Thanks to a new EU rule, British "authorities" are now free to root around in the computers of their subjects, and they only have to come up with the flimsiest of excuses in order to do so.

Actually, since it's an EU directive, any country in the EU is free to dispatch its police to muck around in the hard drives of any of its member nations' citizens.

"Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property"

Who wants to bet that it won't be "rarely used" from now on? Governments have rarely if ever been granted a power that they didn't immediately abuse.

Here's the incredibly low threshold that must be met in order to allow the warrantless secret searches:

"A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years."

The operative word in that statement is "prevent". By definition, that means that no crime has been committed, yet the cops are still apparently empowered to conduct these searches, in some kind of random casting about for "maybe going to be committed someday" acts.

That means, if I've got this correctly, that if some cop in charge "believes" that he can "prevent" some nebulous unnamed crime by intruding into someone's personal life, even with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing by that user, then he can invoke this rule and everything will be nice and legal.

The only problem with that is, of course you can prevent crimes by randomly searching thousands and thousands of computers for the one that's being used (or potentially going to be used) for criminal activity. One can also accomplish much the same results by searching thousands and thousands of houses as well. Is that level of intrusiveness next to be approved by Brussels? After all, it's the logical next step, as wrong as it is.

Fortunately for U.S. citizens, we defeated that kind of scheme in this country back in 1993. Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's famous Clipper Chip, which would have allowed back-door access into any American computer by law enforcement? That sort of hardware would have made it much easier on the Europeans of today, who apparently aren't above committing hacker crimes in order to gain access to their targets:

"Police might also send an e-mail to a suspect’s computer. The message would include an attachment that contained a virus or “malware”. If the attachment was opened, the remote search facility would be covertly activated."

Any Americans still wish to be in some kind of world government after hearing about this kind of nonsense?

Residents of England who still care about their privacy, I suggest you decline to open attachments from anyone you don't trust, and immediately employ an encryption solution in order to protect your personal information from being hoovered up by some nosy gendarme who simply feels like doing so. I use and recommend Cryptainer, which is inexpensive and offers the strongest levels of encryption available, as well as being incredibly easy to use (Just don't lose your passphrase, or you're toast). They even offer a free version to try (No, I don't have any financial interest in the product. I just think it works great).

Apparently Vice President-elect Joe Biden and his wife attempted to go see the new Brad Pitt movie in Delaware last Saturday night, only to be turned away because the theater had already sold out.

Why is this news? That's how things are supposed to work in this country, where we don't have royalty that's allowed to rudely brush by the peasants and grab the best seats in the house, forcing the poor ticketholders to see a later showing.

To their credit, the Bidens didn't try to weasel their way in by playing the "Don't you know who we are?" card, although that would have probably worked on the hyperventilating manager:

"'I was a little excited -- I'm not gonna lie,' said Muhamut, a 21-year-old senior at West Chester University. 'The Secret Service guy told me to calm down.'"

Dear God. They're just ordinary people the same as you, dear.

Hopefully the couple will arrive a little bit earlier the next time they decide to take in a flick, so that they won't be thwarted by the same situation. I know how frustrating it can be to get up for a movie, only to have to settle for a different one because I procrastinated and didn't get there on time.

"I am profoundly troubled that the call of this council, issued nearly four days ago, for an end to the violence has gone unheeded,"

UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, impotently raging against the fact that Israel is finally putting an end to the constant rocket and mortar barrage from Gaza that has killed so many of its innocent citizens.

Considering the fact that groups such as Hamas has never paid one bit of attention to his organization's pronouncements, I'm wondering why he's so surprised.

Here's some more from the would-be "world leader":

"'Even as this crisis rages, let us never forget the underlying issue: there must be an end to occupation, an end to conflict, and the creation of a Palestinian State,' he said. 'Let us not lose sight of our goal: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region.'"

That's great and all, except for the fact that the religous fanatics who rule Gaza have stated unequivocally that they won't stop until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth, and the fact that there is no Palestine and no Palestinians, only a mostly Jordanian population that no other Arab country wants to have as citizens because they are so completely useless, except for throwing rocks and chanting slogans. Even Yasser Arafat himself was nothing more than an Egyptian carpetbagger who excelled at stirring up trouble in the region.

It's obvious, as is sadly all too true throughout history, that the Jewish people are going to have to defend themselves from savage attacks, instead of waiting for someone in "authority" to come and discipline the aggressors. I'm not Jewish, but I'm quite proud that my country is backing Israel's defense of itself so completely.

The Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today that sums up exactly why the recount in the Minnesota Senatorial race stinks to high heaven. It's truly eerie how similar the circumstances are to the 2004 Washington governor's race recount, in which at least one of Franken's advisors also participated.

Senator Coleman had better line up some heavy-hitter election lawyers, because this race is being stolen right out from under him. There's just no rational way statistically for Franken to have made up the vote deficit he had, and then actually pull hundreds of votes ahead.

"This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote."

That there's called Chicago-style vote counting. Ask the Messiah. He'll explain how it works.

When England and Australia confiscated just about all private firearms from their subjects, one of the arguments made at the time was that a well-trained police force made such ownership unnecessary.

Well, you can now take the "well-trained" part out of the equation, at least in New South Wales, Australia, where "authorities" are now being forced to build a 2 million dollar virtual reality simulator because the currently mandated one day a year firearms requalification training isn't cutting the mustard and "senior officers blame a lack of training for recruits being frightened of firearms."

Practicing any skill just one day a year, whether it be shooting firearms, playing guitar or salsa dancing, ensures that one will certainly be unprepared to utilize that skill successfully should the need for it arise.

The fancy new videogame simulator is apparently necessary because there is only one official six-lane live shooting range in all of New South Wales (a 309,500 square mile state approximately the size of California, with a population of over six million people) and all of the private shooting ranges have apparently gone out of business due to the forced lack of firearm ownership among the peasants.

"'We have a lot of young cops who are scared of guns,'" a senior officer told The Sun-Herald."

That doesn't generate a lot of confidence in one's public safety officers, now does it?

One can scarily imagine an officer who doesn't know which end of the pistol to hold, or who is forced to discharge their weapon and subsequently drops it while shrieking madly like a horror movie refugee.

"Opposition police spokesman Michael Gallacher said officers should have more firearms training.

'These simulators are very advanced but quite simply nothing will replace live fire training needed to allow officers to learn how to use their weapons at a moment's notice,' he said. 'The idea of the training is to get a feel for the pressure of the situation of actually using the firearm that you're going to be issued. I'd be concerned we're now reducing live fire training and replacing it with the Nintendo Wii.'"

Absolutely correct. "Virtual" shooting has no distracting noise, no blinding flash to adjust for, no realistic tactile feedback and no provision for equipment failure drills, among many other deficits, and it definitely has no place for being used as a primary qualification exercise for those who are given the power to use officially-sanctioned deadly force as part of their profession. It will certainly not solve the problem of the laughably inadequate training schedule of these Australian police officers.

"Mr [Assistant Commissioner Michael] Corboy said he had received no complaints about the yearly training program or officers being concerned about using their guns."

Consider this a complaint then, you blissfully ignorant fool.

Roland Burris, proving that he's just another shyster Chicago politician who is willing to shamelessly use religion and race to try to force acceptance of him as Governor Rod Blagojevich's tainted appointment to the U.S. Senate.

"They couldn't have sent a better person to Washington...than myself."

He's got the massive ego for the job, at least. Kinda big on yourself, eh, Mr. Burris?

"When the Lord put his hands on the Governor and said this is the person that has to go to Washington"

I wonder how much money it cost the Lord to convince Hot Rod to pick Burris?

"and this appointment is LEGAL. That is all there is."

We'll see tomorrow, won't we, sir?

... is New York City Amtrak police officer James Rusbarsky (badge 466).

Carlos Miller, the 1st Amendment photo blogger who gave us the heads-up on Mike Anzaldi, the credentialed Chicago crime photographer arrested for filming a crime scene from across the street while standing on private property, has provided another example of the same kind of official buffoonery on the part of law enforcement, only this one's even worse.

On December 21, Rusbarsky and another officer arrested passenger Duane Kerzic for trespassing in New York's Penn Station. Why was Kerzic collared? For taking photos of the public platform and of a departing train, a perfectly legal act, abeit one that more and more law enforcement officers are apparently unable to understand.

Now, for the bizarro world part of the story, can anyone guess why Mr. Kerzic was taking photos in the station?

Anyone who guessed Amtrak's own photography contest, take a piece of candy from the jar.

Here's the rules, straight from Amtrak's own website:

"As always, Amtrak reminds you to stay out of danger - stay away from tracks and the railroad right-of-way. Do not trespass on railroad property or on private property adjacent to the railroad. Do not climb or approach railroad structures, towers, or wires. Stay in public access areas, and away from railroad structures and moving equipment - in stations, on sidewalks, or in parking lots. All participants expressly release Amtrak from all liability for personal injury and loss or damage to personal property, and expressly assume the risk of harm. Remember, tracks, trestles, yards and equipment are private property - trespassers are subject to arrest and fines." (Emphasis mine)

I would venture to guess, as Miller does, that a train platform where passengers such as Kerzic embark and debark is a "public access area", except maybe to doltish thugs like Rusbarsky He's not only completely wrong about the laws he is supposed to be enforcing, he's totally clueless about his employer's own promotional events. I suppose this means he hasn't read the employee newsletter recently.

Kerzic believes he was arrested after refusing to follow Rusbarsky's illegal order to delete the images from his camera:

[“I said ‘absolutely not’,” said the 50-year-old navy veteran who describes himself as a “conservative republican”.

They told him it was illegal to photograph the trains.

“I asked where is the sign that says that,” he said.]

Kerzic was then taken to a holding cell, where he stayed handcuffed to a wall for 90 minutes before his release.

To his credit, Mr. Kerzic refuses to be intimidated by the Amtrak officers:

"Now he plans to return to Penn Station and photograph the cops who arrested him as well as continue taking photos for the Amtrak contest."

You know, taking pictures of publicly-owned trains from public spaces sounds like a really fun activity. It seems like it would be a great hobby, and a good way to win a contest to boot. Maybe I'll mosey on down to a station this week and give it a go.



(For more information, here's Mr. Kerzic's website, which describes his ordeal in more detail.)

One of incoming Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu's first actions has been to cancel the county's contract with a mobile photo radar camera manufacturer and operator based in Scottsdale. He quite reasonably believes that they don't help one bit with law enforcement, and that it's unethical to enter into a contract with a private business solely to raise revenue for the government:

"'I am against it, not only because I'm a strict constitutionalist, but I believe that the main purpose, is it's driven to create money for the government, in this budget deficit that's what the whole design is' Babeu said in a video shot by a group opposed to photo enforcement called CameraFRAUD and posted on its Web site on Friday. 'It's corrupting law enforcement for us to be partnered with a private entity that creates revenue. Purely that's their interest.'" (Emphasis mine)

That's the best summation yet I've seen yet that explains why the epidemic of unleashing privately-owned and operated Big Brother operations on the public, especially in Arizona, is nothing more than a revenue-enhancement program for the government entities involved, particularly since no points are assessed for most offenders, save for those being caught going 40 mph or more over the limit. In other words, there is no penalty or deterrent except monetarily for being caught speeding by the cameras. If you're rich enough, you can blow by with impunity forever.

Alternatively, one can just do what some camera-firm executives for the two main companies in Arizona have repeatedly done and just blatantly ignored the tickets mailed to them, forcing dismissal after 120 days or compelling the courts to send process servers out to give them their citations personally. Why should the peasants have to do things any differently than they do?

(That last article brings up a very good point. Technically, the camera companies have the power to void tickets issued to their own employees before the officials receive them. I wonder how many times that little scenario has happened?)

I've seen no fewer than three near-crashes caused when people (two who weren't even speeding at the time) entered a photo-enforcement zone and promptly slammed on their brakes, almost causing rear-end collisions (not to mention almost blinding me in the third incident with the camera's flash, even though I was not the one ticketed). The major intersection of Cactus and Hayden Roads near my house is photo-controlled, and I've anecdotally noticed a large increase in accidents there since the fixed cameras have been installed. I routinely pass by there multiple times a day, and there now seems to be a crash that requires police and tow assistance at least once a week, if not more.

Congratulations to Sheriff Babeu for seeing the negative Constitutional implications of such a chilling and dangerous policy, and for having the fortitude to use his authority to end the madness, at least in his county. Now if the other sheriffs would only come around to his way of thinking.

It's beginning to look like a New York socialite whose public speaking skills consist of repeatedly saying phrases such as "Um" and "You know" is going to be appointed Senator from that state (over several far more qualified individuals) simply because of who her father was and because, you know, she asked really nicely.

Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton (and it's not much around here), at least she faced the voters and ran on her merits, such as they were. It's not her fault that so many doofuses bought her line of baloney and voted for her.

In other Senate news, John Cornyn of Texas is promising to filibuster any attempt to seat Al Franken as Senator from Minnesota until the election results are finalized. Some Demcrats wish to seat Franken "provisionally" until the race is settled. Sorry, them's not the rules. I didn't see those same people clamoring to give the race "provisionally" to Coleman before the shady "finding" of votes began.

You see, this particular race is a carbon copy of the Washington state governor's election in 2004, in which recount after recount was held, (with the counting criteria changing multiple times and additional ballots "miraculously" appearing) until Christine Gregoire finally pulled ahead by a miniscule fraction, after which the counting was immediately halted and she was declared the victor. Coincidentally, the same man, Paul Berendt, is on record as "advising" both campaigns in their recounts. Imagine that?

Here's what should happen in these elections: Run the ballots through the scanner. If there's a recount, run them through again. Ballots that are mismarked because the voter misread the directions and didn't fully fill in the little bubble or scrawled all over the sheet are not hand-counted, because that's not the rules in place on Election Day. Ditto for the people who didn't sign the envelope of their absentee ballot or who otherwise failed to follow other amazingly simple instructions. If you screwed up, your vote doesn't count. No more of this idiotic subjective determining of "voter intent".

Finally, even the Senate Democrats see the folly of seating disgraced and indicted Governor Rod Blagojevich's tainted choice for the seat vacated by Barack Obama. They apparently intend to bar Roland Burris from the Senate floor should he show up on Tuesday and attempt to be seated. Burris has been a major donor and fundraiser to Hot Rod's gubernatorial campaigns as recently as this summer:

"The former Illinois Attorney General gave $4,500 to Blagojevich's campaign fund in the form of personal donations and donations from -- what appear to be -- him and his wife, according to Illinois State records. The most recent donation came on June 27, 2008, when the governor was knee-deep in charges of ethical misconduct." (All emphases mine)

and his consulting firm was awarded contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result:

"State records show that Burris & Lebed Consulting, a government-relations, media, and political consultancy firm, was placed on an special 2005 list of 19 Illinois companies to be favored by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) due to minority ownership. Burris’ firm was awarded an IDOT contract valued at $300,000 to recruit firms for construction work, beginning Jan. 1, 2005."

The state can't advertise for contractors themselves?

What we have here is another stand-up Chicago politician who was protecting his fellow machine-mate while simultaneously feathering his own nest. No wonder he was the only one dumb enough to tarnish his name and reputation by accepting a Senate appointment that isn't going to happen from a governor who will soon be in Federal prison.

Ain't politics grand?

"Four D.C. police officers are suspected of stealing toys donated to the Marine Corps’ Toys for Tots program, police said Wednesday."

Yet these class acts are examples of the people whom the D.C. government fervently claimed were the "only ones professional enough" to own and carry legally owned firearms for personal protection in the District. The ordinary peasants would probably just turn out to be some common thieves or something.

"The Metropolitan Police Department has come under fire from community leaders in the crime-ridden sixth district for closing a substation on Pennsylvania Avenue, even as violent crimes are on the rise in the district."

Meaning Mayor Adrian Fenty, Police Chief Cathy Lanier and their cronies on the D.C. City Council were perfectly willing to cruelly deny their constituents their natural right of self-protection, even as they reduced the already-not-enough police presence in the area. Fortunately for the residents, the Supreme Court put the local martinets back in their place.

That's some quality police work they've got going on over there.

Some health Chicken Littles from the MassGeneral Hospital for think of the Children have released a so-called "scientific" study frantically warning about the dangers of -

-are you ready for this-

"third-hand smoke".

That's right. Merely smoking in your home or somewhere else at any point in your day when the kiddies aren't around, and then coming into contact with those same children, supposedly is now enough to expose them to all sorts of lethal chemicals that'll turn them into the Hulk or Radioactive Boy or something. I swear it's a wonder that any of us over the age of 35 actually made it to adulthood, what with the smoking and drinking and lack of helmets and all.

The real reason for them doing this study is revealed in the news release:

"Winickoff's study shows that increasing awareness of how third-hand smoke harms the health of children may encourage home smoking bans." (Emphasis mine)

Another flimsy pseudoscience-given excuse for criminalizing the use of a legal product in one's own home.

I don't smoke, nor do I enjoy being around it. In my opinion, however, this is just the kind of junk study that does nothing but stoke unwarranted fears and advocate radical social engineering, all in the name of "public health" .

If smoking is so bad for society, go ahead and ban it already. The loss of tax revenue and specter of creating another Mob is what's holding the craven politicians back from doing that, so they've resorted to using papers such as this to justify further reducing the peasants' freedoms by incremental degrees until they finally become exasperated enough to just quit, even if they don't wish to.

California will be the first state to attempt to ban smoking in privately-owned homes. Just watch.



Reference: Massachusetts General Hospital (2008, December 29). Third-hand Smoke: Another Reason To Quit Smoking. ScienceDaily.

Police dash-cam footage of the DWI arrest of Guadalupe County, New Mexico Sheriff Robert G. Chavez.

Chavez attempted to explain his miserable failure of the field sobriety tests by claiming that it "was too cold" to perform them properly.

He subsequently refused to take a Breathalyzer test at the police station, so his DUI charge was automatically upgraded to the "aggravated" variety, according to the news story. We look forward, should he be convicted as charged, to seeing him spend some time in his own pokey:

"If this first drunk driving offense is an aggravated DWI, a minimum of 48 hours in jail is mandatory in addition to the other penalties. Aggravated DWI includes driving with an alcohol level of .16% or greater, causing bodily injury while DWI, or refusing to submit to a chemical test while DWI." (emphases mine)

Chavez was also charged with an open container violation and failure to wear a seat belt.

If he had any sense of decency he would resign immediately so that the sad and ridiculous picture of him locked up in his own jail wouldn't become reality, but since he's an elected official and they tend to hold on to their positions with both hands and one foot no matter what they're caught doing, it'll probably come to pass at some point.

Special kudos must be given, however, to the New Mexico State Police troopers who handled the stop and arrest by the numbers, with no special treatment for Chavez just because of what he does for a living. Sincere and heartfelt thanks, fellows.

So I'm having lunch today on a restaurant's outdoor patio with an unidentified woman to whom I've been married for exactly thirteen years today.

We're conversing and watching the ducks swim in the pond adjacent to the restaurant when I point out the great blue heron that's joining in the fun.

The woman says, "Yeah, you could pickle it".

I understandably reply, "What?"

She comes back with "Sure, you like pickled heron."

This was before she had her glass of wine.

For the record, it's pickled herring that I have a fondness for. God bless her, though, she tries hard.

Happy Anniversary, dear.

The Messiah, despite not even having been sworn in yet, is already moaning and complaining about the press and security contingents constantly following him around. He's already ditched the reporters once during his Hawaiian vacation, a "breach of longstanding protocol".

Well, he's special, you know. You'd think the fawning press that blatantly supported his election would be understanding enough to cut him some slack. What's that? The rules are different now that he's won, and they need that shot for the six o'clock news?

I'm not very sympathetic for Mr. Obama. After all, he wanted the job and actively sought it out while being fully aware of the duties and responsibilities that come with it. You can't shut everything down after 5 and on weekends and be just a regular guy that goes to the mall to pick up dinner at Applebees, you know. I'm similarly unmoved at the movie star who rates $20 million or so per film, then gets upset because someone takes a picture of them getting coffee in Malibu. It all comes with the territory.

"During the first week in Hawaii, Obama has had to deal with paparazzi waiting in the distance, photographing him shirtless outside his beachfront vacation home and later while spreading his grandmother’s ashes at the Pacific coast."

Illegally, by the way. But hey, rules are for the peasants, right? Not only doesn't he want to have his picture taken when it isn't convenient for him, he can also apparently put human remains wherever he pleases, regardless of what everyone else (can't) do.

If he's getting stressed out now, wait until he's officially in office. He'll be out having a cig in back of the White House in no time.

The local commissars who purport to run Brighton, Michigan have seen fit to pass an ordinance banning annoying behavior, with a $100 civil fine for being caught exhibiting such.

Here's the relevant part of the ordinance:

"'It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.'"

The law also bans "insulting another person in a public place", even as the town burghers unconvincingly protest that the measure is being blown out of proportion, and that it won't be used in typical argumentative situations.

I don't believe them. Those sentences are so vague that any type of disagreement or behavior could conceivably be interpreted as being "annoying" to somebody.

The law clearly won't pass Constitutional muster and will be quickly struck down in court by adults, but it shows the lengths to which local government busybodies attempt to interfere in the daily lives of their peasants.

"While state laws cover serious harassment, this city ordinance protects against lesser behaviors that are disturbing but may not rise to the level of state charges."

Because disturbing behaviors, while being, well, disturbing, aren't crimes. Otherwise the jails would be full of odd people who are harmless despite enjoying hectoring their neighbors about the height of their grass, or who enjoy daily polka music at a reasonable level whilst sitting in their backyards, or who play the town dingbat that loves to talk at length about her mail delivery problems at every city council meeting.

Ironically, the article points out that the council itself is most likely running afoul of their shiny new law by "annoying" the residents of their town with such stupid and unenforceable legislation.

It's a shame I don't live there, really. I could turn in my wife for continually bothering me during Redskins games.

Just joking, dear. Please don't make me sleep in the garage again. It's quite chilly out there tonight.

The nanny-staters over in York, England are tackling the dangerous menace of the loud, once-a-year New Year's Eve party:

"The authority’s environmental protection unit [?] said anybody planning a New Year party should let people living nearby – and not just next door – know about it in advance and tell them what time it finishes, as well as leaving them with a phone number and dealing with any inquiries politely."

I guess one is supposed to trudge to all the domiciles within a few square miles to apologize in advance for playing Thin Lizzy past 10:00 on Wednesday night.

Should you not pay heed to the sound dictators' warnings, they will apparently come into your house and randomly take some of your belongings:

'"And failing to abide by the terms of the notice can lead to a prosecution, with fines up to £5,000 and the seizure of stereos, TVs, DVDs and CDs'"

Seizing DVDs? That'll show them who's boss.

Just do what I always do - invite all of your neighbors to your shindig. That way everyone's happy, and no one need call the "environmental protection unit" away from more important tasks, such as making sure unattractive people cover their faces (eye protection) and that everyone in a given apartment building has had their daily shower (nose protection).

A Palm Beach County, Florida sheriff's deputy named Oscar Maturana is in his own agency's jail with a $100,000 bail, after allegedly pulling out a pistol at a nightclub and threatening to "bust a cap" into a security guard and other customers.

Deputy Maturana seems to have a long history of minor scrapes with the law before he joined the department in 2007, including multiple traffic tickets and being fired by another company for "improper sales documentation" (code for "stealing"?) after being disciplined for "improper count of merchandise" (more theft?). Oh, and his last job before becoming a sheriff's deputy was, ironically, working as a security guard at a strip club.

A fine resume, indeed.

So how did a person with this type of work history get hired as a police officer? Affirmative action, naturally. According to the article, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw wished to increase the "diversity" of the department and have more Spanish-speaking officers, so he apparently went out and hired the first person he saw who spoke the lingo:

" [Col. Mike] Gauger said Monday he brought Maturana to the agency after they met through an acquaintance and Gauger realized Maturana spoke fluent Spanish. Sheriff Ric Bradshaw wanted to expand the agency's minority representation, he said."...

..."'We have a very large Hispanic community and always look to add those who can represent minority communities,' he added. 'Sometimes we make exceptions because they fit into categories that you are trying to make inroads with in your agency.'" (Emphasis mine)

And in the aftermath of this incident we see exactly what happens all too often after making those "exceptions". Hiring people who are obviously unsuited for a job just because they match a certain check-box on a form isn't doing the citizens of that county any favors whatsoever.

I don't care if a person is black, white, brown, green, male, female, gay, or a Scientologist, as long as they can do a job properly, especially if that job is a public safety position. Hiring a completely unqualified, low-level criminal as a law-enforcement officer simply because he speaks fluent Spanish, or agitating for employing tiny-framed women who as firefighters can't drag around victims or properly lift equipment, endangering their fellow stationmates, are only two examples of what rampant affirmative action has wrought on our society.

Selecting people for positions simply because their race or sex is underrepresented in a given field is a certain recipe for instances of disaster, and the policy unfairly excludes excellently qualified candidates who happen to not be the sex or color needed to flesh out the perceived category deficit (the goal of 20% of the entire department being female firefighters, in the above LA Weekly article).

I don't see anything "affirmative" about those types of outcomes.

A man in Sydney, Australia was detained and had his cell phone forcibly taken from him and the video on it subsequently destroyed by cops after he used it to film them performing a search on someone in public.

The police also threatened to lock up Nick Holmes a Court for violating the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act before giving his phone back to him, minus the offending footage, of course.

Anyone who thinks the purpose of such legislation was to prevent people from recording their own public servants going about their duties on a public street, raise your hand. Seeing no one, we continue.

"Mr Holmes a Court said he repeatedly complained to the police while they tampered with his phone, but was told to 'shut up'."

That's professionalism Australia-style for you, apparently.

Law enforcement officers in the U.S. are also becoming increasingly convinced (incorrectly) that such acts are illegal here. Well, they're not, so long as the photographer doesn't interfere with the performance of the officers' duties. Apparently the same kind of rules apply Down Under as well, despite what those bully Sydney cops may think:

"Queensland Council for Civil Liberties president Michael Cope said police did not have the authority to confiscate cameras or stop people from taking pictures of them performing their duties...'Why should they be fighting being scrutinised?'" (Emphasis mine)

That's exactly what we're asked when we question the ever-increasing incidence of camera surveillance recording us going about every aspect of our daily lives. I guess the police will just have to get used to being the stars of reality TV in the same way that every other peasant is forced to be.

A policy of people being rousted and threatened with jail merely for exercising their rights, including the right to document the public actions of government officials with use-of-force and arrest powers, is one of the hallmarks of a police state. I don't wish to live in such a place, so perhaps we need to revisit these so-called "anti-terrorist" laws to make sure that they're not being misused in order to stifle our freedoms.

I just re-read that last sentence and laughed. That train is long gone, sadly.

A Federal judge has upheld (for now) Chicago's unconstitutional complete ban on handguns on a technicality, although even he sees the (wastefully expensive, for the taxpayers) end coming sooner or later:

"'This court should not be misunderstood as either rejecting or endorsing the logic of plaintiff's argument. It may well carry the day before a court that is unconstrained by the obligation to follow the unreversed precedent of a court that occupies a higher position in the judicial firmament,' the decision stated."

Meaning: The Supreme Court is eventually going to slap Chicago's leaders down over this, but not before the city blows countless thousands of hard-earned peasant dollars on an ultimately certain losing argument.

Laughably, King-Emperor-Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley seems to have gotten some ideas from D.C. on how to impose even more restrictions on his subjects:

"A federal judge today upheld Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban as Mayor Daley disclosed plans to strengthen it by following Washington D.C.’s lead."

Ummm, Mr. Mayor? How do you strengthen a complete ban? Forbidding imaginary firearms as well? Confiscating Super Soakers? Please enlighten us.


In other news, after a busy weekend by the thugs and criminals in that town, The Windy City is 3 killings away from a mind-boggling 500 murders being committed there in 2008. Yep, banning law-abiding citizens from possessing and carrying firearms for personal defense is really helping that shameful crime rate, Mr. Daley.

Just keep on doing those same old provably ineffective things while expecting different results. That's great leadership for you.


(Links from Second City Cop)

The Gwinnett County, Georgia Police Department has rather a lot to answer for, as it's come to light that they've performed no-knock raids on the wrong house twice in the last two weeks, with a family dog being killed at the scene of the second screw-up.

"He said that he (homeowner John Louis) and (girlfriend Heather) James, who was in a nightgown, were ordered at gunpoint to lie on the floor. When he tried to ask what they wanted, Louis said, he was told to 'shut up.'"

That quote is from the first incident. There was also a 3-month-old baby in the house at the time of the smashing failure, by the way. Fortunately, no one was injured in this Keystone raid, but certainly not for lack of trying by the officers involved. "Shut up", indeed.

According to Louis, the cops told him that they had been investigating the other house for 3 months, yet they still managed to raid the wrong house:

"'If you had the house under surveillance for three months, why did you come here?' Louis said."

Seems like a reasonable question to me.

'"You broke in here and put all our lives in danger, and all you can say is you’re sorry?'"

Isn't breaking and entering a crime, no matter who does the B&E?


Sadly, in the second incident, a two-year-old Dalmatian was killed, as some black-clad tactical ninja apparently felt that he was going to be mauled by a family pet who was only trying to protect his masters:

"Officers said the dog charged and the officer felt he was in imminent danger and shot the dog."

Well, I guess that's case closed, then. The poor ninja wouldn't have been in perceived "imminent danger" if the cops had done their due diligence in investigating these cases. This case is strikingly similar to Mayor Cheye Calvo of Berwyn Heights, Maryland's awful situation, in which officers decided to break down the door and shoot the dogs first, and finish their investigation later. When are judges going to stop rubber-stamping these raids, and begin requiring that the cops prove that they know exactly who and where they're going to go all "smash and break" on?

The Gwinnett County Police Department should immediately be forced to cease all "no-knock" warrant services until such time as they can prove that they can perform such tasks without completely screwing them up, putting innocent lives, as well as those of the homeowner's pets, at risk.

We're going to follow up on this one, as two mistakes such as these so close together by a supposedly "professional" law enforcement agency is absolutely inexcusable.


Thanks to DeanC at the Forum for the heads-up and the links.