Paul M. Jones

Condoleeza Rice is as qualified as anyone to be Vice President and would be a damn sight less buffoonish in the office than Joe Biden. She is a graceful diplomat, a fine academic; she is knowledgeable, savvy, internationally experienced; with Putin ascending, her formidable understanding of Russia and the Russian mind and history could be invaluable. The troops love her and would accept her as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, Ms. Rice is a good deal more qualified to be president than perhaps either Mr. Romney -- for all his business experience -- or Mr. Obama, who nearly four years into the gig still seems not to have a handle on the office, its limits or its nuances, and who looks, increasingly, like a man who wishes it would all go away and let him play golf.

via Condi as Veep? Why the Dems, MSM Won’t Stand for It – UPDATED.

Texas Department of Public Safety data show that the fastest-growing group of concealed handgun owners in the state has been, for at least five years, black women.

...

For women, part of the tension around this topic is that women with guns are marginalized in a feminist culture that promotes unarmed resistance and “clean” fighting techniques. These send the message that as long as a woman does not have a lethal means of protecting herself, she is still feminine and worthy of “real” protection--either from a man, or from the police. To be a gun-owning feminist, to prepare to protect oneself against two of the most frightening enemies of female-identified people--rape and/or domestic violence--still strikes at the heart of what could be described as a feminist identity crisis, wherein women oppress each other with our inability to make room for alternative models of self-protection.

...

White Southern men, on the other hand, were the most likely to congratulate me on this life decision and follow up with advice on the best kind of firearm to buy.

...

In the black community, the social and economic tension between black men and women has made black women appear to have increasingly more in common with white men than black men. Black women, like white men, are often the heads of household, often the primary or sole breadwinners in their homes, and they are simultaneously admired and hated (often by black men) for their successes.

In the Utne Reader, no less! Via Target Market: Black Women With Guns - Mind & Body - Utne Reader.

The House voted again Wednesday to repeal the 2010 healthcare reform law, giving Republicans some revenge against the late June Supreme Court ruling that found the law to be constitutional.

Members approved the bill in a 244-185 vote, after five hours of debate that stretched over two days.

As expected, just a handful of Democrats supported the GOP repeal bill. Five Democrats, Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.), sided with Republicans in the final vote. Of this group, all but Matheson voted with the GOP in a procedural vote on the bill Tuesday.

Republicans insisted on passing the Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, even though Democrats pointed out that the bill would be ignored by the Democratic Senate. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cast the bill as a way to give the Senate another chance to heed the will of Americans who oppose the legislation and see it as something that has led to increased healthcare costs and hindered job creation.

"For those who still support repealing this harmful healthcare law, we're giving our colleagues in the Senate another chance to heed the will of the American people," Boehner said, noting the House vote against the law at the start of the 112th Congress. "And for those who did not support repeal the last time, it's a chance for our colleagues to reconsider."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Republicans felt compelled to put members on the record about the healthcare law after the Supreme Court ruling, which surprised both parties.

Not that it does much good, but it does show that the House at least has the right idea. Via House votes 244-185 to repeal Obama healthcare reform law - The Hill's Healthwatch.

Jason was called by the Baltimore police and told that a warrant (see above) had been issued for his arrest with a charge of conspiracy to commit attempted first degree murder, which goes against Brandy Shipley’s own statement in which she said the two men filming the incident never got involved, but were “only filming.” Even so, Fyk agreed to turn himself in, and five days later he surrendered. The Baltimore police had charged him with as many as 20 various charges, including the aforementioned conspiracy charge, assault and robbery, a charge which Fyk says he has video of that completely exonerates him.

All of this stemming from what Fyk characterized as nothing more than a misdemeanor assault that he only filmed, a characterization which would seem to be accurate from the video. It’s interesting to point out as well, the second photographer was never charged in the incident.

via Police State: Publisher Charged with Murder for Just Videotaping a Fight (VIDEO) | Veracity Stew.

Obama says the country can’t afford the “cost” of tax cuts that were instituted about a decade ago. The word “cost” is used by nearly every news organization in this regard. We (as in the non-wealthy) supposedly “pay” for the “cost” of a new tax rate.  Now, unless the president is arguing that the baseline of government spending should encompass owning all your money and anything the IRS doesn’t take “costs” something, then only spending can really “cost” Americans.

Moreover, if the imaginary $80 billion yearly “cost” is so significant, why can’t the president match it with a mere $80 billion in real spending cuts? Who “pays” for the cost of failing to cut spending ? Rather, the president’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion in deficits between 2013 and 2022, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

via We don't 'pay' for tax cuts, Mr. President, we pay for spending.

The carriers have access to everything. Phone calls, text messages, search histories, usage histories, locations, elevations, movements over time. As modern people we have mostly chosen to pretend like we aren't aware of how vulnerable we are. But what information have these law enforcement agencies been after?

The companies basically did not say anything about who is requesting what. It could be anything from a 911 operator needing to know the location of an incapacitated caller (scariness quotient: very low) to the FBI wanting to know the call history of a suspected terrorist (scariness quotient: pretty high) to a blanket request from a local police force seeking unwarranted wiretaps (scariness quotient: extremely high). Many of those calls, including the three I just named, can be called "emergency" requests which require no warrant or waiting period.

How many were emergencies? No idea.

Then there were "tower dumps," in which a law enforcement agency makes one request to access all the information from one entire tower. This could allow them access to hundreds or thousands of users. A tower dump, by the way, counts as one of those 1.3 million, even though it affects many, many more.

How many were tower dumps? We wonder.

via In First U.S. Accounting of Wireless Phone Surveillance, Carriers Reveal 1.3 Million Requests For User Data | Popular Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfLUCBZ1is&feature=youtu.be

Last week Lake Charles police killed Monkey.

Monkey was a family dog -- a friendly one, by all accounts. Monkey’s picture doesn’t suggest he was particularly intimidating. Granted, in that picture, he’s dead because a police officer has just shot him four times.

Monkey was barking at a policeman who was in his yard -- not by invitation, but because he was chasing a suspect. The policeman, according to a statement, “felt he was being attacked by the dog and was forced to discharge his weapon.”

Police believe that we, the citizenry, should defer to their judgment about when deadly force is warranted. They tell us that they are the thin blue line between us and violent lawlessness.

If the police are afraid of dogs like Monkey, is it even minimally reasonable to accept those propositions?

It is high time that policemen start being held *personally* responsible for their actions. No official immunity. That'll help set up incentives to respect individual rights. Via What Else Are Lake Charles Police Afraid Of? | The Agitator. (For what it's worth: I have friends in Memphis whose daughter was viciously attacked by a dog, and an off-duty policeman who was with them by invitation killed the dog after pulling it off her. He did the right thing. That situation, and this one, are completely different -- be careful not to consider the two as morally equivalent.)

Not sure I buy this, but it's food for thought:

Above a rather modest $34,600 in taxable income and up to around $106,000, the real-world middle class tax burden in high-tax American locales is 75%:

Social Security and Medicare: 15.3%

Federal income tax: 25% (28% above $83,600)

State income tax: 5% (mid-range)

Healthcare insurance: 15%

Property tax: 15%

15% + 25% + 5% + 15% + 15% = 75%

Clearly, the percentage of income devoted to healthcare insurance and property taxes declines as income rises. Someone earning $200,000 has not only dropped the 12.4% Social Security tax for income above $106,000, healthcare insurance and property taxes as a percentage of their income drops from about 30% for those earning around $86,000 to 15%.

We can argue fruitlessly about how many tax angels can dance on the head of a pin, but all the caveats and quibbles don't change the basic fact that real-world tax rate for the "middle class" earning more than $34,500 in taxable income in high-tax locales is a confiscatory 75%.

Please don't tell me the U.S. is a "low-tax" nation; I might suffer a breakdown that I couldn't afford due to exclusions in my "voluntary" healthcare coverage.

via Guest Post: The Real-World Middle Class Tax Rate: 75% | ZeroHedge.

UPDATE (same day):

Per the US Census, the 2006-2010 median household income was $51,914 (in 2010 dollars). There are issues with using household income as a measure, but let's skip that for now.

Income tax is marginal. If you're at the 25% rate, you're only paying on that part of your income in that bracket. The portions of your income in the earlier brackets are taxed at the levels for that bracket. Thus at the 25% rate, you pay in four brackets: 0% of $0-9,500, 10% of $9,501-18,000, 15% of $18,001-44,000, and 25% of $44,001-93,100.

Given the median household income of $51914, the subtotals for the brackets are:

• 0% of $9500 = $0.00
• 10% of $8499 = $849.90
• 15% of $25,999 = $3899.85
• 25% of $7916 = $1979.00

The total income tax paid would be $6728.75, which is 12.96% of $51914.

So, for that income level, the above income tax percentage would be 13%, not 25%, resulting in a total tax percentage of 63% (not 75%). Even so, that's almost 2/3rds of one's income to taxes. That doesn't include sales taxes and other fees.

UPDATE 2:

God only wanted 10%. Hell, even the Joker only wanted half.

When you're a boy, other boys are inclined to follow an informative three-step process upon being factually corrected:

1. Shut up, [insert name].

2. I said, shut up already!

3. (Punch face)

It is a succinct and persuasive method of communication. Pretty much any boy with an IQ over 75 rapidly learns the importance of keeping one's opinion of the factual accuracy of other's statements, however wildly agley they might gang, to oneself. This, like many other examples of of delayed-gratification and long-term thinking, is an important aspect of what is called "civilization".

via Alpha Game: Snippy isn't witty.