"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
….here’s some news from the recent headlines:
*Ah, the wonders of modern technology. Now they’ve come up with something they’re calling THE RAPE REPELLANT BRA. According to the headline at vocative.com:
“This Rape Repellant Bra Will Shock You – LITERALLY”
“Engineering students in New Delhi have developed a bra that shocks and burns potential attackers. It also has GPS”
The article goes on to say:
“It’s called Society Harnessing Equipment, or SHE for short, and here’s how it works: The bra contains a pressure sensor connected to an electric circuit that generates a shock of 3,800 kilovolts, which is severe enough to stun an attacker and severely burn his hand.
“It won’t be enough to immobilize the assailant or potential rapist,” Mohan says, “but that gives enough time for back up.”
The moment its pressure sensors are activated, the bra’s built-in GPS also alerts the police and the victim’s parents to the location where the attack is taking place.
False alarms are possible, but Mohan says the bras are designed and calibrated to prevent this. The force of a hug, for instance, won’t create a shock, and there’s an on and off switch that a woman can use when she’s traveling through a dangerous neighborhood.
Those who have worn the bra say it’s comfortable. “It is light like any other bra, and one really cannot [tell] a difference,” says a young woman, who asked not to be named.”
The rape repellant bra is being developed for use in India, and was inspired by the high incidence of crimes against women in that county. But it’s not hard to imagine its use here in the United States, given our fascination with technology in this country.
*Speaking of “shocking” developments - an Alabama construction worker got one when taking a bathroom break recently. According to khou.com
“A bathroom break for one worker at an Alabama construction office ended with an unexpected scare when he discovered a four-foot long, venomous snake coiled in a toilet.
Willie Harris says he couldn't believe his eyes. "So when I was going to use the restroom, I see a snake around the commode and I'm thinking it was a joke."
But once Harris saw the snake move a few times, he knew this was no laughing matter.
"I pulled the door back a little bit and I said 'wow!" Harris said.
Harris's boss then called 911, and luckily help wasn't far behind -- Officer Alice Thompson.
"He said 'I don't think you understand how big this is.' I said 'OK.' He said 'I have a picture of it.' I said 'Well, by all means, let us see," Thompson said. "It was so much bigger in person."
Thompson says she quickly devised a strategy to get rid of the reptile without harming it.
"She had a baton, and she grabbed the other guy's baton and she grabbed the snake by the head."
"I was holding it actually on the corners of the mouth where the mouth was actually open at the time," Thompson said. "Which for me that was actually the first time I'd ever seen fangs that were folded back in a snake."
All of this, while Thompson's two male partners and construction workers huddled in a corner and watched.
Thompson then carried what she believed to be a venomous cotton mouth, out of the bathroom, and hopped in the back of her partner's cruiser.
"She crazy!" said Harris.
They then drove just down the road, where the officer released the snake back into the wild, unharmed.
"I said 'Lord have mercy.'"
"I looked at Officer Mitchell and I said ok it's time to go."
*From venomous snakes in Houston – let’s go to venomous snakes in Washington. (You knew we wouldn’t be able to stay away from politics for TOO long, didn’t you?)
A recent editorial published by Harry Reid’s hometown newspaper – the Las Vegas Review-Journal – castigates the current Senate Majority Leader for his extreme “colorblindness,” and calls him “the da Vinci of distraction.” Said the editorial posted on July 11:
“Harry Reid is the da Vinci of distraction. The moment any scandal, policy failure or political defeat crashes down on him — and there have been plenty the past few years — the Senate majority leader unleashes outrageous rhetoric that’s better suited for a sandbox than what once passed for the world’s greatest deliberative body. Worse, the Nevada Democrat has become especially fond of slinging race cards just to crank up the outrage.
Last week, Sen. Reid was in rare form following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The 5-4 ruling declared that closely held for-profit businesses, such as craft retailer Hobby Lobby, do not have to provide some forms of birth control to female employees if doing so violates the owners’ religious beliefs. Sen. Reid eviscerated the decision. “The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men,” Sen. Reid said.
That Sen. Reid would inject race into criticism of a ruling with gender-based ramifications was bad enough. What made the comment far worse, however, was that it was completely false. Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be black, sided with the court’s majority in the Hobby Lobby case.
Sen. Reid’s slip was no accident. He believes racial and ethnic minorities are ideologically monolithic constituencies who are incapable of independent or — gasp! — right-of-center thinking. In the majority leader’s mind, Mr. Thomas is not an African-American because the justice doesn’t blindly subscribe to liberal orthodoxy.
Recall that during Sen. Reid’s 2010 re-election campaign, he put Latinos in the same box. “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?” Never mind that Brian Sandoval, who was running for Nevada governor that same year, is a Hispanic Republican.
Never mind that Sen. Reid himself, like the entire Senate Democratic leadership, is as white as an Irishman in a snowstorm. And never mind that after more than five years of Democratic control of the White House and the Senate, black and Hispanic unemployment — especially among teenagers — remains scandalously high. Sen. Reid’s “fix” for this problem — a higher minimum wage — will actually make it worse.
We thought the 2008 election of Barack Obama as president was supposed to herald an age of post-racial politics. So much for hope and change. Quit the race-baiting already, Sen. Reid. You’re clearly colorblind — in all the wrong ways.”
Hmmmm…….a Democrat unleashing ““outrageous rhetoric” and “slinging race cards just to crank up the outrage” and change the subject? Is that POSSIBLE? Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww….
*Let’s go polling. You remember the recent one which labeled President Obama as the “worst president since World War II.” Mr. Obama actually got some (perhaps) good news recently, as a Gallup poll released on July 11 revealed that his approval rating among Muslims is 72%, with only 20% disapproving. See:
I wonder what that really means – and how the results will sit with the REST of the country.
*From venomous snakes – let’s go to venomous laws. In an article posted in the Weekly Standard dated July 15th, Jeffrey H. Anderson reported that “Obamacare Misses Its Target on the Uninsured by Half.” Specifically:
“In March 2010, Obamacare was about to be voted upon by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in the process of deciding whether to ignore public opinion at their peril. At that time, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that Obamacare would cost $938 billion over a decade and would reduce the number of uninsured people by 19 million as of 2014 (with a reduction of 1 million prior to 2014 and 18 million in 2014 alone). Unimpressed, the American people overwhelmingly opposed the intrusive overhaul — with 20 of 21 polls taken that month showing it to be unpopular, most of them by double digits. The Democrats willfully passed Obamacare anyway and lost 63 House seats that November.
Two years later, the Supreme Court declared Obamacare’s coercive Medicaid expansion to be unconstitutional as written, and the CBO adjusted its projection for the number of uninsured accordingly. It projected that Obamacare would reduce the number of uninsured by 14 million as of 2014 (2 million before 2014 and 12 million in 2014 alone), at a 10-year cost of $1.677 trillion — or $739 billion more than the 2010 projection. (This February, the CBO projected that Obamacare’s 10-year cost would eclipse $2 trillion.)
In February of this year, the CBO projected that Obamacare would reduce the number of uninsured by 13 million as of 2014. In April, the CBO had seen enough of the Obama administration’s skillful rollout of Obamacare to reduce that estimate to 12 million.
Now the Urban Institute finds that Obamacare has actually reduced the number of uninsured adults by 8 million since the rollout began last fall. (Gallup shows a similar number.) That’s far short of the number of newly insured that the CBO projected in April of this year, in February of this year, or in 2012 — and it’s less than half the tally the American people were told Obamacare would hit when they opposed it in 2010.
For the entire article, see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-misses-its-target-uninsured-half_796636.html
The moral of this story: Don’t underestimate the effects of ObamaCare on the upcoming November election. It may have been pushed off the front page by the border fiascoes and airline tragedies of today, but behind the scenes it continues to do excellent work for the GOP.
*Finally, Rem Rieder posted a column at USATODAY.com
last week that headlines “An important crusade for open government.” The article exposes the current “war on journalism” that is being waged by the Obama administration. It is a good - if not somewhat lengthy – read, but I provide it here in its entirety nonetheless:
“It's an article of faith on the right that the press is in love with Barack Obama.
No amount of coverage of the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration's foreign policy foibles or its overzealous war on leaks can shake that deeply held conviction.
But it's been clear for some time that the relationship between Team Obama and the world of journalism is an extremely rocky one. James Risen, the New York Times reporter who may face jail if he won't testify in a leak case, has called the administration "the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation."
At last the news media are fighting back. A letter signed by 38 journalism and open government organizations accuses the administration of "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies." The coalition calls on the president, who once promised his would be the most transparent administration ever, to clean up its act, to stop the spin and let the sunshine in.
This isn't an inside baseball battle that matters only to whiny reporters. It's an issue that goes to the heart of a democratic society. People need information about issues that affect their lives so they can make intelligent decisions about government. They can't do that if the books are cooked.
The troubles highlighted in the letter don't in and of themselves sound like atrocities that call for firing up the war crimes tribunal at The Hague. But taken together they represent a major impediment to getting the straight dope to the people.
Problems cited by the journalism groups include: failing to respond to interview requests until way after deadline; requiring public relations staffers to sit in on interviews; blocking contact completely in some instances; requiring reporters to seek permission to interview officials and submit questions in advance; providing only "slick non-answers" from public relations pros rather than allowing unfettered interviews with the principals.
That's a recipe for fog, not illumination.
The Society of Professional Journalists played a key role in assembling the large coalition supporting the strongly worded letter. David Cuillier, SPJ's president, points out that it's awfully unusual to get so many journalism outfits to agree on anything — that's how serious the problem has become. And he gives major credit for the campaign to the persistence of SPJ member and freelance writer Kathryn Foxhall
Foxhall, who has covered federal agencies in Washington, D.C., for 40 years, says she first detected signs of the looming information blackout about 20 years ago. But things just kept getting worse. And many journalists shrugged it off. "People are always manipulating the message," they would say.
Sunshine seekers met with Obama administration officials early in the president's first term in an effort to turn things around. But hope was short-lived; things went backward. Foxhall characterizes the government approach as "intense censorship," adding, "You get the official story and nothing else." She says it gets worse each year.
Foxhall and SPJ worked to raise awareness of the problem. There was a debate last August at the National Press Club, and surveys revealing just how dire things were. In the spring they decided it was time to send the letter to the president.
"There was no problem getting those signatures" from the wide array of organizations, Foxhall says. "Even people we didn't ask wanted to sign."
Cuillier, former chairman of SPJ's Freedom of Information Committee, studies open government in his day job as an associate professor at the University of Arizona. He says when the organization tried to focus attention on the massive message manipulation in the past, "We heard crickets." He says he's amazed at the outpouring of support since the letter was released last week.
Cuillier stresses that the information shortfall "isn't hurting the journalists. It's the public. We still get paid. We still do our stories. We see it harming the country."
Of course, no one expects the Obama administration to roll over, cowering in fear in the wake of a letter from journalism groups. They are fighting a trend that predates the current regime and just keeps intensifying.
But it's an important battle, and it has to be fought. The letter is a start.”
Blog has been viewed (252) times.