How Can You Tell She's a Witch? Build a Bridge Out of Her!

British police now have a three hundred page book on diversity that tells them, among other things, how to deal with witches:

The online handbook also advises officers not to jump to conclusions if they encounter a situation where a blindfolded, naked person is tied by their hands – they could merely have stumbled upon a pagan ritual, where such activities are normal practice...

The guide, drawn up by the Metropolitan Police, Britain's largest police force, warns against interrupting a pagan ceremony.

It adds: "Some ceremonies include a blindfolded, naked participant, whose hands may be bound. This is in accordance with ritual and has the full consent of the participant."

Bobbie: "What's all this, then?"
Knife-Wielding Guy: "Just a little pagan ceremony, officer. Isn't that right, my dear?"
Naked Bound and Gagged Woman: "Mffftt!!! Mfffttt!!! Mfffttt!!!"
Bobbie: "Oh, all right then. I was concerned you might be raping her. Carry on."

Three hundred page manual. I've had shorter college textbooks. Are Britain's bobbies expected to read through this on their off-duty hours? Or are they ordered to stay in the station house and read and master the material (examination at 4:00...) before they can go out again and protect the public? How many man-hours are spent reading this manual instead of patrolling the streets?

Oh, and regarding the post title...

Do You REALLY Want to Know How the Stimulus Works? REALLY?

This is the clearest explanation I've ever seen. It shouldn't take you more than 30 seconds to read, but once you do, you'll totally grok the so-called stimulus.

And you'll laugh out loud.

Mommy State, Can I Get Fries With That? NO!

Just when you think the "progressive" stupid can't get any deeper, you get this:

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants. 

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

 The ordinance also would require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys. 

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."

So much stupid packed into such a short statement:

An agenda of food justice. The "progressives" came up with the term "social justice" some time back, because it sounds nicer than, "taking your property and giving it to someone else." Now we have "food justice," which apparently means, "taking your power to decide what your kids eat and giving it to the government."

Epidemic of childhood obesity. Whenever a politician uses the word "epidemic," he's lying. That's important, so I'll say it again: Whenever a politician uses the word "epidemic," he's lying.

Politicians say "epidemic" when they want to spend your money and take away your rights. Because an epidemic is a disease, dontchknow, and if you have a disease, we have to take away some of your money and your rights, which is really all the "progressives" want to do. How else are we going to cure your disease epidemic, without getting more money from you?

We don't have epidemics in America. We certainly have health problems. Third-world countries have epidemics. Haiti has epidemics - cholera, at the moment. The last time the U.S. had an epidemic was over 50 years ago - polio.

Particularly kids from low income neighborhoods... Reminds one of the New York Times headline satire, "World Ends Tomorrow; Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit."

It's a survival issue... Sure. It's right up there with polio, smallpox, bubonic plague, and al Qaeda. Ban Happy Meals or we'll all die.

The hypocrisy here is delightful. By all accounts, the good people of San Francisco think it's perfectly okay to smoke marijuana in public places, but giving your kid a Chicken McNugget is child abuse.

And I'll wager that the majority of this board of supervisors that is taking away a woman's right to choose what food she feeds her children would be apoplectic if someone were to try to take away her right to choose to abort a child before it's born.


Mark Twain wrote:

There are some things which cannot be burlesqued, for the simple reason that in themselves they are so extravagant and grotesque that nothing is left for burlesque to take hold of.

This is one of those things.

Hero of the Day

Next time someone tells you some actor or athlete or (shudder) politician is his hero, tell him about this:

A swimmer saved a young woman who was attacked by a shark, off the coast of western Australia, by grabbing it by the tail, rescuers have said...

...The shark attacked on Saturday as Ms Frankcom led a group of tourists on a swim with dolphins from a boat sailing off Garden Island, about 50km (30 miles) from Perth.

The 3m-long shark, which has not been definitively identified but is believed to be a Great White, came up from the bottom of the water and bit her.

Mr Pisani said: "As the shark bit her, it brushed aside a fairly large male who grabbed hold of the tail of the shark, which then made it let go.

"The girl then started to sink to the bottom and he grabbed her and brought her to the surface and got her back on board the boat."...

...The man, who was taking part in the swim, refused to speak to journalists when the tour boat returned to dock, other than to say: "No comment, thank you. It's cool. All I want is the girl to be OK."

The guy is willing to tangle with a ten-foot long shark, but doesn't want his name publicized. Wonder if he thinks he might get hit with a government lawsuit for intentionally causing distress to the native wildlife.

Scene's We'd Like to See

I don't normally watch MSNBC.

But I'm tuning in tonight. I want to see if Keith Olbermann goes Howard Beale on us. You doubtless remember Mr. Beale from the movie, Network:

I would like at this moment to announce that I will be retiring from this program in two weeks' time because of poor ratings. Since this show is the only thing I had going for me in my life, I've decided to kill myself. I'm going to blow my brains out right on this program a week from today. So tune in next Tuesday. That should give the public relations people a week to promote the show. You ought to get a hell of a rating out of that. Fifty share, easy.

I suppose I don't want to see Keith Olbermann actually blow his brains out. But is it churlish of me to relish the thought that he might attempt to chew his own head off his shoulders?

I'll Take That Campaign Donation In Quatloos, Thank You Very Much

On this Election Day, it seems particularly apt to reflect on "the corrupting influence of money" (click to see what a cliche that phrase has become) on politics.

Congress has been trying to choke off political spending for over thirty years. Each new law or regulation is touted as the one we need to finally stop the corrupting influence of money. "This time fer shoooor," as Bullwinkle used to say.

The result is that today, we're looking at an off-year election where the campaign costs will end up being north of a billion dollars.

Why? Well, if you have two brain cells to rub together, the answer is obvious. Advertising costs money. Driving or flying around your state costs money. Do you think those TV and radio commercials are free? Is gasoline for your car or campaign bus cheaper now than it was ten years ago?

And since there has been a flood of campaign finance laws and regulations since 1974, candidates now have to hire people who fill out reports for the Federal Election Commission, and lawyers to make sure they don't run afoul of financing regulations. Do you think those lawyers and accountants work pro bono? Campaign finance reform actually makes campaigning more expensive, meaning you need to rake in more money just to tread water (mixing metaphors there). Isn't the irony delicious?

So we're told we need more laws to choke off all this supposedly corrupting money. Incumbents - mostly Democratic incumbents - love this idea, because they can send out all the "letters to my district" they want at taxpayer expense, touting all the wonderful ways in which they've earmarked legislation to bring more money back to their district. Meanwhile, if the Democrats had their way, their opponents would be reduced to raiding their own bank accounts if they wanted to mount a challenge. Choke off the flow of money, and you've choked off your opponent's ability to get his message out. Free speech is great - if you can get the taxpayers to fund yours and stifle your opponents' at the same time.

Money will find a way to candidates' pockets, no matter what you do. Pass more laws to close supposed loopholes, and they'll find more and better loopholes. And if you do somehow, miraculously close all the loopholes, candidates will start getting nothing but completely untraceable cash donations.

And if you don't think that is a corrupting influence...

It's Easier to Say "Stop" Than "Go Ahead"

Question: If you have a gigantic oil slick sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, is it better to:

a) Skim it off the water, remove almost all the oil, and return the much cleaner water to the Gulf, or,

b) Leave the oil slick there because the water you'd be returning is not quite 100% pure?

If you are a normal human being, you answer a) because even the average moron knows that "pretty clean" is better than "disgustingly filthy."

The problem is, they don't have average morons working at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose mission, by the way, is "...to protect human health and the environment." The EPA employs a special class of morons. So, two months after the Gulf oil spill,

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

So the filthy oil sits in the Gulf, and the EPA's special class of morons congratulate each other on having prevented a catastrophic violation of agency regulations.

Here's another question: If the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't protect the environment, if, in fact, it actually gets in the way of protecting the environment, then why are we paying for it?