harmonicminer

And Armaments for All Pictures at the link.

Strange situation was caught up on Russian analogue of Google street view. On one of the streets of St. Petersburg city there are clearly visible people with guns in the middle of the bright day, looking like just got those guns from some office. Taking in consideration that most types of guns are illegal to own for a common person in Russia, and clearly not legal to carry it openly except while on hunting makes this bit puzzling.

Another way the left wants us to be like peace-loving, low-crime Russia: making it illegal for “a common person” to own guns, except, of course, for apparatchiks, commissars, the Russian Mafia, and the politically well-connected.

In other words, just like Chicago.

Seven Things Wrong With The Anti-Terrorism Policies of the TSA

# We are treating the War on Terror as a war on terror, and not a defense against jihad. We’ve made the decision that naming jihad as the enemy would give it an enemy. There is also a strong current of political correctness running through the debate. Some will now call me names, as if acknowledging that for religious reasons some people hate our culture makes me the bad one.
# Because we’re fighting terror, we identify tactics we dislike, and not the tacticians. This means that as long as the enemy can fit within the rules we define for legitimate users of our system, common sense gives us no probable cause to investigate further. In scrupulously avoiding the use of “profiling”, we ignore things we should not. Further, to avoid insulting a subset of legitimate users, we end up treating everyone as a suspect.
# We publicize each new attack and react to it, successful or not, leading both the public and the enemy to believe that such attacks are more common and more successful than they actually are.
# The controls we enact are in reaction to each new attack, rather than against all such attacks. This will lead to the eventual crippling of the enforcement system, as both its legitimate users and its enforcers become overburdened. Each new rule gives a hint to the attacker of what to try next.
# The rationale for a security control must be clear or the public will reject the control, one way or another. This is called psychological acceptability. An unacceptable control, such as too low a speed limit, will be ignored or will cause the public to find some clever means around the control. The key is that the public must perceive that the control offers enough protection to justify its use.
# Instituting controls to win the battle for perception doesn’t work. The only policy goal it achieves is a false sense of security. We believe that if following the rules is difficult for legitimate users, it must be more so for the enemy. In fact, the opposite may be true. Warning everyone what will be searched when boarding a plane, for instance, tells the enemy what not to bring along.
# A complex apparatus with a dense set of confusing rules can result in security through obscurity, which is to say, no security. Those enforcing and following the rules are led to believe that because of the hassle, no one could circumvent the rules. Someone not concerned with following the rules may find a way around them that those concerned with their minutiae miss or discount.

Earth struck by most powerful space storm in three years

The most powerful geomagnetic storm since December 2006 struck the Earth on Monday, a day earlier than expected.On 3 April, the SOHO spacecraft spotted a cloud of charged particles called a coronal mass ejection (CME) shooting from the sun at 500 kilometres per second. This velocity suggested the front would reach Earth in roughly three days.

“It hit earlier and harder than forecast,” says Doug Biesecker of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Fortunately, the storm was not intense enough to interfere strongly with power grids or satellite navigation, but it did trigger dazzling auroras in places like Icelan.

This just goes to show the danger of using too much solar power. If we keep sucking in the Sun’s energy with solar power arrays, it’s just bound to create more of these solar originating space storms.

It’s time for Congress to act.  We need laws restricting solar power generation to only those facilities required for national security, like the Denver Mint, and the Senate cloakroom.  The rest of us should return to wood burning stoves as soon as possible, a natural source of heat, unlike these silicon driven solar power converters, which are clearly unnatural and dangerous to the environment.

In addition, I propose that an international consortium be formed to study the effects of mining too much silicon from the earth.  Yes, we could run out of rocks, and if we continue to dig deeper and deeper into the earth’s crust to get more silicon, we could destabilize the tectonic plates whose slow motion is a requirement for our survival.   The mad rush for silicon based solar energy converter panels, combined with lavish suburban homes with granite countertops (tons of silicon there in every gated subdivision), inhabited by vain divas with silicone breast implants, could create a perfect storm, destabilizing the very continents, and sucking yet more solar storm activity towards the earth as more and more silicon is exposed above ground (especially at certain Hollywood premieres).

The photon hogs are going to kill us all.

The real hockey stick is the triple combination of silicon toxicity from over-mining, continental destabilization, and solar storms, predicted to peak all at once in 2012.

I’m ordering a bumper sticker for my Prius (oh, the guilt):

Don’t blame me, I burn wood

Go out today and cut down a tree to preserve the environment.

Teach your children, while there’s still time.

Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Charged for Hiding Sexual Abuse Fires Staff

The Planned Parenthood abortion center that was placed on probation by the Alabama health department for hiding a potential case of sexual abuse recently fired three of its staffers. The center received a one year probation from state officials in February.

As LifeNews.com reported, an undercover video showed a staffer at Planned Parenthood telling a woman who appears to be a victim of statutory rape that “we bend the rules.”

The Birmingham Planned Parenthood counselor tells pro-life advocate Lila Rose, who pretends to be a 14-year-old statutory rape victim, that it “does sometimes bend the rules a little bit” rather than report sexual abuse to state authorities.

The video also showed a Planned Parenthood employee telling a woman posing as a teenager how she can evade the state’s parental consent law.

Of course, this is probably only the proverbial tip of the floating glacier.  In almost every state, a pregnant girl under age 18 is by definition a victim of statutory rape, at a minimum, if not worse.  That means that even in states without “parental consent” laws, a pregnant 16 yr old is automatic evidence of a crime, and aborting that girl’s unborn child is by definition hiding the evidence of a crime.  It is well known that in the majority of cases, even involving junior high age girls, the father is a legal adult, more often than not over age 20.  So all the “privacy” protects the father of the aborted child much more than it protects the mother, who is often a victim.

So:  in cases of incest, who do you think drives the victim to the abortion clinic?  Maybe step-dad?  Uncle Cyrus?  Or the mother of the victimized girl, not wanting to rock the boat with step-dad?  Or?

In any case, as with ACORN’s exposure by some intrepid investigative journalists, I’m pretty sure that if a similar “sting” operation were run on most Planned Parenthood clinics, we’d learn that many of them look the other way, and by default shield the predators taking advantage of young girls.

This means that in addition to not protecting teen age girls, and holding adult males responsible for their actions, current practice often compounds abuse with a lifetime of regret for the mother whose child is aborted.

Obama and Democrats want a “Freedom of Choice” act, that would undo in a stroke ALL the state laws that go a little ways towards protecting teen age girls, notably parental consent laws (not to mention late term abortion restrictions and the like).

One wonders why the Left wants to protect predators.

Maybe this would be a good topic for your Christian university’s next Justice Week.