On June 7, 2016 the Democrat Party discredited itself with the administration of the California primary voting.
And days later, so would The N.Y. Times, via following its lack of reporting of the above, combined with its editorial of June 13, 2016 regarding a major political party disenfranchising voters.
The Republican Party, but not the Democrat Party, mere days after the June 7, 2016 California primary where a great many voters were disenfranchised via an array of "provisional" and crossover" ballots.
When shall the New York Times issue an editorial addressing the disenfranchisement of countless voters in the June 7, 2016 California primary?
That they have not speaks volumes for their lack of objectivity and their intellectual enslavement to the so called Democrat Party.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
For more information, please see:
Friday, May 27, 2016
The New York Times
May 21, 2016
IMHO The New York Times is notorious for its practice to sometimes place a highly misleading headline to imply something that is belied within the body of the article, as if they want to sway opinion among those that are more prone to skim headlines, rather than more thoroughly digest articles and ask questions.
A recent example of this is with their May 21, 2016 article by Abby Goodnough and Sabrina Travernise about the simultaneous fall in the number of prescriptions in the U.S. being issued for opioids, and the rise in the number of opioid related fatal overdoses.
An honest headline would have been: "U.S. Opioid Prescriptions Down; Deaths Up".
However, the headline appearing on their print edition,
prominently at top right of page one, was: "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"
The headline appearing on the print edition's continuation of this article on page 3 was:
"Opioid Prescriptions Drop For The First Time In 20 Years"
Notably, it is the 2nd rather than the 1st of these headlines that now appears at the top of this article upon the New York Times web-site:
From within the body of the article:
"...for each of the past three years — 2013, 2014 and 2015 — prescriptions have declined, a review of several sources of data shows."
" IMS Health, an information firm whose data on prescribing is used throughout the health care industry, found a 12 percent decline in opioid prescriptions nationally since a peak in 2012. Another data company, Symphony Health Solutions, reported a drop of about 18 percent during those years. Opioid prescriptions have fallen in 49 states since 2013, according to IMS, with some of the sharpest decreases coming in West Virginia, the state considered the center of the opioid epidemic, and in Texas and Oklahoma. (Only South Dakota showed an increase.)" ...
... One important development that may have helped propel the decline came in 2014, when the federal government tightened prescribing rules for one of the most common painkillers: hydrocodone combined with a second analgesic, like acetaminophen. In the first year after the measure took effect, dispensed prescriptions declined by 22 percent, and pills by 16 percent, according to an analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine. Refills — which the change made much more difficult — accounted for 73 percent of the decline.Yet:
" So far, fewer prescriptions have not led to fewer deaths: fatal overdoses from opioids have continued to rise, taking more than 28,000 lives in 2014, according to the most recent federal health data. That number includes deaths from both prescription painkillers, like Percocet, Vicodin and OxyContin, and heroin, an illegal opioid whose use has been rising as access to prescription drugs has tightened."Fewer prescriptions, yet more deaths is see as an advance?
This should be regarded as a textbook example of the New York Times issuing a misleading headline to conform with its slavish devotion to the incorrect position of the political campaign that it has advanced in numerous editorials and quest pieces, in favor of further overriding doctors and patients on decisions regarding opioids.
For more on this, please see my concurrent piece in my other blog "Freedom of Medicine and Diet"
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Imagine This- 1st U.S. 100+ mph "Autobahn" High Speed Tollway Announced For Western Utah I-80 Median Space
Salt Lake City Utah to West Wendover, Nevada Facility Proposed For Construction In The I-80 Median- Expected to Spur Tourism and Automotive Technology Development In The Bonneville Salt Lakes Flats Area
Project to construct a pair of barrier separated highway speed carriageways in the median of I-80 from Wendover, ultimately to western Salt Lake City, would bring a whole new opportunity for ultra high speed driving in the Bonneville Salt Flats area.
- 1st stage is the 50 mile western portion.
- 2nd stage is a re-aligned I-80 segment between Aragonite and Sinclair, to provide a greater radii curve.
- 3rd stage is the eastern portion to western Lake Point, and continue to western Salt Lake City with a speed limit reduced to 120 mph.
Would be separate from the regular I-80 2x2 roadways. It would ultimately have full left and right hand shoulders flanking 3 lanes in each direction, with individual minimum speed postings: a posted right-hand lane minimum speed of 90 mph, a middle lane minimum of 110 mph, and a left lane minimum of 140 mph. Travel at 155 mph or high would require the operation of 4 way blinkers to increase visual impacts of such higher speed traffic to others, with passing speed variables limited to a differential of 35 mph to vehicles in the immediate adjacent lane. Would feature camera enforcement for lane discipline posted regulations, with passing on the left strictly enforced, and be open via a special toll.
Would be part of an automotive development program encouraging automotive technological and vehicular construction projects, with new facilities for accommodating increased tourism based upon a love of automobiles, including a boost to automotive activities upon the Salt Lake Flats.
Is also being supported by the Nevada Casino business interests to encourage traffic from Salt Lake City and its International Airport to West Wendover, Nevada, which are discussing establishing a high speed automobile service and rentals between those points. The casinos are expected to use various models of high performance automobiles for such a service, with various auto manufactures rumored to be considering offering the use of certain models for free in exchange for the publicity to drive sales.
Is expected to spur tourism in the Wendover- Salt Flats area.
Would be equipped with special tollway entryways to discourage inebriated drivers.
Would be equipped with roadside facilities with refueling stations, including Tesla ‘supercharger’ recharging equipment at 50 mile intervals to facilitate high performance electric automobile clientele, who would need these to accommodate the reduced millage range of such high speed driving; while Teslas for instance, which lack combustion engines for running generators and thus relay strictly upon batteries, are known to have a range of over 200 miles, the higher speed driving to be expected upon this facility would reduce that notably, with speeds of about 125 mph reportedly reducing the range to around 90 to 115 miles. Such refueling stations likewise would also include combustion fuel stations offering more than the standard fare of gasolines, including E-85 for flex fuel vehicles, and special higher octane blends for operating ultra high performance automobiles at higher speeds, particularly in higher temperature weather. Such stations would likewise be used to showcase various alternative fuel alternatives as part of the general use of this high speed corridor to showcase advancements in automotive technologies to promote greater efficiencies and cleaner automobiles.
The corridor likewise would add improvements to the existing I-80, including better markings, and would line it with various shrubs to provide safer means of controlling possible errant vehicles, as well as to ‘eat’ CO2 emissions from combustion engine propelled vehicles.
An evaluation of safety records would be used to refine the speed regulations for this and ultimately other such facilities.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Previously he invoked against monetary and trade policy that resulted in shipping much of the US economy overseas, particularly to China. But now he focus upon the low people on the totem pole- Mexican immigrants, while saying about nothing on how the bank system screws the general public, while succeeding at getting others who are relatively low on the totem pole to cheer.
Makes statements about China and infrastructure putting us to shame, as if he would provide a way out of our malaise at getting big projects done. But when push came to shove, where has he ever spoken in favor of new bridge-tunnel crossings, anywhere, such as in the NY metropolitan region? Has he ever spoken on any such matters, asides from stating that we somehow can't afford a replacement Tappan Zee Bridge project (and with no mention of where the years of toll monies went)?!
Likewise, he favors eminent domain for private use. But has be ever spoke in favor of its application for public use? Such as a new crossing of Long Island Sound that would be opposed by the super wealthy along Long Island's northern coast? Has he ever opposed such elite types who continually get away with politically bullying, as apparently this?
He once spoke in favor of ending the war of drugs- protecting alcohol and particularly Tobacco from their competition, but now favors its continuation- bucking the overall trend of more and more people favoring its end.
Indeed, his famous statement against Mexican immigrants, speaking of rapists and drug dealers in the same breath hearkens back to the hysteria of the 1980s.
What sort of political dynamics do things as that indicate?
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Here's my write-up of Jeb Bush from last year:
As an open tool of Roman, Jeb Bush fervently supported the idea of the continuing inquisition against people for failing to conform to the pharma-alcohol-cigarette protection racket of the war of drugs.