46 Thoughts to “Better Late than Never: Open Thread 7/7/2010”

  1. Since there seems to be many women on this blog (that’s not to say that this isn’t appropriate for men, but its geared towards women), I thought that you might find this piece about turning assailants into a “Personal Chew Toy”…..um….educational….

    Excerpt from http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2008/01/professor-lawdogs-school-of-survival.html

    Good morning, class. Today’s lesson is particularly geared towards the distaff side of the species, it is specifically: Appropriate Countermeasures to the Front Chokehold.

    The Front Chokehold is, of course, when you are facing your assailant and he places both of his hands around your neck and squeezes.

    I say ‘he’ because, quite frankly, I don’t see a lot of women attempting this really stupid maneuver.

    I am, however, seeing an annoying uptick in the number of feral boyfriends, lovers, spouses and others utilizing said stupid maneuver — not so much to cause death by strangulation, but to induce fear and panic before using the grip on the neck to throw the victim across the room — and, quite frankly, it’s pissing me off.

    So.

    To begin, understand that we here at LawDog Institute are not particularly concerned with the well-being of your attacker. Matter-of-fact, we believe that if your feral boyfriend is dead or brain-damaged, the odds of him being able to con you into believing “it won’t happen again” and have you go back to him drop sharply.

    With this in mind, however, do not practice this at full speed with a sparring partner.

    Lawdog continues with a great lesson. The comments are well worth reading. My favorite:

    At least one of the women I know would point out that, if both of her assailant’s hands were busy trying to apply a choke hold, there’d be not a thing in the world he could do to prevent her from drawing her Colt and going for slide lock…

  2. I hope you post the rest of the article Cargo.

  3. Starryflights

    Viva Espana! Viva La Roja!

  4. @Moon-howler
    It’s someone else’s article. I wouldn’t want to copy and paste the whole thing. Just thought you guys might like the link to it.

  5. As long as you give them credit, its fair game….or so I understand.

  6. PWC Lady

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/post_686.html

    My favorite two parts…”I hope the Justice Department sues Virginia as well,” said Corey Stewart…and…”Acknowledging the Commonwealth is already strapped for cash, Stewart said a lawsuit and the money it could cost would be worth it.”

    So this is Mr. Stewart’s priority, fight the Federal government in a lawsuit we can’t afford. I can’t think of anything else that the Commonwealth could spend that money on. Schools? Nah. Roads? Heck no. Public Safety? Sorry.

  7. From the LawDog:

    With this in mind, however, do not practice this at full speed with a sparring partner.

    Do not practice this at half-speed with a sparring partner.

    There is a very real risk of death or serious bodily injury here, and I do not want to hear that you accidentally paralyzed your Pookie during training — so practice this in super-slow motion anytime you are training with a partner.

    Now. Visualize your own personal critter with both hands around your throat, squeezing. If you are a woman, and a man is squeezing your throat — it is deadly force. Even if he “didn’t mean to do it”, it is far too easy to damage the airway, damage the blood vessels in the neck, crush the larynx or fracture the delicate bones in your neck. Getting you by the throat just elevated this jackass from ‘Critter’ to ‘Personal Chew-Toy’.

    Notice, do, that it is impossible for your attacker to bring his elbows together — his shoulders prevent it. In addition, 99% of your assailants are going to bend their elbows out at a forty to ninety degree angle to get better leverage to kill you.

    It is this space between his elbows that we are going to play with.

    First, I want you to spot your chew-toy’s chin. Eying his chin, I want you to drive your right elbow straight up between his arms and upwards through his chin to his forehead.

    Let me repeat that — drive through his chin and past his forehead. If you are left-handed, do this with your left elbow.

    If his chin is too far away — doubtful, but possible — drive the palm of the proper hand through his chin and past his forehead.

    Our purpose here is two-fold. One, we want our upper arm/shoulder between chew-toy’s hands. Two, we want to slam the Brain Housing Group back on the pivot of the spine.

    Several things may happen at this point. Your personal chew-toy may bite his tongue, lose teeth, break his jaw, and/or damage the delicate joint between the Atlas vertebrae (the first cervical vertebrae) and the skull. What we’re really going for, though, is the wet squelch when the inside of his forehead slams into his grey matter.

    So, you now have your elbow up around your forehead. At this point, I want you to whip your elbow out and down so that your elbow ends up somewhere behind the proper side kidney. If you have the presence of mind, feel free to step back with the right foot as you do this, to provide extra power.

    Again, if you are doing this with your left hand, switch the above instructions as required.

    Observe that this forces the lever of your upper arm and shoulder against the fingers, and brings the power of your shoulder and upper back muscles to bear against the chew-toy’s forearm muscles. You will rip that particular hand away from your neck — there is nothing he can do with that hand to prevent this.

    As your elbow comes back, spot your chew-toy’s jaw. On the side towards your elbow, I want you to fix your attention to the spot midway between the point of his chin and the hinge of the jaw. Keeping your gaze on that spot, I want you to pivot your hips counter-clockwise (clockwise, if you’re a southpaw). If you stepped back with your foot earlier — now step forward. As you pivot your hips, crank your waist hard counter-clockwise (or clockwise) and throw your left shoulder back and your right one forward.

    Using this whiplash motion, slam your right elbow into that spot on his jaw you are focused upon. Force your elbow through his mouth, continuing pivotting counter-clockwise — and you are facing to your left (or right).

    Again, several things may happen at this point. Any teeth that escaped breakage earlier are probably now gone. The jaw may be broken (again), and you may have damaged the delicate joint between the Atlas and Axis (C1 and C2) vertebrae at the top of his spine. Again, though, what we’re going for is a thorough beat-down of his cerebral tissue using the inside of his skull.

    Hey, look. You ended the exercise facing left (or right). Time to run like hell for safety and call 911.

    Always, always, always call 911, because the first person to talk to the cops has an incredible advantage — and you don’t want your chew toy to get his story in first.

    Three simple, albeit brutal, moves: 1)Up; 2)Down/out; and 3)Across. Practice it slowly ten times a day, and let adrenaline add the speed and force should you ever (Goddess forfend) need to use it for real.

    Class dismissed.

  8. George S. Harris

    For all those wishing for more anti-immigration laws:

    From today’s WaPo:

    Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may follow Arizona’s lead on immigration law
    By Michael W. Savage
    Thursday, July 8, 2010

    Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government’s challenge to the state’s strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.

    This Story
    3 other states weighing tough immigration bills Arizona-style laws?

    Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

    The Obama administration sued Arizona in federal court Tuesday, charging that the state law usurps federal authority, would hamper immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who have no proof of lawful status. The government asked that a federal judge stop the law from taking effect July 29.

    Legislators in at least 17 other states introduced bills this year similar to the Arizona law, which allows officers to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. But most of those measures are not considered likely to be adopted or signed by governors.

    The political climate in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, however, improves the chances that state legislatures there could follow Arizona’s lead in 2011.

    In 2007, Oklahoma led the way on such laws by adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses and in-state tuition.

    State Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

    Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an “Arizona-plus” measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona’s law has been to push illegal immigrants “straight down Interstate 40” toward Oklahoma.

    Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration’s decision to sue Arizona could discourage other states from doing the same. But he also said that similar legislation may be adopted in 2011.

    “After the other border states, it is natural to look at the states that have enacted the most anti-immigrant laws” before Arizona, Malhotra said. He said he expected Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah to make the “most vigorous effort” to enact similar legislation early next year.

    Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he thinks the Obama administration designed the lawsuit against Arizona as a “shot across the bows” of all states considering similar moves. He said he doubts, though, that Terrill will be deterred.

    “Randy Terrill has made this his issue in Oklahoma and has earned bipartisan support in the past,” he said. “He is a determined guy and he is not going to back down too easily.”

    In Utah, state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R) has been making regular fact-finding trips to Arizona as he finalizes a draft bill. But, following the announcement of the federal suit, he said he may consider watering down one of the Arizona law’s most contentious elements.

    Under the law, state officers are instructed to check immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally. Sandstrom said his measure may require officers to meet the higher legal standard of “probable cause” to suspect someone of being undocumented before checking.

    “I don’t want people of Hispanic descent to feel my bill is aimed at them,” he said.

    A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers. Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has said he expects to sign new immigration legislation next year and is meeting with all sides to find a way forward.

    South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) touted a comprehensive set of measures against illegal immigration as the nation’s strictest when he signed it into law in 2008. The far-reaching legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime. State lawmakers are seeking to build on it and were quick this year to draw up an Arizona-style bill, introducing it less than a week after the Arizona measure was signed.

    State Sen. Larry Martin (R) said in an interview that an Arizona-type measure was introduced too late this year. “But I have every expectation a new bill will be introduced in January,” he said. “As long as an officer has a lawful reason to question someone, and then a suspicion develops [that] they are an undocumented person, then I think our law enforcement folks ought to be able to pursue that,” he said.
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Here are the states considering similar laws: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/07/07/GR2010070705388.html?sid=ST2010070703034
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Now the question will is, Will this do anything to spur the administration into action? Or will the administration spend the rest of its time in court? Will states considering such laws also do something about their national representatives; i.e., kick out the ones perceived to be rocks inthe road to immigration reform or will it be business as usual–it’s the other guys who are the problem?

  9. George S. Harris

    I still keep asking myself why we are still there. I know–it’s to fight terrorism by stabilizing the Afghan government and army to allow it to take care of itself. But I am not so certain that the government is capable of being stabilized or even desires to be and the Afghan Army–well it’s a joke, pure and simple. Some villages have asked that the police not be allowed to return to their village since the first thing they do say the villagers is round up all the small boys, take them away and rape them. Is this why we are there? Is this why our young men and women are being killed and maimed? Buggery and baksheesh–great causes to die for.

    Survey of Afghans points to rampant corruption in government

    By Ernesto Londoño
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Thursday, July 8, 2010

    KABUL — Corruption has soared in recent years as the United States and other international donors have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan, giving the Taliban a powerful tool to delegitimize the Afghan government, according to a new national survey.

    The whole story is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070705222.html?sid=ST2010070701624

    And here are some graphics: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/07/07/GR2010070705365.html?sid=ST2010070701624

  10. punchak

    A look back (Washington Inquirer, February 8, 1991)

    CNN urged: Recall Arnett

    The Victory Comittee, a national coalition of pro-American organizations that support the goal of victory in the war, demanded today that CNN terminate the broadcast of Iraqi propaganda from Baghdad and withdraw its crew and equipment from the enemy capital. It called on all Americans to tell Ted Turner that they will not listen to CNN as long as it keeps Peter Arnett and his crew in Baghdad, serving as Saddam Hussein’s unofficial propagande mouthpiece.

    Arnett and his crew regularly transmit scenes of wounded civilians, non-military damage and angry or bereaved Iraqis. This creates sympath.y for Iraq even among some Americans and arouses anti-American feeling abroad, especially in the Arab countries.

    The committee warned that if the Gof War drags on much longer than expected, and if we suffer heavy casalties, CNN’s prescence in Baghdad will be a formidable weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein in undermining the morale of the American people.

  11. All these states and localities touting that they have the strictest immigration laws….all election ploys. I notice all of them still have immigrants….and ones that in all likelihood are not documents.

    It sounds like a lot of chest thumping to me.

  12. marinm

    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/bensonvchicago1.pdf

    Benson v. Chicago; a complaint against the City of Chicago arguing that the new ordinance passed by the council violates the 2nd and 14th Amendments. Plantiff’s would like to own and carry pistols outside of a home, in medical offices, and have access to shooting ranges to practice with firearms.

    I heard a rumor that NC’s law of ‘going armed to the terror of the public’ or whatever other hogwash they used is also being taken to court. I pray for our brothers and sisters in NC that they may be free one day.

  13. @George S. Harris
    I have that same question. What is our goal, especially since we are supposed to be leaving in a year? Wars in which one side sets a deadline is no war. Its a slow surrender. So, lets leave now. Either declare what our goals are, which should include victory, or leave now. Delay is immoral. If the destruction of the Taliban is the goal, lets do it. If its to “stabilize” the gov’t, then make provide the security needed and the SUPERVISON of Afghani forces, and do that. This muddling about until July 2011 is wrong.

  14. Posting as Pinko

    @George S. Harris
    “illegal to harbor…undocumented workers.”

    What the hell does that mean? I have to check people’s citizen status when they come over my house?

  15. Lafayette

    Pennsylvania now has wine vending machines. UFB!!!!
    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1997925
    From the article.
    The vending machines are a testament to both the wonder of technology and the obscurity of Pennsylvania’s complicated liquor laws.

  16. marinm

    That’s wicked cool. Redbox for wine sales. I’d get rid of the remote state worker authorizing the sale but I think it’s a great idea on the whole.

  17. Posting as Pinko

    @Lafayette
    Do they have them at Visitor’s centers?

  18. Lafayette

    @Posting as Pinko
    Don’t know. Does PA have state ran Visitor’s centers like the Old Dominion? I’m not familiar with much north of the Mason Dixon line. 😉

  19. Lafayette

    @marinm
    It’s an interesting concept to say the least. I’m just not sure about vending machines with alcohol in them. I’ve lost three family friends to drunk drivers and hit by one myself pregnant. Alcohol is easy enough to purchase without having the purchase by DIY.

  20. marinm

    Lafayette, I’m sorry for your losses.

    Another interesting device.
    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/01/66313

  21. Lafayette

    @marinm
    Now, this concept for wine tasting is quite is neat. For what ever reason I have no problem at all with the vending of wine for tastings without travelling the country side. I do see the PA vending as a potential problem. Thanks for sharing this link.

  22. Posting as Pinko

    @Lafayette
    WOW I am sorry.

    I asked about the Visitor’s centers because wouldn’t that promote drunk driving?

  23. Emma

    Predictably, you have to dig a little to get this story from the WaPo: A 42-year-old Iranian woman has spent nearly 5 years in prison and faces imminent stoning for the crime of adultery. She had relationships with two men AFTER her husband died. There are some reports that the woman now will not be stoned, but nothing is confirmed and there is no reason to believe the Iranian government is telling the truth. She will be buried up to her neck and then stoned.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070803391.html

    Ahh, the enlightenment of sharia law!

  24. I think the wine kiosks are in grocery stores. I see no difference in the kiosk and buying it off the shelf at Giant. PA has archaic liquor/beer/wine laws.

  25. Lafayette

    PA could just let grocery stores sell wine and they wouldn’t have a need for vending machines. Well, at least they do have state ran liquor stores. Of course, Moon, as we both know some think that’s archaic.

    @Moon-howler

  26. What’s the difference in a vending machine and a store shelf? Not sure there is one.

    Our liquor stores had better not be touched!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  27. It seems that the dark screen has some rather odd lawn ornaments being displayed. My email box has several notices. What on earth is he thinking?

    I thought the dog food was the nadir of an attempt at humor. How wrong I was.

    Am I surprised? Sort of. Most people try to hide stuff like that rather than strut it.

  28. I am still trying to get a handle on the RI situation. Also, I seem to recall that during the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney was given a ration of you know what over immigration and the fact he wasn’t tough on immigration. It sounds like he was rather tough after all. Since he left office state troopers checking on status is down 87%. The new gov. recinded Romney’s decree.

    So…Republicans preferred McCain with his side-kick Sarah Palin? It sounds like they deserve Obama. If you want strong immigration controls, it seems to me the smart thing to do is not devour the guy who actually has a plan in favor of some dude who will play to the audience and bring along Ms. Soundbyte on Steroids.

  29. Moon, you’re almost right. Conservatives preferred Palin with her sidekick McCain. They were willing to vote for McCain with Palin because, you know, he’s old……

    McCain was horrible on immigration and wanted amnesty and what amounted to open borders.

  30. marinm

    I voted for Palin and ‘some guy’. I would’ve preferred to have voted for Paul and a Paul/Palin ticket would make me as happy as a hog in slop. I think Paul could mellow out Palin’s want to spend more on military spending.

    Cut, cut, cut.

  31. RingDangDoo

    I voted for Palin as well. Maybe next time she can get a decent running mate.

  32. Morris Davis

    I believe Sarah Palin’s support of the Alaskan Independence Party (Todd was a registered member of the party) makes her unfit for national office. The party’s goal from its founding by secessionist Joe Volger was an “Independent Nation of Alaska.” I just don’t see how one can be “All-American” when you want to take your state’s star off the flag and not be an American. @marinm

  33. I suppose about the kindest thing I can say is that you all don’t require any intellect from your president. I would be horrifed if Sarah Palin or anyone like her was ever elected.

    I wouldn’t say McCain was for amnesty. but I am using the real definition of amnesty, not a political buzz word. To me, if you have to pay a steep fine and jump through a bunch of hoops, it isn’t amnesty. Amnesty, by definition, has no penalties.

  34. George S. Harris

    @Posting as Pinko
    I haven’t a clue but would recommend you write to Utah and ask the question since it is their law. The best I can say is “to harbor” is to give shelter to [refugees or fugitives -such as illegal/undocumented immigrants]. I suppose if you took in an illegal/undocumented immigrant, knowing they were illegal, you would be guilty of “harboring” them.

  35. George S. Harris

    Can it reall be this simple? Here is the executive order signed by the Rhode Island’s Governor Donald L Carcieri to require:
    A. Rhode Island’s Administrative Department to use the federal E-verify system to document the status of people hired to work for the all agencies and departments in the executive branch.
    B. All persons and businesses conducting business wi th the state to use the federal E-verify system to verify status of their employees.
    C. All departments to notify individuals whose identity has been stolen if that “identity” is used to file false claims.
    D. The State Police to develope an MOA with ICE to receive necessary training to “enable them to assist ICE personnel in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
    E. A very similar action by the state correctional system.
    F All atate and local LEOs and agencies to support enforcement of federal immigration laws…

    All this with little or no fanfare! Here is the order:

    http://www.governor.ri.gov/documents/executiveorders/2008/01_illegal_immigration_control_order.pdf

  36. George S. Harris

    @Moon-howler
    Moon–see my #36.

  37. George S. Harris

    @Emma
    Of course they are not going to stone her, but they might just whack her head off in the public square. And there is always the garrotte, not mention cutting her head off in private while videoing it. Yes, sharia law…

  38. George S. Harris

    @cargosquid
    Example–“They” (I think that is “us”) want 134,000 trained police by next year. The police academy can handle roughly 3,600 a year. About 20% of that 3,600 will leave within a year for better jobs or because of Taliban intimidation. The 134,000 includes national police I believe and they lose roughtly 70% of the ones they train. So how do we get to 134,000? I haven’t a clue. Couple this with a 20% national literacy rate and you begin to see what Sisyphus was faced with. Some LEO asks for your papers, but he can’t read them–duh!

    As to defeating the Taliban–not on our watch, our children’s watch, our grandchildren’s watch or our great grandchildren’s watch unless the Afghan people do it. Read Sebastian Junger’s “War” if you haven’t–it will give you a great appreciation for the problems we are facing.

    Go here to see some pix of the Korengal: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/afghanistans_korengal_valley.html

    Also will show you why OBL is still free.

  39. @ George #36

    That letter from the governor of RI is very informative. It states clearly that his executive order is not to supercede any federal or state laws and it also acknowledges that the objective is to remove criminal illegal aliens.

    Regardless of what people say, that is not what the AZ law is all about. The RI executive order works with the feds according to their rules.

    AZ sticks a thumb in the eye of the feds. Big difference. RI has a very similar set up to PWC. I don’t think everify is part of the pwc package but I am not positive. There have been many complaints about everify giving false info. Not sure on that either. But thanks, George, for find out all that and posting it.

  40. George S. Harris

    I keep thinking about the WaPo article I referenced in #9 and am beginning to wonder if this is how our grand experiment starts to unravel. Bear with me for a second.
    A. The central government is or appears to be ineffective.
    B. Groups begin to demonstrate against what they perceive as the ineffectiveness of the central government.
    C. Groups begin to talk about the need to do away with or make major changes in the central government.
    D. States begin to pass laws that contravene federal laws.
    E. The central government takes on the states in federal court to overturn the laws in D.
    F. There are more demonstrations by the groups in B above but now National Guard units are mobilized to put down the demonstrations–riots break out.
    G. One or more states decide to withdraw from the union and requires that its citizens no longer obey federal laws or submit tax payments, etc. to the federal government and orders state National Guard units to stand down or not mobilize when order to by the federal government.
    H. Regular Army forces are brought in.
    I. Groups begin to “man up” openly carrying weapons that our laws have permitted. Some hothead takes a potshot at a group of soldiers.
    J. War??????

    H.

  41. George S. Harris

    @Moon-howler
    The “letter” is actually the executive order putting the whole thing in place for Rhode Island. The amazing part about the whole thing it that it is done with little or no fanfare–no drum beating, no flag waving, no chest thumping. The governor signs the order (I’m sure there was consultation with the state legislature and the feds) and Rhode Island goes about the business of “assisting ICE to enforce federal immigration laws.”

  42. Totally agree, George. Their plan is pretty much what ours here in the county is. Ours is 2 parts also….both at the jail and then we have a criminal alien unit with our police dept.–6 officers I believe.

    Of course, there was much chest thumping and drum rolling surrounding the 2nd part. Also, it was very difficult to sort out what was what…and that was intentional.

  43. kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    I suppose about the kindest thing I can say is that you all don’t require any intellect from your president.

    About the kindest thing that I can say is that you are not a very good judge of intellect. In my opinion, Palin possesses superior intellect to either Obama or Biden. But then again, they are both pro-abortion so I can see why you would view them as brilliant.

    It seems clear that the various women’s groups have a litmus test: pro-abortion=brilliant, independent thinker; pro-life =stupid, simpleton, sound-bite queen.

  44. RingDangDoo

    Heads up!

    Drudge now has a link to Fox’s article…

    “Virginia Lawmaker Challenges Feds to Sue His State Over Immigration Enforcement”

    This outta go viral. 😉

  45. RingDangDoo

    addendum… the “Virginia lawmaker” is you friend Stewart. 😉

Comments are closed.