? You have said, very plainly, that you are OK with the Patriot Act. I have said it is a horrible piece of legislation.
If you want to be a pussy and take that from our government, that's fine. It's your choice. Just don't try and come off as some staunch defender of our rights. You're not. Not even close.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 03:06 PM ||I said I was OK with the Patriot Act, NOT with our rights being eroded. It is only your opinion that the two are linked, strawman.
So, you fume about the government, complain about the laws in your state making you puke, and still you sit there and TAKE IT but give me shit about it?
Wait! I live in a state, Virginia, in a county, Fairfax, where I can walk down the street with a (licensed) gun strapped to my hip and I don't need a permit to do so. If I apply for a permit, I can carry that weapon concealed.
If you wish to do so, but continue to live in a state that won't allow you to, that must mean that you are perfectly content with "taking it from the government" and are a hypocrite for saying that I do.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 25, 2005 04:09 PM ||So, you fume about the government, complain about the laws in your state making you puke, and still you sit there and TAKE IT but give me shit about it?
What makes you think I'm "taking it"? I think we've bitched enough on Mikey's site, so if you'd like some specifics of what I have done, and am doing to change things, I'll be happy to reply.
In regards to staying in California, I'm essentially stuck here for the next 5 years. After that, I will most likely be moving to Nevada, for the very reasons sited.
If you've ever seen my blog, you'll see that I've given myself a deadline of 12 more years (started out as 15, 3 years ago) to do what I can to get America at least pointed back in the right direction (obviously, my opinion of the right direction), or I'll probably leave the country.
Otherwise, it's just America in name, not in spirit. And that's not America to me.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 25, 2005 06:21 PM |||| , 03:55 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
More Terrorist Attacks in London
We Stand by Britain
Damn...not again:
As with the July 7th terrorist attacks, there will be more news and information coming out as the police assertain exactly what happens.I take back all the British jokes and slams that I've made in the past. This American will stand by Britain - always.
(Union Jack picture glommed from Citizen Smash)
Trackback Information for More Terrorist Attacks in London
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102553Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'More Terrorist Attacks in London'.
Comments on More Terrorist Attacks in London
I'm sick of all these terrorist bomber assholes. I hope the British get the balls to deport all the hate-preaching mullahs. I heard a mention of this on TV last night. We should consider doing the same here, before it's too late. In fact, I think we need to deport a whole shitload of people. And quit issuing visas like candy.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 12:08 PM |||| , 10:35 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
AMF Michael
First Madonna, now Michael Jackson:
I wonder what the penalties for child porn and pedophilia are in Germany. Could they be more lenient than California?Well, in any case - you can have him Germany.
Trackback Information for AMF Michael
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102559Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'AMF Michael'.
Comments on AMF Michael
Do you reckon there's anyone who really gives a shit if Madonna or MJ don't live in the US?
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 12:09 PM |||| , 10:35 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
July 20, 2005
Immigration Reform on the Horizon?
Now here's someone taking action about the border:
Read More of "Immigration Reform on the Horizon?"Some of the major factors of this bill:
I really hope that this passes because the situation is quite frankly getting out of hand. I don't give a rat's ass about 'business will suffer' mantra; deal with the damn border before something heinous happens! Those 'vital jobs' that are filled with illegals can and will be filled with Americans that would love the chance to stand on their own two feet and work instead of getting welfare.All done with "Immigration Reform on the Horizon?"?
Trackback Information for Immigration Reform on the Horizon?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102391Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Immigration Reform on the Horizon?'.
Comments on Immigration Reform on the Horizon?
I love the "guard the border, nail the employers, pay the states" items. I DO NOT like the "No one will take the job" visas. Raise the wages to American wages, and American's will take the jobs. And I swear, if someone says that will result in a $25 head of lettuce, I'll bitch slap them back to the Rio Grande!
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 20, 2005 05:19 PM ||It's about time!
|| Posted by Tetzman, July 20, 2005 08:35 PM ||b-b-b-ut... this is RACIST, mikey! it's anti-IMMIGRANT! these people just want a better life, no crime here! the border agents are just like the gestapo!
/ass hat rant
|| Posted by nathalie, July 20, 2005 11:07 PM ||This is by far the most rational bill to come out of the Congress. I'm totally flabbergasted that it came from two Republicans.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 12:04 PM |||| , 12:45 PM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
RIP James Doohan
Damn!
I know it's a cliche - especially now - but here it is:Rest in Peace James Doohan - you will be missed and remembered for a long time by a lot of adoring fans.
Trackback Information for RIP James Doohan
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102364Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'RIP James Doohan'.
Comments on RIP James Doohan
I've given her all I've got - or something to that effect.
|| Posted by GrumpyBunny, July 20, 2005 10:40 AM ||I Dunna ha'e da Powa...
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 20, 2005 10:09 PM ||Had a great interview about him last night with Mr. Sulu (??? spelling) actor on Keith Olbermann's Countdown. Doohan was a character and much beloved by other cast members.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 12:06 PM ||That would be George Takei
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, July 21, 2005 03:45 PM ||Yes, it was. And what a lovely person he is, too.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 04:34 PM |||| , 10:10 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||
July 19, 2005
Word
Word up yo!
Tru dat yo...Trackback Information for Word
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102145Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Word'.
» Independent Sources links with: Independent Sources Needs Bling Bling: The World’s 23 Best Ebonics Headlines, on July 19, 2005, 01:12 PM
Excerpt: Attn: Senior Administration Official The editorial staff of Independent Sources thoroughly enjoyed your posting on Ebonics entitled “Ebonics? Again?”. We just wish you had taken as much pride in naming the post as you did writing it. As...
Comments on Word
So much for preparing youth to function in society.
|| Posted by Yogimus, July 20, 2005 02:40 AM ||Well, shizzle mah nizzle, beatch.
|| Posted by Cait, July 21, 2005 04:35 PM |||| , 10:01 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (1) ||
BFL in the News
Here's a story (the first I believe) about the California Bear Flag League and it's current and future impact on California politics & life:
The BFL had a conference this past weekend up in Pasadena. Sadly, I was not able to attend.It's nice to see that the BFL isn't just a collection of misfit toys here in California.
Trackback Information for BFL in the News
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102140Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'BFL in the News'.
» Local Liberty links with: Blogging The Bear Flag League Blogger's Conference:
The "Long Tail" Effect, on July 19, 2005, 10:57 AM
Excerpt: Dan Weintraub's column talks about Sunday's Bear Flag League Conference, which Ken and I attended. Weintraub emphasizes the "long tail" effect, meaning that the combined efforts of the smaller blogs of groups like the League often have a greater impact...
Comments on BFL in the News
|| , 09:28 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (1) ||July 18, 2005
Stats
Something I just received in my Inbox....
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of about 2,000 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
Trackback Information for Stats
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/101941Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Stats'.
» Not Exactly Rocket Science links with: Why Gun Control Solves NOTHING, on July 18, 2005, 01:11 PM
Excerpt: Stolen from fellow MuNu and BFL'er Mad Mikey: If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of about 2,000 deaths, that gives...
» Eternity Road links with: Roach Motels, on July 19, 2005, 05:00 AM
Excerpt:
Hearken to Mad Mikey's statistical citation for today: If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of about 2,000 deaths, that gives a firearm death ...
» The Jawa Report links with: WTW "ladies first", on July 20, 2005, 08:26 AM
Excerpt: My first nominee is Melissa Irene Tanner, 37 of Oklahoma. I nominate her for drinking and giving birth while drunk. The baby was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. At the time of birth her BAC was .29 and her...
Comments on Stats
Just nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 18, 2005 02:05 PM ||The way I figure it, that's more like 682 deaths per year per 100,000 soldiers. (Assuming the data as given is accurate.) Or are we comparing monthly rates to yearly rates?
|| Posted by Hazy Dave, July 19, 2005 12:25 PM ||Hazy Dave is right: 2000 / 160000 * 100000 * 12 / 22 = 682.
|| Posted by Mark, July 19, 2005 02:14 PM ||Yeah, roughly, it is 60/100k per MONTH in Iraq, vs the 80/100k per YEAR in DC.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, July 19, 2005 05:59 PM ||I still say, "nuke it from orbit."
|| Posted by Rob@L&R, July 20, 2005 04:43 AM |||| , 11:42 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (3) ||
Well Duh!
(Nicely glommed from Da Goddess)
Trackback Information for Well Duh!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/101937Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Well Duh!'.
Comments on Well Duh!
|| , 11:20 AM || Permalink || Hide Comments || Add your comment || TrackBacks (0) ||Calendar
About Me
Who is Mikey?Mikey is a forty-something U.S. Navy veteran that is currently taking a break from being a full-time student at UC San Diego studying electrical engineering.
He's also a husband, a father, a former Independent/Democrat and is currently dealing with dialysis and getting on the national kidney transplant list.
The words written here are his opinions and his observations on the stupid things in life. If you do not like them or do not agree with them: tough squishies. In America, you're entitled to Freedom of Speech not Freedom to Not Be Offended.
Help Mikey by not being part of the problem and instead, be part of the solution so that he doesn't have to comment on your sorry actions.
Contact Mikey
Donate
Help Mike deal with his mounting medical billsWhat's this all about? Read this to learn more...
Blogroll
BlogsAny Which Way
Bartender Another Round...
Beautiful Atrocities
Blogs of War
Caiterwauling
Caught in the Crossfire
Conservative Liberal
Cox & Forkum
Da Goddess
Day by Day
Deuddersun Says...
Dog Snot Diaries
Eternity Road
From the Halls to the Shores
Grumpy Bunny
The Hungarian Barbarian
Horologium
It's All Downhill
JawsBlog
John Bergstrom's Attack Cartoons
Kilabe's Hive
La Shawn Barber
Left & Right
Let's Try Freedom
Little Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Miller's Time
Neptunus Lex
No Nanny State
North American Patriot
OPFOR
Queen of All Evil
Random Nuclear Strikes
Right Wing News
Sane Nation
ScrappleFace
Seek-Truth.com
Something...and Half of Something
Sugar Ray Dodge
TurningWheels
Yeah Right Whatever
Kidney Links
Jim Needs A Kidney
Hemodialysis FAQs
Those that Know the Real Mikey
Table Tennis/Ping Pong
Together We
News/Info Sites
ABC News
Blogger News Network
CNN
DiscoverTheNetwork.org
The Drudge Report
Fox News
Front Page Magazine
760 KFMB Radio
KOGO 560AM Radio
MSNBC
National Review Online
NewsMax.com
The New York Times
Opinion Journal
Sacramento Bee
The Washington Post
The Washington Times
World Net Daily
Yahoo! News
Sci Fi Sites
GateWorld
Sci Fi Channel
Star Trek Official Site
Star Wars Official Site
Groups
NoIndoctrination.org
Protest Warrior
San Diego Protest Warrior
Recent Entries
One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...'Bout Time!
More Terrorist Attacks in London
AMF Michael
Immigration Reform on the Horizon?
Search This Site
Counters and Stuff
Total Entries: 1152Total Comments: 4248
Comments/Entry: 3.69
Archives
August 2009July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004