Celebrities Can Go F* Themselves

Ted Nugent to Piers Morgan: Suck My Machine Gun

Two Female Justices Think It's OK To Amputate Penis, Lone Male Justice Dissents

In a case that has been going on for four years, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the doctor acted properly. What was in contention is that the victim in the case wanted a second opinion, but the doctor said that since the patient signed a consent form, the doctor could treat it as he saw fit. I find it interesting that two of the justices, both women, thought it was ok, yet the lone man on the high court did not.

The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options. 

Judge Janet Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent. 

"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote. 

Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ. 

"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.

I don't know about you, but I would want a choice in the matter, even if it might prove terminal. Whose life is it anyway? And people wonder why doctors think they are gods. It seems so do judges too.

Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.

He gets it.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lone Texas Ranger Does Cavity Search On Routine Stop

Taking lessons from the TSA? 

Crazy Control

The knee jerk reaction from the progressive and neo-liberal left was to be expected, but is still a straw man argument that avoids the real issue. It's not gun control that is the problem. Schools are "gun free zones" and Connecticut isn't exactly a pro-gun shall issue state. While not in league with Illinois, NY, CA or DC, it's not Arizona either.

The problem is one, how does someone that doesn't belong in a school get in a school and two, crazy control. The first is the final failure, the latter is the first failure. We've become a society that would rather punish and restrict those that do nothing wrong than remediate, adjudicate and eliminate the risk posed by crazy people. Somehow, crazy people have more rights than law abiding citizens. The thing is, in this latest massacre, people that knew the assailant knew he was nuts and did nothing effectively to prevent this. The same with the Aurora assailant, James Homes. Here is part F from the BATFE form 4473:

F. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

May be this needs to be changed to being treated for a mental illness. May be people under psychiatric care need to register that they are under care and such information would be linked to gun purchases. We already prohibit domestic violators from obtaining firearms. From the same 4473 form:

h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See Instructions for Question 11.h.)

i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.)

Of course we'll never see this done because gun owners, the vast majority of which don't commit crimes, are an easier target. They have no sympathy song to play for the public. With the logic hoplophobes use, we should outlaw cars and alcohol because of drunk driving (which kills more people in this country than guns do), we should outlaw forks, knives and spoons because people are obese or may be castrate all men because some of them rape women. The fallacy of their logic is almost palpable, yet they continue with it like the legion of pigs running over the cliff.

The other fault is that the school did not provide adequate security. This person didn't belong there and he got in and the tool of his evil really doesn't matter. Would it make people feel better if he used an axe, scissors or a ball peen hammer? Would they think that is better because not as many people might not be killed? Who picks who lives and dies? Again, the failure is not identifying threats before they happen, which is one, identifying mentally ill people, prevent them from buying guns and prevent people with evil intent from entering a school.

Of course we will see hand wringing about the poor mentally ill people can't get help etc, which is rubbish in many cases. In the two cases mentioned, we know that one was "getting help" and both were know to be ill. The question is, why wasn't more done about it?

Instead of blaming an inanimate object with no moral bearing, may be we need to blame the individuals involved and those that failed to stop this from happening in the first place. Someone once said that "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves...". Indeed. What we need is crazy control. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

The Decadence of Recreation

Ann Friedman

I was reading an article in NYMAG by Ann Friedman titled The Decadence of Procreation. The article seems to rail against the idea of procreation and with undertones of pro-abortion agenda, but what caught my eye was a comment by a person who calls themselves RKG. If this doesn't underscore the insanity of the pro-gay rights movement, let alone the left in general, I don't know what does.

As someone that believes in live and let live, I usually don't care if someone is white, black, straight, gay, transwhatever, as long as they mind their own business like the rest of us and get on with life, who really cares as it shouldn't be a factor in politics or even culture. The problem as I see it isn't equal rights, but superior rights demanded by people that aren't willing to accept that some people may not like them and because of their choices, there are consequences. It's bad enough I have to deal with evangelical mormons and Jehovah witnesses, now we have to throw in evangelical atheists, greenies and social justice freaks. Get a fucking life.

Anyway, back to the article. One of the comments shows how twisted some people are and RKG should be a poster-child for the pro-abortion movement, after all, it's something she endorses. Ok, that was a little harsh, but she's mishugah and farkockte. Here it is:

"As a queer person, I see having kids as a flaunting of heterosexual privilege. Or, to put it more bluntly, having kids is a way of showing that one group of people has more rights than others. When I was in my best child-bearing years, I lived in states that made it illegal for two people of the same sex to adopt a child, so even if I had a child biologically, my partner could never become a legal parent, which ultimately put my child in danger (if I were to have died, the child would have gone into foster care and not to the co-parent).  That's why I can't feel any sympathy for people who get to have kids. Yes, I have more money and more in retirement than you do, but that's because the choice of whether or not to have kids was not a choice for me like it was for you. You made your choice. Quit whining about it to those of us who never had the choice."

Whining? Whose the one whining and who made their choices the way it did?


Thank you for reading this blog.

Happy Birthday George Armstrong Custer

Happy Birthday to George Armstrong Custer, the boy general, Civil War hero and the leader of the 7th Cavalry. Heralded in his day, despised and reviled by revisionist historians, at times the truth is somewhere in the middle. Say what you will, but no one can question his courage. He was the romantic warrior of his time.

Thank you for reading this blog.