There was an animal involved in this incident, but it wasn't Justice!

 

I was looking through some old newspapers and came across the story that last year broke everyone's heart -- everyone, that is, except the idiot who perpetrated the crime and his family.

 

Darius Ewing set a little Lab-terrier mixed breed puppy on fire just for the heck of it. The poor little thing, named Justice by his rescuers, died of third-degree burns over 70% of its body a few days later. Darius had poured lighter fluid all over the dog, then he and his criminal homies threw lighted cigarettes on it.

 

In arguing for a reduction of Darius's bail, one of the usual bullhorn-everybody's-a-racist protestors, Rebecca Williams, said, "Since when did a dog become more important than a boy's life?" Is she really serious? At 4 months old, that little puppy wanted nothing but a warm place to sleep, some food for his little belly, and a loving master. Instead, he had the misfortune to run into a monster. Darius is not a "boy" (and if I called him a boy I'd be called a racist, but they use that term when it's to their advantage); he's an 18-year-old man.

 

And Darius is certainly no saint. He is a high school dropout, a runaway, and a gang member. His Facebook page says he's a "pharmacist." It shows weapons, piles of money, and what appears to be illegal drugs. As a 14-year-old, he was placed on six months juvenile probation for assault. That turned in to four years because he couldn't stay out of trouble. His mama says her little angel didn't do it. If he didn't, why on earth did he go turn himself in for it? Darius's trial comes up in August. Let's hope he gets the maximum sentence of ten years. If he doesn't, it may be a human being he decides to set on fire next time.

 

"Bail cut for suspect in dog's death." The Dallas Morning News; May 19, 2012; p. 5B.

 



Aren't you glad the government is in the health care business?

 

Last October, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began fining more than 2,000 hospitals for excessive patient readmissions in three diagnostic categories: heart failure, pneumonia, and heart attack. That means if you have a heart attack and they send you home after a week or so, and you start having chest pains again, they'll have to pay a fine if they readmit you. Ditto for pneumonia -- if they send you home and you have a relapse, it's unlikely they'll put you back in the hospital where you belong.

 

Next year, they'll add a few more categories to the list: COPD, and hip and knee replacement surgeries. Federal health officials say the new fines are "triggering a noticeable reduction in readmissions." No fooling? Have we also noticed them triggering a noticeable increase in mortality rates? "We're hoping that the Affordable Care Act may already be making a difference in the quality of health care," said Niall Brennan of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Alas, I fear Niall has hit the nail on the head!

 

"Health law spurs hospitals to focus on cutting readmissions." The Dallas Morning News; June 12, 2013; p. 1A.

Reuben was lacking!

 

Reuben Lack was the Student Council president at Alpharetta High School in Georgia. Reuben filed a lawsuit against the school, because administrators kicked him off the council. He says it was because he advocated having two prom queens or two prom kings to accommodate queer students.

 

The judge rightly denied his request for an injunction and ruled that the school had a right to remove him from office. You see, Reuben seemed to be lacking. Administrators presented evidence that Reuben changed meeting times contrary to their instructions, that he arbitrarily ousted a student council member, that he failed to show up for student council events while insisting that other council members do so, and that he failed to exhibit the proper respect due to faculty members. Even one of his friends said he had trouble relating to the other students.

 

Just another ho-hum case of "If I can't do things the way I want to it must be because you're discriminating against me." Waaaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!

 

"Georgia student sues school over prom clash." The Dallas Morning News; March 24, 2012; p. 9A.



The Centers for Gun Control

 

At Obama's request, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is making reports on gun control. I think I've written about this before. I suspect the whole reason is that Obama plans to make gun control a health issue and then he can outlaw guns under Obamacare.

 

At any rate, they want to deepen "evidence about the public health implication of guns through research." In other words, they already know the conclusion, they just need to come up with some facts to fill in.

 

But, the researchers say, their work is complicated by the lack of an official count on the number of guns Americans own. "Basic information about gun possession, distribution, ownership, acquisition and storage is lacking," the experts conclude. "Without good data, it is virtually impossible to answer fundamental questions" about gun violence. So there's the justification for coming into your home to inventory your firearms. But the premise that they can't answer questions about gun violence without knowing this information is just plain untrue. If they really believe what they're saying, I can help them out a little here.
 

 You investigate incidents of so-called "gun violence" by investigating the actual incidents of "gun violence." What people not involved in "gun violence" do with their guns is irrelevant. You don't investigate all cars when somebody commits a hit and run . . . or should we call it "car violence"? You don't call for a count of how many cars people have in their garages and research where they bought them. At any rate, "gun violence" is a misnomer. It's people violence. I've never seen a gun kill or wound a person all on its own.

 

So don't be surprised when the CDC reaches its "conclusion" that guns are a health hazard and should be banned.

 

"Gun research urged." The Dallas Morning News; June 6, 2013; p. 4A.

 

 



Here's why we're in trouble.

 

The New York Times reports that as Supreme Court justices "consider two major cases on same-sex marriage, with decisions expected this month, they are, of course, focused on legal issues. But students of the court say other factors may also play a role."

 

They shouldn't. The only issue should be constitutionality. David Codell, a former law clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, ". . .the justices undoubtedly will reflect upon their real-world experiences of getting to know and to understand lesbian and gay people as individuals and as members of families."

 

Does that mean if a Justice knows a murdering rapist as an individual and a member of a family that he should set aside constitutional issues that might arise in any case concerning murder and rape?

 

"Court's climate a factor." The Dallas Morning News; June 9, 2013; p. 4A.

Great point, Bonnie!

 

Bonnie Jonas-Boggioni makes a great point. She asks, "If the National Security Agency wants to know how often I call or text our children and grandchildren (and I assume they know when they call or text me), how come the Feds can't track the sources of all the robocalls I receive and stop them?"

 

"Hack robocalls, please." The Dallas Morning News; June 9, 2013; p. 2P.

Why stop with plastic bags?

 

Dallas City Council member Dwane Caraway is on a tear. He wants to ban plastic bags. I guess he doesn't think Dallas has enough problems without creating one.

 

At any rate, Dwane says, "The bags collecting on the trees and in the Trinity River and White Rock Lake and Bachman Lake, somebody's going to have to clean it up someday. Might as well start now."

 

Sounds good -- but are we going to ban automobile tires, too? I've seen creek beds with enough rubber in them to make a 50 foot Super Ball. How about refrigerators and stoves? I've seen quite a few of those tossed away as well. Aluminum cans and plastic bottles? I see more of those than I do plastic bags. And cigarette butts -- nothing more disgusting unless you consider the morons who leave poopy diapers on parking lots. So let's ban diapers.

 

Dwane's problem is one that plagues many liberals. Rather than calling for strict enforcement of the laws on the books (littering), they prefer to punish all the law abiding people by taking away their conveniences. I know many people who recycle those plastic bags by using them to dispose of their pets' waste. Which would you rather step on -- a plastic bag or a pile of doggie doo? I use them as bathroom trash liners. I also keep a supply in the trunk of my car, and they've come in handy quite often for sacking muddy items or disposing of trash. Scot Wisner weighed in on the subject. He says, "Spend a few buck on an assortment of reusable fabric bags and change your habits." Do you really want to put dog feces in a fabric bag? And if you do, do you really want to reuse it? I guess Scot is unaware of the studies that show fabric bags can be repositories of some pretty nasty bacterial growth just from carrying fresh meat from the grocery store in them.

 

And those reusable and paper bags? They eventually wear out, and guess where they'll probably end up. By the way, I haven't even touched on how much the plastic bag ban will cause the price of groceries, etc. to rise. So my advice to you, Dwane, is to MYOB. If you don't like plastic bags, don't use them, but leave the rest of us alone.

 

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; June 9, 2013; p. 1P.

"Change bag habits." The Dallas Morning News; June 13, 2013; p. 14A.