Publish The Names And Addresses Of The Journal News Staff On The NRA Website

In the aftermath of the Newtown, CT shooting, some left wing smart arses at upstate New York local paper The Journal News decided to publish the names and addresses of all registered handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties, information which is available on public record.

Ooh! Here are all the evil gun owners in our community! These are the crazy, right wing people we need to be scared of. Don’t let your children go over to play in a house with guns in it!

Janet Hasson, the paper’s publisher, said:

“We felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.”

You sanctimonious, incompetent, middle class lefty fuckwits! Not only have you provided criminals a detailed map of houses worth burgling, you’ve omitted all the houses which contain rifles and shotguns, which for some reason do not require a permit. So, now we know who owns a pistol (almost certainly for sports shooting or self defence), but not who owns an assault rifle, the usual weapon of choice for massacres.

The gun owners were of course furious. They seem to have the support of most of the community.

Maybe gun owners will feel it’s important to “share information” about the social engineering, lefty hand wringers in their area who want to pillory and scapegoat them for exercising their LEGAL right under the 2nd amendment.

One of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was to facilitate the formation of militia, not just for defence against invasion, but against tyrannical government (having just won independence from Britain). Lefties would hold that the military is the US’s modern defence against invasion and that, being a democracy, there is no longer a requirement for defence against tyrannical government. Given that lefties tend to be constructivist rule makers who exclude dissenters from their rule making committees (and therefore don’t really believe in democracy), I’m not so sure defence against tyrannical government is no longer necessary.

There is a high level of gun ownership in Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Scandanavia, without anywhere near the same level of gun homicides as in the USA. People can own guns without shooting each other at high rates. The problem in the USA is not guns: it's the level of fear and anger in social interactions; something which visitors can sense.

Don't let the lefties turn the US into a UK style, international socialist lawyers' nanny state which puts the rights and identity politics of minorities above the dominant culture. If you do, you'll probably need the 2nd amendment when the first Muslim president tries to introduce sharia law in 2112.

Perhaps the NRA should publish on its website photographs, names, addresses, car registrations, social security numbers etc of all the staff at the Journal News. These hypocrites will scream blue murder when given a taste of their own medicine, of course.

“Oh, but that’s purely to harass and intimidate us for legitimate journalism. You fascists!”

Legitimate journalism? Political campaigning masquerading as journalism, more like it … and your publication of gun owners’ addresses had no intention of eliciting any intimidation of them via social censure.

Let’s see how much you smart arsed wankers really do like freedom of information.

Update: Ha! Ha! It didn't take long. Gun owners have published the Journal News staff's names, addresses and telephone numbers. Maybe one more burst of anger in social interactions is necessary before American society embarks on some serious self examination.

Officious Little Turds Give The Sydney To Hobart Race A Bad Smell

Reading right through the SMH article on Wild Thing’s exclusion from this year’s Sydney to Hobart Race, it’s hard to see Howard Piggott and Tim Cox from race organizers, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA) as anything other than the villains of the piece.

Race director, Tim Cox (with CYCA Commodore Howard Piggott’s full support) excluded Wild Thing from this year’s race because of inadequate documentation. Specifically, it appears the contentious issue is that modifications recently made to the boat had to be signed off by a naval architect that they were in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping guidelines.

Wild Thing skipper Grant Wharington says that his boat’s documentation contains a report from a naval architect which states: “the modification falls within the minimum scope of the ABS guide”.

Could a person acting in good faith interpret that statement as not complying with the race regulations? Not in my opinion.

Howard Piggott and Tim Cox said accusations of their bias against big boats are “nonsense”, however their denials don’t appear to be supported by the evidence. To throw a boat out of an important race on a technicality smacks of ill will and petty officiousness. Additionally, why would the CYCA race committee itself lodge protests against both the 2010 and 2011 winners, unless it really is run by petty fuckwits with an axe to grind, as Grant Wharington is implying?

Perhaps they really don’t like the big boats coming and winning. However, it’s the big boats which attract the TV coverage, the sponsorship dollars and the prestige.

What about all the crew who were looking forward to sailing in the race? All the time, money and effort which was spent getting the boat to Sydney and ready for the race? What effect will it have on the race’s reputation (and hence economic benefit to Sydney and Hobart) if people think it’s run by a cabal of petty minded twits?

People of genuine substance would have considered that an adverse decision would ruin the season for the crew, as well as the larger economic picture. Only hollow, little men rely on technical points to use their positions to ruin events for others.

That’s what I think is at the heart of this episode: jumped up, little nobodies pretending to have power. What the race needs is organizers who believe it is about the sailors, not making mean spirited decisions and then trying to hide behind some bogus safety regulations or similar.

Should any of this matter to government in a liberal society?

Yes, if the race brings in tourist dollars and generates employment and tax revenue, which it does.

If government tourism agencies provide assistance to the race, the Ministers for Sport and Tourism should have a say in how it is run, even if that support is only in kind, such as marketing. Perhaps the government should threaten to withdraw its support from the race organizers, even offering it to a rival Sydney yacht club to hold their own race. I’m sure any trademarks can be worked around. The state could afford the loss of revenue for a couple of years more than the CYCA can.

Ludicrously, the race committee offered to “allow” Wild Thing to sail with the race, but not actually compete in it, probably because they knew they couldn’t prevent the crew sailing down to Hobart anyway.

Rather than pull out, I’d have liked to see Wild Thing tell the CYCA to get fucked, start say, fifteen minutes behind (since there would be some official exclusion zone for non-racing boats around the starting line), then sail for Hobart as fast as possible. What a farce it would have rendered the race had they beaten the “official” winner.

More Bullshit From The Courts

It’s bad enough that parliaments pass stupid laws. At least these are statute and can be repealed.

Worse is the creation of nonsensical common law via judicial activism, as absurd rulings establish perverse precedents.

There is no way that a person should be able to claim workers’ compensation for being injured while having sex, unless they work in a brothel.

The full bench of the Federal Court disagrees. They have just awarded a public servant workers’ compensation after she injured herself while having sex on a work trip, in a motel room, at night. Apparently a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled off its mount and hit her in the face, so she must have gone off like a firecracker. A finger up the arse at the right moment can do that.

Perhaps the stupidest thing about this case is that it has been allowed to continue for five years, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Comcare (the federal government’s workplace insurer) quite reasonably argued that the woman’s injury was not sustained during a work activity. The AAT agreed, but the stupid bitch kept fighting the matter and took it to the Federal Court, who found in her favour. Comcare of course appealed, but in a farcical decision, lost.

The court also allowed the claimant’s name to be suppressed, because ”she was unprepared to continue with the case if a consequence of doing so is that her true identity will be made public”.

Sounds like a good reason to publish it. I’d like to know who is grifting some of my taxes through this try on. Of course, she has also claimed additional compensation for a “psychological injury” and “loss of income”, because she really was so traumatized she just couldn’t go back to work, could she?

Typical fucking public service mentality.

Fundamental jurisprudence in common law is intent. When a situation arises that is not explicitly covered by statute, courts are supposed to consider the law’s general intent, as well as possibly the specific intent surrounding the actions of any parties in the matter.

The general intent of workers’ compensation law is to cover injuries sustained during work activities. The woman’s employer clearly did not intend sex to be part of her work activities and said as much during every hearing.

The AAT could grasp this logic. It must have taken some effort not to, but the full bench of the Federal Court found a way. Apparently, any injury during lawful activity done in any place which constitutes a work environment and which does not amount to misconduct qualifies for workers’ compensation.

The court cited an example of an injury incurred while playing cards (a paper cut, perhaps):

“If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced or encouraged her to engage in such an activity.”

No she fucking well shouldn’t be. What if she had been injured swimming in the hotel pool? Or put her back out playing Wii in the hotel room? Or choked on a brazil nut after raiding the mini bar?

These things would all be as a result of her own, chosen actions which are not essential to the adequate performance of her job. Having a shower, ironing a shirt: these things are necessary. Swimming in the pool or having sex are not. Therefore the former should be covered and the latter are her own problem. I think this is almost certainly the intent of the legislation.

Now, because of some idiot judges’ farcical interpretation, it needs to be explicitly amended to say this. The unions will of course fight tooth and nail to prevent any such amendment. “They’re taking away our rights!”

No, we’re protecting taxpayers against being ripped off.

Cases such as this help engender public disrespect for the courts and the legal system in general. If the Federal Court cannot be trusted to make decisions which reflect both common sense and what the majority of the community would clearly want OUR law to be, why should citizens maintain confidence in them?

I initially described this decision as judicial activism, which it is, since the Court has made some effort to find implications in the legislation which many would consider to be absent. But it also seems to me to be an example of the judiciary trying to asset itself.

It’s almost as if the Court is tacitly saying: ”If Parliament passes bad laws, it’s up to it to fix them. Otherwise, we’ll make whatever interpretations we feel like”.

Unfortunately, this political act has been at taxpayers’ expense and will ultimately be detrimental to public trust in the courts. It will also create a precedent which will allow other, similarly meretricious claims.

More useful would have been to make the correct interpretation of the law’s intent and throw the matter out, then make a submission to the Attorney General on the problems with the legislation’s current wording.

But that would have been too sensible.

The Tyranny Of The Fearful And Feeble Minded Claims Another Victim

Yet another citizen’s life and career stand to be ruined because of a poorly thought out, excessive law enacted in a knee jerk reaction to the fearful bleating of the feeble minded. Section 73 of the NSW Crimes Act rears its head once more.

What is this legislation actually intended to do?

Protect vulnerable, young people who are still legally children from sexual predators.

What its proponents probably had in mind was a calculating teacher, counselor, priest or sporting coach using their position of authority and power to enjoy a series of sexual conquests of the good citizenry’s 16 and 17 year old sons and / or daughters.

OK. Most of us would agree that such clearly predatory behaviour should engender some official censure additional to merely getting the sack.

This is the point: the framing of the law should clearly distinguish between a pattern of behaviour whose circumstances obviously indicate predation and one off affairs in which the person “in authority” lacks maturity themselves.

But what does the law actually do? Who are the people being charged? What are their alleged crimes?

Firstly, it is a serious criminal offence to have “sexual intercourse” with a 16 or 17 year old “under your care”, even though it would be perfectly legal were they not. The offence carries up to 4 years if the “victim” is 17 and 8 years if they are 16. That is, if you’re a 19 year old student teacher and you have sex with a 16 year old student at your school, you could be sentenced to 8 years in prison. Regardless of the length of sentence, you’ll be placed on a sex offenders’ register for life. However, have sex with a 16 year old student from another school and it’s perfectly legal.

A 21 year old university tutor who had sex with a first year student who attended one of their tutes and happened to be 17 could be charged under s73. Now, the police may or may not bring charges in such circumstances, but they could if they felt like it and that’s the problem with this idiotic law: its practical implementation does not in any way reflect either common sense or the views of the majority of the community.

This law as currently framed, allows selective prosecution, either due to police bastardry or conservative, vindictive parents. It also fails to adequately differentiate a wide spectrum of severity of wrongdoing.

Recently, a middle aged teacher was jailed for 18 months for a sexual relationship with a 16 year old student. A sackable offence? Certainly. Career ending? Maybe. But jail? Manifestly excessive. This was not a pattern; there did not ensue a host of other students coming forward to make complaints.

Now we have an injustice an order of magnitude greater. Another example of the tyranny of the stupid.

Carla Ruggeri has been charged with having sex with one of her 17 year old students, seven years ago, when she was 22.

Are we serious? As a society, do we believe this represents justice?

She is being prosecuted on our behalf. Will our society have gained anything after this travesty has run its course?

Apparently, we will have lost a good teacher. Carla Ruggeri is clearly liked by at least some of her students. Positive comments about a teacher on a website are not trivial: students usually devote their time to slagging teachers off. She has evidently grown up significantly in the intervening period and become a good teacher.

Are people’s children “at risk” around her? No, I don’t think so. People’s children are far more at risk from the lefties in the Teachers’ Federation or youth hating curmudgeons who, somewhat bizarrely, have chosen teaching as a profession.

I have taught 21 and 22 year olds in the final year of their B.Ed. Many of them were significantly less mature than some of the 17 year old boys in my final year at school.

Is the “power relationship” between a 22 year old teacher and a 17 year old student necessarily so one sided as to automatically infer predation from any sexual relationship?

Not in my experience.

My point here is that to be just, a law such as s73 (if we are to have one at all) must clearly differentiate patterns of behaviour from single affairs. It must also take into account the relative maturity of the so called perpetrator and victim.

It is reasonable that teachers, counselors or sporting coaches be sacked for sexual affairs with students. Evidence of predation involving 16 and 17 year olds should attract a ban from certain types of employment. However, I find it difficult to see the justice in jailing someone for sexual conduct which would be legal, but for the “position of authority or care”.

If you agree that Carla Ruggeri has already suffered an injustice by merely being charged, write to the NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith. Obviously, he cannot interfere with the particular case, however, it is his responsibility as AG to fix this unjust law.

Wade's Over Was Not Discrespectful

Michael Clarke giving keeper Matthew Wade an over during the 1st test against Sri Lanka was not at all disrespectful to cricket.

Have a look at the video. Other than being a bit short, he bowled pretty well. His speed was around 125 - 130k, which was about what Mark & Steve Waugh used to bowl. There was nothing wrong with trying something different at 4/186. He got the ball to skid through and could have had a wicket had the ball hit a crack or landed on the edge of the seam. People might not have been so churlish in their approbation of Clarke then.

Fortunately, not everyone is a narrow minded idiot who thinks a captain should not try something outside the box occasionally. Most cricket players I know were happy to see Wade have a bowl. Good on him. Hussey and Warner both had a crack. Wade looked at least as likely to get a wicket as either of them.

Whether it’s park or for your country, sport is about enjoying yourself and playing competitively relative to your ability.

Fingo’s team’s regular keeper occasionally swaps the gloves and in fact has taken 5 wickets, so Wade is in illustrious company.

Who are these curmudgeons who think a keeper shouldn’t bowl “out of respect for the game”? Brendan O’Brien, who the fuck are you anyway? What have you ever achieved in the game?

It’s always the people who have done nothing of note in a field who are the most officious.

If Only He Had Used His Geek Powers For Good

Building a personal, camera equipped drone is pretty cool and would have been a lot of fun. You could even start a small (or eventually big) business from the hobby if so inclined.

Engineer Paul Wallich goes into considerable detail about how he constructed a 1kg, remotely controlled quadcopter with built in camera. He even discusses off-the-shelf flight control software.

So what did he use it for?

Redefining helicopter parenting by following his grade school (I’m guessing 7 – 10 year old) son 400m to the bus stop. He then laments that power restrictions prevent him from following the bus all the way to school.

He used to walk his son to the bus stop, but in that much caricatured geeky way, seems to prefer social contact be mediated through a machine interface.

Is there something wrong with trusting your son to walk the 400m to the bus stop, then get on the bus and arrive at school by himself? What do you think might happen to him? I reckon the novelty of the copter overhead will pretty quickly give way to resentment at being watched. You’ll be beaming neuroses directly into him from the copter’s RF unit.

The sheer number of parents who either drive or walk their kids the short distance to our local primary school astounds me. Why don’t you just teach your molly coddled brats basic safety precautions and let them walk to school or the bus stop by themselves? We all used to.

How will these children ever learn to think and act independently? To assess and handle risks in a balanced manner? Oh, that’s right … we don’t want them to in our cradle to grave nanny state.

It would have been much funnier had he built the copter out of a dead cat.