I guess this happened quite a while back but it’s in the news now because he’s trying to get his job back. Saying he was drunk might be an overstatement. BAC was .089, but that’s drunk only if you ignore that the legal limit is the result of politics and not science. Many people are impaired very little or maybe not at all at that level of alcohol in their blood. Plus, the method of determining blood alcohol content from breath alcohol content doesn’t take into account differences between individuals and other factors, so while he was legally drunk, he may not have been drunk in fact.
But 143 mph is darn fast. I know the road well that he was on. The speed limit is 55 mph and there are several cross streets controlled by stop signs and traffic lights. The speed limit drops to 45 mph about 500 feet from each intersection. At 143 mph a vehicle covers 230 feet per second.
One online stopping distance calculator I found predicted that it takes 854 feet to stop at that speed, all things being normal. If alcohol slowed this guy’s reaction time by one-half second the distance could be another 120 feet or about 970 feet needed to stop, and that would be a panic stop. Due to the possibility of cross traffic a real nasty crash could have occurred that night. Apparently it was late at night when he was caught by the state patrol, after passing a state patrolmen! If I might be slightly over the speed limit I never roar up behind another vehicle for the very reason that you can’t tell who or what it is until you are right on it. To do that when you’ve been drinking and running 88 miles over the speed limit seems to be deserving of the reckless driving charge he got in addition to the DUI.
I must say that speeds over 120 mph are quite a sensation. I’ve never done anything like that in a car, but I did once years ago on my BMW K1200RS motorcycle. That was not on a public highway but on a race track. Whooeee, it was fun. Trouble is, you can’t maintain it very long because no race track is long enough. At least not the one I was on. You could reach a speed of 140 mph and hold it for about 2 seconds before you have to brake hard for the next turn.
I’ve always thought that the one good reason for becoming a cop is to be able to legally drive fast and shoot bad guys, but this cop took it a bit too far.
Postscript: You have to be almost my age to remember the one year in the past when enterprising speeders could get away clean. That was when the first good radar detector came available, the Escort. Police radar was not yet capable of the “instant on” function they all have nowadays. That came into being about a year after the Escort Radar Detector hit the market. K band radar was also not in use at the time, all police radar was X band, which is a stronger signal that travels farther. Thus, an Escort radar detector offered near absolute protection. One could sail along at a safe speed that might just happen to be above the posted limit* and get plenty of warning before coming within range of a police car with its radar on. But within about a year the “instant on” feature became ubiquitous in police cars and speeding became risky again. I was glad to have that one year, I made some long trips across Wyoming in pretty good time. What a joy it was too, to get ample warning of the cop around the curve or over the hill, slow down to the completely unreasonable speed limit, wave a friendly greeting to the nice officer, and stomp on the gas again as soon as I was out of range. Oh well, now I’m an old guy and I drive slow like most old guys. Drives Mrs. TeeJaw crazy.
*National 55 mph speed limit, remember that? It created a nation of speeders and the radar detector industry was born.
Dangerous occupation? 173 cops died in the line of duty in 2011, so far that is.
Life insurance underwriters do not rate the occupation any more dangerous than other occupations, such as delivery van driver or legal secretary. That’s because insurance underwriters deal in statistics and probabilities. A conservative estimate of the total number of law enforcement officers working in the United State today is 800,000. 173 deaths in the line of duty is, like every death, a tragedy for the officer’s family, his agency and his community. But statistically speaking, it’s a very small risk. Just divide 173 by 800,000 and you will see that the chances of an individual officer meeting death in a one year period is 0.02%. That number can be rounded down to zero. It’s not a good thing that more police officers were killed this year than last year, in fact it’s a terrible thing. But it’s still a safe occupation.
Of course, if I were a cop I’d make sure my driver training was good and kept current. I wonder what those “other causes” are. That was the largest increase over 2010.
Results of Progressivism, i.e., continuos liberal Democrat rule in Detroit since at least 1956:
Progress by American capitalism and freedom:
A 5 megabyte hard drive being loaded on an airplane in 1956:
A one Terabyte hard drive in 2011:
My first computer in 1988 was a Wyse machine with a 40 megabyte hard drive and it cost about $2500. By 1995 I was using a Micron with two 250 megabyte drives. I upgraded to a one gig hard drive that year at a price of $1,000. Now my MacBook Pro with a 250 gigabyte drive cost under $1500 for the whole computer. All this was accomplished solely be American ingenuity and free enterprise. Liberalism, progressivism, or whatever euphemistic name it’s called these days, had absolutely nothing to do with any of it, except perhaps to make each advance more difficult than it might have been otherwise.
The irreconcilable difference between the Classical Liberalism of the Tea Party movement [Don’t Tread on Me] and the Progressivism of the Occupy Movement [Tread On Us All]. Based on Richard A. Epstein’s new book from Broadside, this video outlines the differences between the classical liberalism of the Tea Parties and the progressive agenda advanced by the OWS movement, and reveals that the painful performance of the American economy in the past decade is not a function of bad luck, but the product of flawed institutional design.
We are reaping the harvest of efforts to reinvigorate the progressive programs of the New Deal that stress high progressive taxes, large transfer payments, strong labor laws, and major barriers to free trade. This combination of public finance and market regulation has proved a potent force for disaster.
British writer James Delingpole is definitely of the Tea Party stripe but finds himself agreeing with the idea that America is divided between a ruling class of elites and everybody else. The OWS mantra of the 1% versus the 99% touches on the same concept. So why is Mr. Delingpole so ridiculed by OWS?
Simple. Because though my analysis of the problem may be quite similar to the Occupy crowd’s, my solution couldn’t be more different. This is why – as the above video explains – Tea Party types like me are unlikely ever to find common cause with Occupy. We’re classical liberals who believe in low taxes, limited government, property rights and equality of opportunity, whereas they are progressives who believe in greater government control and wealth redistribution in order to create equality of outcome.
It’s a shame, really it is, because in these terrifying economic times it really would be nice to harness some of that commitment, zeal and self-righteous rage you find among the Occupy crowd and channel it towards a useful purpose. Problem is, we’re dealing here with the victims of two or three generations’ worth of ingrained cultural Marxism. Thanks to the Gramsciite* capture of the media and the seats of academe, a lot of these kids simply lack the knowledge base or intellectual wherewithal to appreciate that instead of championing freedom what they’re actually defending is economic stagnation, higher unemployment, more stifling regulation, more entrenched social division and a moribund status quo in which an ever-growing political elite leeches off the backs of us wage-slave Untermenschen**.
*refers to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), founder of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramsci advocated political hegemony, the dominance of one social group, led by devoted Marxists, over all others. Thus, Delingpole uses the term “Gramsciite” to describe the American media and the professorship of academia. Seems right, they do all think alike and they see themselves as above the rest of us.
**plural of ubermensch, German for under man, sub-man, sub-human.
The vicious nastiness of the Occupy Movement sets it so far apart from the Tea Party movement I refuse to credit anything good to it. See this video of Occupy DC for absolute confirmation.
From Rick Perry’s website, his official position on abortion is as follows:
- Protect the unborn via sonogram requirement. (Feb 2011)
- The right to privacy is fictitious. (Nov 2010)
- Abortion only for rape, incest, or maternal health. (Jun 2002)
- Supports prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2010)
- Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
This is from The Politico:
Republican Rick Perry is shifting his opposition to abortion, saying he opposes it even after rape or incest.
Perry on Tuesday told potential caucus-goers in Iowa that he has changed his mind.
Previously, he believed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. Now, he says abortion in all forms should be prohibited.
Perry told a pastor who asked him about his views that, in his words, “you’re seeing a transformation.”
Perry says he recently watched former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s documentary about abortion. He says he met a woman in the film and that she told him she was the result of rape and that her life has worth.
Perry says that encounter led him to rethink his position.
Of course, The Politico calls this a flip flop. They would wouldn’t they? They wouldn’t know the difference between a politically motivated flip flop and a genuine transformation of the heart and mind based upon intelligence guided by experience, would they? Not that I know either, I’m just giving Perry the benefit of the doubt because he does cite an experience which could have been the reason for his change of mind, and it has a ring of truth.
Here’s a personal note on abortion, even though I really have no idea what my position on it happens to be because I can’t seem to settle on one. But I do know this. If abortion had been legal and readily available in 1945 you would not be reading this today because I would never have been born. [Wonderful!, you say.] My natural mother, age 16 at the time, did everything she could think of to get rid of me as soon as she could, and if abortion had been an easy option she would have jumped for it. I was not the result of rape or incest, in fact she was married to my natural father. She did find a way to get rid of me as soon as I was born. She opted for the easiest, quickest, and most socially acceptable thing to do at the time. She gave me to someone who wanted me, loved me, and gave me a wonderful home and a terrific childhood. They did things differently back then, in 1945.
That someone that my natural mother gave me to? I buried her in 2006 when she was three months shy of her 100th birthday. She wasn’t anyone special, just a good woman who lived a good life. I hope I brought a little light into it.
Call this whole story a parable of what is wrong with the Republican Party. People who cut deals which sell out our principles are deemed reasonable, while those refuse to cut deals are called bomb throwers. That’s the term Bush used in endorsing Romney in an oblique swipe at Newt.
The parable is the story of George H.W. Bush’s sell out in 1990 of his 1988 campaign pledge in which he majestically swore “Read my lips, no new taxes.” His deal-making with Democrats that broke his promise is remembered now as one of the greatest political blunders of all time. Newt Gingirch was publicly opposed to the deal in 1990 and the Republican establishment was deeply offended and still hates him for it. Newt opposed the recent sell out by the Republicans on the idiotic two-month extension of the FICA tax deal, handing Obama a PR victory and making themselves look like the gang that can’s shoot straight. Eighty-six house Republicans, mostly the ones elected in 2010 with Tea Party support, voted against cutting the sole funding mechanism for social security. The irony is that Democrats have been accusing Republicans of trying to cut social security for decades, but now it is the Democrats under Obama who are tinkering with the only funds available for paying social security recipients their promised benefits. That the Republican establishment thinks it’s a good idea for Republicans to go along with the Democrats on this shows dramatically how completely nuts they have become.
Now that faction of the Republican party that was so wrong in 1990 is wrong again on the payroll tax and they are wrong in pushing for Romney, the deal maker and sell out of all time, to be the Republican nominee.
It is said that compromise in politics is essential. That is an overstatement. Compromise has it greatest benefit when the fight is over money, such as in litigation over a contract dispute of a tortious injury. But where the principles that one supposedly stands for are what is at stake compromise can mean an abandonment of those principles and the complete loss of faith on the part of one’s political supporters. That’s exactly what happened to George H.W. Bush when he broke his “no new taxes” pledge. He lost a lot and gained nothing. All for the false allure of “compromise.” It was appeasement, and the wages of appeasement can be high.
If you can get to the Battersea Dogs and Cats home in London you can adopt one of these. They are mixed breed mongrels, the best dogs to my mind, seeing as how I hale from a long line of mongrels myself.
These mutts will grow to be big, healthy and devoted to their masters. Whatever your fate in life’s popularity contest, your dog is always glad to see you.
Photo is from the UK Daily Mail
The art of writing is the discovery of what you believe.
— Gustave Flaubert
How do I know what I think until I see what I say?
— W.H. Auden
A jogger is struck by a truck and critically injured in Seattle. First responding police officers show themselves to be unfit for the job. As the injured man lies in a pool of his own blood and near death, police officers make stupid and disrespectful cracks about him, the kind that makes some people think of the thin blue line not as a protective barrier between citizens and criminals, a line between decency and lawlessness that cops proudly and courageously defend, but rather a thin line between the mindset of the cops themselves and that of the low life scumbags they are supposed to apprehend and arrest and might themselves have become if they weren’t lucky enough to get hired before they had a chance to make a criminal record of their own.
Tim Nelson of Seattle has mostly recovered and has discovered a dash-board video and audio from a police car on the scene in which Seattle’s not-so-finest can be seen and heard on tape mocking the critically-injured man in the following exchange:
Officer 1 ‘They say he flew up in the air and landed on his noggin.’
Officer 2 ‘Hey, that ain’t my problem!’
Officer 1 ‘That’s why you drive a car!’
Officer 2 ‘Yeah, don’t try to jog to work, you dumb f***!’
The attitude displayed these officers is inconsistent with a desire to provide assistance to an injured person in need of help. It is disgusting and shameful that such persons can be sworn police officers. Isn’t jogging to work a choice that anyone is entitled to make? Even if the accident was the jogger’s fault (it wasn’t) isn’t that a matter to be determined later, in a court of law, after he recovers?
Mr. Nelson was jogging to work because his usual route was under construction and he thought he was helping out by not adding one more automobile to the traffic jam. In other words, he was being a good citizen, wholly undeserving of these cops’ degenerate, asshole behavior. These are individuals unfit to carry a badge and they should lose them so a better class of people can take their place.
Newt Gingrich in a speech to the NRA convention in April:
“The right to bear arms is not about hunting, it is not about target practice. The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights which God has given you and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms they would have been enslaved and they did not want us to be enslaved, and that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to survival of freedom in America.”
Romney in 2007:
Romney seems to be trying to give the impression that he has been a lifelong hunter, of sorts. His campaign now acknowledges that he has hunted two times in his life, once when he was 15 and another time, last year. Given the chance he just talks about his hunting experience which he first exaggerates and then admits he has very little hunting experience. He never says anything that would indicate a heartfelt commitment to the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, for self defense and not just for hunting twice in 50 years.
It seems pretty clear that if the right to keep and bear arms is important to you, Romney is a risk.
It was sickening yesterday to listen to mavens of the media Andrea Mitchell and her co-horts eulogizing North Korea’s brutal dictator Kim Jong Il as if he were some noble and beloved statesman of the world. Andrea Mitchell went on about how intelligent he was, saying, “I met him, I actually met him.” Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright said “No, he’s not a nut, he was very intelligent.” You’d have thought you were listening to a couple of teenage girls talking about a date they had with the star quarterback of the high school football team. The rest of the statist media had a similar love fest for the man who led his people into starvation while expending all of his country’s meager resources trying to build a nuclear bomb.
Here is a graph from The Cato Institute that shows the real legacy Kim Jong Il leaves the North Korean people:
Leftists like Mitchell and Albright swoon over left-wing dictators like Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro because they are in awe of the god-like power these tyrants have. They seem to love the whole idea of an individual holding statist authority with the ability to decree life or death on thousands. Dan Mitchell doesn’t share the airhead giddiness of Andrea Mitchell and Madeleine Albright. He says, rather more appropriately, “One hopes that the dictator of North Korea suffered greatly before he died. After all, his totalitarian and communist (pardon the redundancy) policies have cause untold death and misery.”
Thomas Sowell wrote an interesting column yesterday on the all out anti-Newt campaign Mitt Romney has launched in Iowa. Romney, through his SuperPac, has spent more on anti-Newt ads in Iowa than all other candidates combined. These ads seem to be working as Newt’s numbers in the latest Iowa polls show a sharp decline. Professor Jacobson says that “Getting people to hate Newt is the easy part, giving us a reason to vote for Romney is the hard part.”
Thomas Sowell thinks we should be focusing on the present and not the past, even Newt’s past which does have some troublesome spots. He quotes favorably Winston Churchill who said, “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If we are going to look to the past, concrete accomplishments in office are a better test of a candidates worth. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
As speaker, Gingrich can take credit for welfare reforms that enabled people stuck in dependency to gain a new birth of freedom and self worth, pride of accomplishment and the personal dignity that comes with that. No small matter which positively affected the lives of thousands who were otherwise condemned to a life of little hope outside of permanent welfare addiction and the sort of wasted existence that entails.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Concentrating on Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than the nation’s future, could mean a second term for Barack Obama, and that will be a huge loss. Romney is just too close to a re-run of the disastrous McCain fiasco of 2008. Republicans really are the stupid party if they allow it be repeated in 2012.
Pat Caddell has wisely said that Obama will have a hard time getting re-elected in 2012, but he may get enough help from Republicans to pull it out.
When the new unemployment figures from the supposedly non-partisan Bureau of Labor Statistics came out earlier this month it was widely pointed out that the 8.6% number was only made possible by not counting the shrinkage in the labor market since Obama took office, and that the U-3 unemployment rate, which takes that into account, was 11%. See my previous post, from December 2nd, 8.6% Unemployment? Only If You Don’t Count The Shrinkage in the Labor Force.
Now it appears Obama intends to Politicize the Bureau of Labor Statistics in preparation for the 2012 election.
On the eve of the 2012 election, the White House is pushing to politicize the impartial U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The administration is also trying to bypass the congressional oversight that protects the independence of the neutral agency.
The BLS is the nation’s premier nonpartisan statistical agency reporting on the state of the American labor market. For more than a century, both political parties have considered BLS to be independent and politically untouchable.
The BLS monthly unemployment data is a key factor contributing to the president’s unpopularity.
Over the last year, the administration has refused to fill the two top BLS positions. They have yet to nominate anyone to replace outgoing BLS Commissioner Keith Hall, whose term expires in January, and the number two post previously held by Deputy Commissioner Philip Rones has been vacant since last summer. Rones had been the bureau’s deputy since 2003, and made it widely known ahead of time that he would be retiring by the middle of 2010.
BLS career professional and Associate Commissioner John Galvin has been given limited responsibilities to cover some of the deputy duties on an acting basis, but the White House has indicated it has no interest in promoting Galvin to the post of commissioner.
The Senate could get involved by exercising its Senate confirmation process for a new commissioner — but the administration has circumvented the process by not nominating anyone. Nominations usually are announced as early as six months before the expiration of a term, but with a few weeks left before Hall leaves office, it is clear no commissioner will be running the bureau through much of 2012.
This has led to speculation that the White House is trying to circumvent the Senate so as to appoint a deputy whose position does not need Senate confirmation, and who would defer to the White House and to politically aggressive Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
One source told PJ Media the president would like to install Betsey Stevenson as the deputy commissioner. Stevenson is a Princeton academic and loyal political ally who worked as chief economist for Solis. Stevenson would be rejected by many in the Senate, which has regarded political allies as inappropriate for running the nonpartisan BLS.
Is anyone surprised that Obama plans to try to influence the employment numbers in 2012 in order to improve his chances of reelection? And that he will do that circumventing the Senate confirmation process to put one of his cronies in that slot with a recess appointment to get around the Senate confirmation process?
Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi is on the case and has written a letter to Obama stooge and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis warning her that efforts to politicize the non-partisan Bureau of U.S. Labor Statistics would be counterproductive, and has also written to Obama’s chief of staff William Daley wanting to know when Obama plans to nominate a new commissioner.
Republicans need to make sure the public is aware of this and in doing so they must understand that the mainstream media are just stenographers for the Obama Administration and aren’t going to be interested in the story. Senator Enzi must get it because he’s talking to PJ Media.
If you plan to vote in 2012, you really need to read all of the story at PJ Media.
“I’m the 4th best president in American history” — Barack Hussein Obama
Make that forty-fourth best.
Comment left by RobtKraft who uploaded this video to youtube:
The one salient point is this. This clip was the single most interesting thing Obama said in the entire 55 minute interview. Yet it is was left on the cutting room floor. Nothing else he said in the interview was memorable. Yet CBS 60 Minutes chose to not use it because it made him look like the anrrogant, ignorant narcissist that he is.
The NTSB nannies want a Federal law banning all cell phone use in cars, even hands free, bluetooth and voice activated. They are doing what government nannies always do when they want to restrict freedom, they are lying and obfuscating. They are playing fast and loose with accident data and accident analysis.
For example, Mona Charen writing the Washington Examiner points out that NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman stated flatly that 3,000 people lost their lives last year due to texting in the driver’s seat. Not true, by the NTSB’s own data which says 995 deaths resulted from distraction by cell phones in 2010. We don’t even know if it’s really even that many since the number comes from the NTSB. If Ms. Hersman is willing to exaggerate by a factor of three times the actual number her agency has previously claimed, maybe 995 is just as unreliable.
Charen reports that three accidents occurred in the same intersection that she personally witnessed in the space of 20 minutes, none of it involving cell phones. The distraction in accident Nos. 2 and 3 was due to rubbernecking at the first accident scene.
Investor’s Business Daily has editorialized against the cell phone ban because there is no compelling reason for it and it’s beyond the authority of the Federal government; it is an issue better left to the states. There are many other worse distractions such as eating or drinking coffee while driving. Moreover, According to federal data, traffic deaths have fallen from 2.1 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1990, when virtually no one had a cellphone, to 1.1 in 2009, when almost everyone does.
Hersman is apparently getting her number of 3,000 distracted driving deaths [which she falsely claims were all from cell phone use] from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which found that there were 3,092 highway deaths from all forms of distracted driving in 2010. How do they know that? How do they get such an exact number? Never mind, that’s a subject for another post another day.
NHTSA also determined that drivers in the U.S. rang up three trillion (3,000,000,000,000,000) vehicle miles traveled last year. [205 million licensed drivers driving an average of 15,000 miles per year] That means, according to NHTSA’s own numbers, that U.S. drivers experienced the annual equivalent of one distracted-driving fatality for every 970 million vehicle miles traveled. Let’s see, 970 million vehicle miles is the equivalent of 334,000 cross-country trips on the full expanse of Interstate 80, which spans 2,900 miles between Teaneck, New Jersey and San Francisco, California. 3,092 goes into 334,000 roughly 111 times. So, exactly one (1) death from distracted driving occurred in 2010 for every 111 coast-to-coast driving trips that year. This is a crisis that requires restricting the freedoms of 205 million Americans? A little perspective here, please!
See also Ronnie Schrieber, NTSB Chair Supports Cell Phone Ban With Lies & Obfuscation.
These were first posted by Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
Time Magazine has named the “Occupy Protestor” its person of the year:
This is the photo John Hawkins is referring to in his tweet.
Newt carried the night with these comments, in my view. Notice the visceral hatred of Newt by the female questioner from Fox News, and how he adeptly takes her comments and shove them right up….
Having spent 30 plus years being abused by liberal judges I especially like this clip where Newt explains why many of them are not fit to be on the bench:
In this segment Newt does what all the other candidates should be doing — he takes it directly to Obama and explains how Obama is hurting the country. (The “zaney” reference is a clever dig at Romney who called Newt “Zaney” the other day. Romney included all conservatives in his “zaney” comment showing where he stands.)