If you've ever taken courses in self-defense and the proper use of firearms, you should have encountered the concept of "creating witnesses". This means that before you fill some scumbag up with 40 caliber felon repellent, you say things loudly and clearly like "Drop your weapon; I don't want to shoot you!" and "Don't make me shoot you!" and "Don't come any closer!" This is a really good idea since there are always three fights involved in any altercation in which you use deadly force: you against you, you against the assailant and then the longest and hardest one, you against the legal system. And if you happen to stop or drop the bastard, he will be the "victim" in the wrongful death civil trial, not you. So shouting these things out will be heard by bystanders and can be used, hopefully, in the courtroom in front of the Oprah-indoctrinated jury to help counter the witness of the mommy sobbing, "He never wanted to hurt anyone!"
But forget self-defense for a moment. Suppose instead you want to shoot a bunch of people and want a chance to get away with it via an insanity plea in case you survive. What should you shout out to create witnesses for that scenario? Well, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" seems to be a good way to make people think maybe you've "cracked under stress". You also might want to give people business cards with the title "Soldier of Allah" and frequent Radical Islamist web sites. And actually having ties to an Imam with extremist views would be kind of a cherry on top for the ol' insanity plea.
Now, I know what you're thinking. Won't people maybe think that you are actually an Islamist terrorist who had planned the incident with cold, calculated premeditation if you did and said all these things? Surprisingly not; it's more likely you will be diagnosed with Pre-traumatic Stress Disorder. Go figure.
▼
Friday, November 13, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Not so fast
Here's something about the Bishop's view on health care on the USCCB site.
Did you catch the switcheroo? Let's concede that health care is a right, although the meaning of that phrase in the context of insurance regulations is seemingly opaque by design. Because they didn't even mention people not having access to health care, they mentioned people without health insurance coverage. These are two different things altogether. This is not difficult to prove; I pay for health care out of pocket all the time from a bottle of Ibuprofen to chiropractic adjustments. Likewise I'm covered if I need certain treatments which I haven't needed. So coverage and care are two separate issues. It's an example of the two overlapping circles.
So I don't buy this idea that people can't get health care. My friend's father was in between policies when he had a heart-attack. He was not denied care. The other thing I hate is this anti-doctor sentiment that goes hand in hand with this push for Obamacare. I know so many doctors who do Pro Bono work and come up with payment plans for the poor. It's sick and wrong to suggest there is some kind of concerted effort in our country to deny people health care.
But just watch what happens to the number of people not receiving care if this government plan kicks in and the number of doctors willing to work under the brave new system begins heading in the other direction. Then we'll wish we could start over as we watch this "fundamental issue of human life and dignity" go from bad to worse to "good enough for government work".
Q: Why are the bishops so vocal about health care reform?
A: One out of three Americans under the age of 65 went without health insurance for some period of time during 2007 and 2008. Of these, four out of five were from working families. Sixty four percent of the uninsured are employed full time, year round. This state of affairs is unacceptable. In the Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right not a privilege. It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity.
Did you catch the switcheroo? Let's concede that health care is a right, although the meaning of that phrase in the context of insurance regulations is seemingly opaque by design. Because they didn't even mention people not having access to health care, they mentioned people without health insurance coverage. These are two different things altogether. This is not difficult to prove; I pay for health care out of pocket all the time from a bottle of Ibuprofen to chiropractic adjustments. Likewise I'm covered if I need certain treatments which I haven't needed. So coverage and care are two separate issues. It's an example of the two overlapping circles.
So I don't buy this idea that people can't get health care. My friend's father was in between policies when he had a heart-attack. He was not denied care. The other thing I hate is this anti-doctor sentiment that goes hand in hand with this push for Obamacare. I know so many doctors who do Pro Bono work and come up with payment plans for the poor. It's sick and wrong to suggest there is some kind of concerted effort in our country to deny people health care.
But just watch what happens to the number of people not receiving care if this government plan kicks in and the number of doctors willing to work under the brave new system begins heading in the other direction. Then we'll wish we could start over as we watch this "fundamental issue of human life and dignity" go from bad to worse to "good enough for government work".
A note to those involved in telephone fundraising efforts
After your shpiel, if I say to you "Please send me a letter", you really should be using your next breath to ask me my address. If instead, you choose to tell me that most people like to pay over the phone, chances are you won't get the contribution or the address.
If you missed it a year ago
A few days back, Iowahawk reposted his classic "election analysis" from a year ago. At that time, I welcomed it as playful yet poignant example of "apocalyptic standup", a phrase used and possibly coined by Bill Bennett in describing Steyn's America Alone. Excerpt:
Indeed. Lolz @ Gary Coleman.
Well, there's always some reason to be positive. Noticed these pappies in the store yesterday—time to go a-stockin'.
Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind. But let it not distract us from the fact that Mr. Obama's election represents a profound, positive milestone in our country's struggle to overcome its long legacy of racial divisions and bigotry. It reminds us of how far we've come, and it's something everyone in our nation should celebrate in whatever little time we now have left.
Indeed. Lolz @ Gary Coleman.
Well, there's always some reason to be positive. Noticed these pappies in the store yesterday—time to go a-stockin'.