LIVE by the GUN, DIE by the GUN

Intelligence be dammed!

enuff said

Shoot to KILL!

How many policemen does it take to kill a high school student?

Obviously, as many as wants to join in.

But of more concern to me is where did this notion that any
and all armed suspects are automatically targets for
police pistol-practice and it became Standard Operating
Procedure?
Where did we get the idea that a sharpshooter MUST aim
for vital organs? It sort of makes a lie of the title of
"sharpshooter," doesn't it?

Shouldn't a police officer be instilled with the idea that in
order to disarm a suspect with a weapon, or dummy weapon,
a well placed bullet to the knee or elbow would be sufficient
to cause an armed person to change their focus, their stance
or possibly drop the weapon altogether?

Is "Drop it NOW or DIE!" the only options?

GOVERNMENT OF THE LOBBYIST, FOR THE LOBBYIST, AND ...

Recently the state of Tennessee
concluded a sting operation
in an attempt to try and catch
various state congressmen
accepting value bestowed for
value given, i.e., money in
exchange for their entering
legislation favorable to the
parties of the 'value given.'

As explained by Wikipedia:
"Operation Tennessee Waltz
was a sting operation set up
by federal and state law
enforcement agents, including
the FBI and TBI, that led
to the arrest of seven
Tennessee state lawmakers who
were suspected of corruption
in the past, on the
morning of May 26, 2005 on
bribery charges." [note the
word "suspected"]

FBI and TBI agents, posing as
'representatives of E-Cycle,'
a bogus company purporting to
be dealers in defunct electronic
equipment, requested of these
lawmakers certain favors, mainly
a bill allowing the company to
do business in Tennessee.
Even though laws allowing such
a business interaction did get
entered into the legislative
process, none ever became actual
law. In exchange for entering
these 'requested favorable laws,'
the lawmakers were paid sums of
money ranging from $5000 to $55,000.

[One interesting side note about
Wikipedias accounting of the
sting operation is its' reference
to a newspaper article appearing
in the Chattanooga Times-Free
Press on May 26. Wikipedia notes
that the article "...mentions
E-Cycle in passing, as if it was
a real company."
Exactly why Wikipedia should make
special note of this is curious,
especially when, further down in
their own accounting of the operation,
they state, more than once: "...had a
conversation with a representative
of E-Cycle..," and "...discussed with
a representative of E-Cycle...," and
"...a representative of E-Cycle met
with...," all of these references are
to so-called "representatives" of a
company that did not exist... and
this is known to Wikipedia!!!???
Yet they reference 'the representatives'
as if they were really 'genuine
representatives.' but of a bogus company,
or, to use their own words, "...as if
it was a real company." (with real
representatives!) Duhhh!]

As pointed out by a noted local radio
talk show host, the Federal or state
law enforcement agents apparently gave up
on catching the participants 'in the act'
of breaking the law during the course of
their daily activities. Instead, they saw
themselves as 'being forced' to set up a
dummy corporation with a phony website
(as proof of their existence) and
entice/lobby certain congressmen to
fulfill their expectations of suspicions
of previous wrong-doings so that an
arrest could be facilitated and their
paychecks earned.

The entire operation was based on
a lie. The dummy corporation impersonated
a legimate business. Is that legal?
The 'officers' of the dummy corporation
did commit a crime in attempting to bribe
congresspeople (that is illegal) as did
the congressmen in accepting the bribe.
Yet, only the congressmen were charged
with any crimes!

How is this justice? How does it come
about in this country that in order to
catch a thief it becomes necessary to
steal something? In other words, is it
justice that in order to catch someone
breaking the law, it is ok to break other
laws for the sole purpose of creating
a criminal situation for which the
intended 'criminal' may (or may not)
participate and consequently be arrested?

This is so basic to politics in this
country that to point it out is somewhat
embarassing, yet we tend to forget that
it is at the very core of our problems
today.

In the case of the sting operation
called "Tennessee Waltz," the glaring
reason that the only people who were
charged with criminal intent were the
congresspeople and not the perpetrators
of the crime is because the sting
operation was carried out by the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and
the FBI. And the only absolute
singular reason that no members of the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation or
the FBI were charged with any crimes
is because... and get this, it is very
important... they were given special
exemption of the law.

And therein lies the very core of what
is wrong with our politics. Whether at
a state level or a national
level, it does not take a lifetime
career to propose and vote for or against
the laws that are necessary for this
country to operate.
What does take or will take one's entire
lifetime hence a career, is the nuances
needed to make sure that someone gets
special treatment or special exemption
or special favors under that law which is
being proposed.

Just in general, these are bad laws.
Any law that cannot be applied to every
citizen and/or corporation in each
and every instance that the law
addresses, is a bad law. It is that
simple. You can slice it, dice it or
toss it, but if you feel you must to
object to that statement, then you are
really asking for special treatment
for yourself or someone or some federal
program you just happen to, well.., like.

Congress, on the federal level, should
not even consider any law that cannot be
applied to every citizen in every
state in every instance equally. They have
been elected to represent the voice of
their state, i.e., every citizen that
lives in that state. They come together
in a room wherein they are lawmakers of
not only the people that they represent,
but the citizens of the entire nation.
They are bound by trust to consider
laws that are equitable and just to all
of those citizens. They also
represent us to the rest of the world.

Once special privileges are
allowed into the halls of congress,
everything, everything, of which
that congress deals is up for grabs.
Special favors then becomes the focus
of concentration and the norm.
Equitable laws are essentially no
longer a value to be sought.
Bickering, swapping, trading and
cutting deals, openly or behind closed
doors, are our new national values.
Debate, worthy consideration and just
solutions are of no concern in a
congress intent on obtaining special
privileges for a few. Yet that is
how we are now being represented.

You see, the question should not
be WHO receives special treatment,
although this is the BIG question
with which our congress wrestles,
the question should be that special
treatment is given to anyone at all.

And this is different from a sting
operation --how?

In a sting operation, congresspeople
are enticed to accept favors, usually
monetary, for bills and laws being
entered into the business of congress
for possible passage, i.e., sufficitent
others seeing no objections to the bills.
But note, the 'others' receive no
monetary gain and are probably not even
aware that they could have been
paid to vote the way they would have
voted anyway!
In a sting operation, because it is
specifically created to cause someone
to break a law, results in only the
receivers of money to be arrested.

In another world, far, far, away,
and on the national level, it is the
grantors of money, gifts, tickets,
trips, etc., that get arrested and
not the receivers of the money!!
Go figure!
In that world, the givers of the
money are arrested and prosecuted.
In that world, the receivers of the
money are essentially immune to
prosecution.

And we wonder why our children are
confused and can't seem to get
along or cope in this world!

A SMALL FINANCIAL WARNING!

Has anyone else encountered a change in the processing
of their Debit/Credit card?

Up until now, I have always used my Debit/Credit card as
a CREDIT card. Using it that way, I have to sign a slip
of paper for every purchase I make. Since my signature
is a little different from the name on my checking
account and my card, should a question ever come up
as to whether or not I did in fact make such a purchase,
all I had to do was see the signed receipt for the
purchase and would know immediately if it was my
signature, and, specific characteristics of my
signature could be stated even without my seeing
the signature.

Questions have arisen due to the fact that some stores
have a store-front name, but the ownership of the store
was in a different name. Having visited a patient in a
hospital at a time when meals were being served to the
patients, I availed myself of the restaurant and paid
with my Debit/CREDIT card. The name appearing on my
statement later seemed to bear no relationship to the
hospital and the 'unknown' charge alarmed me, until I
figured out the date and time of the charge.

Now, a new situation has ocurred that is alarming to me.
Recently, I used my Debit/CREDIT card at a Macdonald's
for an unschudeled breakfast. The charge was approximately
$4.50. I was handed no receipt to sign. I inquired as to
the signing of the receipt and was told it wasn't
necessary. Hmmmm. Disturbing, to say the least.

Thinking that perhaps this was a new policy instituted
by Macdonald's or my 'credit' card company, I called my
bank to inquire. My bank said to call Macdonald's.
I didn't pursue the matter any further.

Recently, I made another small purchase at a Walgreen's
and again used my 'credit' card. Again, no recipt was
handed to me for signing! I asked why. The response was
that the purchase was under $25. And, as far as the
clerk was concerned that took care of everything.

So, what this means is that if you lose your card or
it gets stolen or you just arent' aware for several days
that it is no longer in your purse or wallet, quite a
bill can be run up around town on small purchases.
For either of these two purchases, no one asked for
supporting identification. They just accepted the
swiping of the card and handed me my purchased
items.

I'm not real happy with this new 'rule' by 'whomever'
and will probably curtail the use of my card from now
on. However, this is probably the desired outcome by
'the powers that be' as they probably found the processing
of signature receipts to be somewhat overwhelming.
Well, excuse me, wasn't that the whole purpose for issuing
such Debit/Credit cards, to make your use of their
services easier on the banks?

Like the Post Office and automation, the Banks and Credit
Card companies institute a service to speed up the use of
their services, make it more automated/digital and
attractive to probable users. Then, years down the road,
they complain about that very service being too costly
and attempt to curtail it, expand it (usually a 'package'
deal with features you don't need or use but that will
cost you more in the long run), charge more for it or
eliminate it altogether!

The people in the board meeting have come up with a
"solution" to a nagging problem and are very pleased
with their implementation of a new idea.
Generally, I wind up finding and changing to a smaller,
hungrier bank with fewer 'packaged services.'

Are you still with the very same Bank with which you
opened your first checking account?

Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, et al

Why is it that every time I hear about a new
comment by Pat Robertson on world events, I
think of Jim Jones?

I'm not going to explain this association. I'm
just going to wait and see if anyone else
makes the connection.