The Robot Wars: Know When to Fold ‘Em


, ,

A California casino rolls out the ED209s to make guests feel a little more secure.

A growing number of hotels have begun employing robots to deliver towels, toothpaste and other items to guests — an addition viewed primarily as a novelty to appeal to tech-loving travelers.

But less than a year after the mass shooting near a Las Vegas hotel, a Southern California casino resort has added camera-wielding robots to enhance security.

Considering what Stephen Paddock Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was able to do alone, imagine what these mechanical monsters could accomplish in concert.

The bad news: this exact model has previously maimed a small child.

The good news: “feeling” guilt over its crime the maiming unit “committed suicide.”

Also, these things must have a higher center of gravity. It seems that a hard kick is enough to tip them over and leave them helpless as a toppled turtle. I imagine the guts and the battery are center mass. Aim there and fire until the thing stops moving entirely or starts smoking.

Time may be running out…


“Beep, beep. Kill humans.” The low roller. Pechanga.


At This Time We Will Begin Boarding Our Sardines and Unvalued Third-Class Trash…


, , ,

This could be the most amazing story of the week. The federal empire regulates almost everything. Everything. Including measurements and sizes. They regulate bank deposits. And bullet calibers. And rural telephone lines. And who flys what over other countries. And the volume of toilet tanks. And “short” lobsters (whom, I think, prefer to be called “little” lobsters…).

With all this regulatin’, it’s a wonder that they are bowing out of the opportunity to regulate airline seat sizes. Not their problem, they say…

Cramped cabins, knocked knees, aggrieved elbows: all real problems for today’s flyers. But the Federal Aviation Administration has said they aren’t its problems — announcing Tuesday that it will not regulate airline seat size and legroom.

The decision came in the form of a letter responding to a lawsuit brought by the group Flyers Rights.

Flyers Rights said that shrinking seats, which it calls sardine seats, present an issue during emergency evacuations, especially as larger passengers could struggle to get out of the seats in a hurry.

After Passenger Dragging Last Year, Airlines Improved Performance

But the FAA said that current seat size is not a safety issue.

This is an outrage. You, Mr. John Q. Flyboy, should write to whatever snake-oil, con artist “represents” you in Congress!

Or, just laugh with Carlin:


Civil Sanctuary in an Uncivil Society


, , , , , , , ,

As I predicted a few months ago, efforts by the Trump administration to arrest the invasion by means of civil lawsuits, continue to go nowhere. A federal judge rejected (most of) the government’s case against California and its “sanctuary” laws:

A federal judge on Thursday rejected the bulk of a Trump administration demand to block three California sanctuary laws, allowing the state to keep in place its most significant legislative measures aimed at countering President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Sacramento-based U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez rejected, for now, the Justice Department’s drive to halt a California law that limits the kinds of immigration-related information state and local law enforcement can share with federal officials. The judge also declined DOJ’s request to block another law guaranteeing California officials certain information about local and privately run jails that hold immigration detainees in the Golden State.

While the ruling is a setback for the Trump administration’s attempt to enforce immigration laws in states where leaders favor more liberal policies, Mendez did block parts of one of the disputed California laws, including provisions that banned private employers from voluntarily cooperating with immigration officials and from re-verifying the legal work status of employees.

Mendez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, took a narrow view of state and local governments’ obligations to allow their employees to assist federal immigration officials. He said California had broad authority to limit use of its resources for immigration enforcement.

“Refusing to help is not the same as impeding,” wrote Mendez.

Mendez is probably right about the refusals. And it’s good he rebuked the State’s criminal efforts to interfere with private enterprise. This really isn’t even a setback, being, in fact – as noted above, predictable. Speaking of criminal,

I’m confident there are incidents here and there where the refusals do turn to obstruction. In those cases, there is a ready remedy: 18. U. S. C. 1324. I almost tire of noting this law. Does no one in the DOJ have a copy of the USC or USCA? Maybe a direct letter to Trump is in order.

And, along with the lines of legal cracks, I couldn’t help but notice some are forming in the defense of the baby murder industry. NBC tries to reassure the hellish about their continued practices while roundaboutly admitting the failings of the cause.

Abortion will likely not be illegal in 20 states within 18 months. A new justice will certainly create a new balance on the court. Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fulcrum, now Chief Justice John Roberts is the median vote. But Roe will not be overturned just because there may be a new conservative majority on the court after President Donald Trump, who is set to announce his nominee on Monday, replaces Kennedy.

There are arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade. It was decided in 1973 on a shaky justification: The privacy right to an abortion does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, but it essentially radiates from the glow (the “penumbra”) of its text. Controversial when it was decided, the reasoning in Roe remains as controversial today.

In law schools, they actually teach that to properly read the Constitutional justification for things like Roe, one needs to wear x-ray goggles. Really. Maybe one should shoot up some drain cleaner too.

It’s not shaky, it’s just wrong. If the authority isn’t specifically granted the US, via the Old Parchment, then it is necessarily reserved to the States or to the People. “Liberty interests” were understood and defined in 1787 and they did not include any right to commit murder.

It’s a little funny and a little telling that they don’t even bother addressing the other justification – the allegedly inconclusive medical science part. That was specious at best 45 years ago. Today it’s a dead letter. Dead enough to kill the stare decisis surrounding this modern day Dred Scott.

Not that most care. Most wouldn’t even know what I’m talking about here if they could be diverted for a second from the potato chips and televisions. Some are too concerned about not separating a few thousand children, already separated by their criminal parents, to care about the killing of millions of other children. “Eff them.” Right? Yet others are too busy protesting other aspects of civil society while feigning self-serving outrage about this, that, and the other useless thing. Others … you get the point.

Tick, tick, tick.


Harvard’s Secret ‘Special Sauce’


, , , , ,

The Crimson have a lot riding on their defense in a particular lawsuit (filed by Asian students alleging racial discrimination in admissions). The revealing or keeping of this important trade secret (it’s probably politically correct racism, BTW) will affect other groups of potential students.

“Colleges are looking for a student who, yes, is bright” and has a resume full of traditional accomplishments, like leading the student government or an athletic team, said Mimi Doe, the co-founder of College Admissions Consultants, an independent college counseling service. “But they’re also looking for a student who can add that special sauce to a campus.”

I didn’t make up the sauce part.

Of course, there is some publicly available information about what’s required to get into a top college, such as average standardized test scores and grade-point averages. But meeting that criteria will only get students in the door, Doe said. Harvard could admit several classes worth of students with essentially perfect academic credentials. Of the roughly 26,000 domestic applications Harvard received for the class of 2019, 3,500 had perfect SAT math scores, 2,700 had perfect SAT verbal scores, more than 8,000 had a perfect GPA and nearly 1,000 received a perfect composite score on the SAT or ACT, according to court documents. The incoming class had about 1,600 spots.

The nation’s “top” college has 1,600 spots. And they say the first trait they look for is brightness. So … they have, any given year, several times as many bright applicants as the number of available slots. Surely all of the newbies will be drawn from those highest echelons of SAT and GPA performance, right? There has to be some sauce somewhere amid 1,600 young people.

The secret – like it’s really a secret – is that they draw from outside, from below, the top applicants in search of that very special and very secret sauce. (“Special sauce” is about as lame of cover for discrimination as “tasty ethnic food” is for the wholesale destruction of Western civilization). Given the money at stake, this secret could have huge ramifications. Also, given that anyone even of plain sauce variety can grasp what’s going on, there’s the loss of credibility.

There’s a good reason why Trump is pushing to abolish race-based college admissions.

And, since Harvard have moved onto the incredible and they want sauce, then they should launch a special recruitment drive to get this guy to attend. Just think of what fun and excitement he’d add. I’m sure his SAT is close enough…


Gooseberry Patch.

You Get What You Pay For


, , , ,

Paul Brandus does a pretty good job of summing up America’s standing one-fifth of the way through the 21st Century. He touches on several important subjects. However, in the touching, he seems to miss much of the “why,” shunning some analysis for popular sentiment.

This part, for instance, caught my attention:

We seem to have been overcome by pettiness and cynicism, incapable of doing anything big anymore. How did we descend from the country that cured polio, built the interstate highway system and put a man on the moon—to one in which millions see nothing wrong with the government ripping babies from their mother’s bosom?

This being one of several leftist talking points soft sells. How? Well, when millions see nothing wrong with ripping babies from the womb, how much consternation can there be about the bosom?

And, again, since when have liberals ever cared about separating children (the ones who survive “choice”) and families? Stephen Baskerville has some excellent thoughts on that:

Liberal policies have been “separating children from their parents” for years.

The beasts! What kind of monsters deliberately separate innocent children from their parents? This descends to a level of barbarism that is unspeakable!

There are big money and a lot of votes in these anti-child rackets. Cash and curry aside, “Barbarism” is the right word.

From TPC: Independence From What?


, , , , ,

Aaaaand, it hit exactly on the Fourth!

Happy Independence Day, America! Or Independence Week, the week of July Fourth – I’m not sure about the week’s publishing schedule. I truly appreciate the comments, here an on the socials, on last week’s installment about the Vampires of Austin. One mentioned that the subject was “very disturbing and incredibly sad.” Yes, yes it was and was so intended. So, too, might be the tone of this column; consider it a call to festivity and a warning.

This Fourth is the 242nd birthday of that unique nation we know as The United States of America. For Americans, it is good and right to celebrate, so long as the celebration is for the right reasons. Folks, while hot dogs, beer, and fireworks are worthy accompaniment for Independence Day, they are not the heart or focus of the holiday. Freedom is. Freedom and tradition.

On July 4, 1776, a small group of men, with vested interests, signed off on a Declaration against the King of England. They essentially gave him the finger. They were serious enough about freedom to risk a war with the world’s most powerful Empire.

Today, are we that serious? Are we serious at all? What, exactly, do modern Americans celebrate independence from? From rule by the British, sure. I do note that many, many Americans are held in rapt attention by Royal weddings and Downton Abbey. But that’s cultural. We are free from the long list of injuries and usurpations set forth in the Declaration – as committed, then, by George III. Go down that list and see how we’re really doing all these years later – with the usurpations of Washington.


Screenshot 2018-07-02 at 4.01.47 PM

Happy Birthday, America!


, , , ,

242 years. Impressive.

Happy Independence Day to all Americans, the Posterity of 1776 and 1787. To all others, happy Fourth of July.


Two literary announcements:

1) After 15 or so years of stalling, yesterday I commenced work on a secret project. More on that later.

2) Yesterday I bought a book which I intend to review (here and at Amazon). It’s from an “enemy” camp though I hear rumor it may be partly amicable. More on that later too.

God Bless America!

PS: Expecting the TPC of the week; more on that later as well.

An American Legend: The Wall Rug of Freedom

Seems appropriate for a rerun, given tomorrow. And … I’ll soon have two literary announcements. The rug (picture) also features in this week’s Independence-themed TPC column. Stay tuned.


Over the past few years I’ve pared down my belongings considerably; everything I own will neatly fit inside my vehicle. My rule is: if I don’t really need it or if I haven’t used it in about six months, it needs to go. This cuts down on clutter and makes running from the law easier. I forget a lot of things so this also helps me not have more junk to worry about losing. A very few things, however, I hang onto in defiance of my better (?) judgement.

For instance, there is my beautiful bicentennial wall rug, that until today I had once again forgotten I possessed.

IMG_20160807_182256471 - Edited

I’ve had her for almost forty years. Only twice, for short periods of time, have I properly displayed this unique work of art. Most of its life has been spent rolled up in a closet. I do not need this item and…

View original post 412 more words

Religious Bigotry in America


, , , , ,

The war on God is getting so heated that even National Review has noticed:

If you ever need much evidence that the growing “God gap” in American politics fosters an immense amount of ignorance and occasionally outright bigotry, look no farther than the concern — the alarm, even — that Amy Coney Barrett is on President Trump’s short list to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.

The alarm isn’t about her credentials. She’s checked every box of excellence — law review, appellate-court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship (with Justice Scalia), elite law-firm experience, law professor at an elite law school, and now experience as a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s a young, brilliant woman at the apex of her profession.

So, beyond her obvious originalist judicial philosophy (shared to varying degrees by every person on Trump’s list of potential nominees), what’s the problem with Judge Barrett. Why do some progressives single her out for particular scorn?

It turns out that she’s a faithful Christian who lives a Christian life very similar to the lives of millions upon millions of her fellow American believers.

No, really, that’s the objection.

It’s not just that they’re afraid of losing Roe v. Wade (the Dred Scot of the 20th Century, but worse and so wrong even Jane Roe came around). They’re afraid of losing the battle to finish off what’s left of America. They’re afraid of failing their prince, not realizing that it’s a lost cause, win or lose.

Imagine if Barret was Jewish or Muslim. Or an atheist. Or a satanist. If she was, then the howls from the same progressives happy to attack a Christian would be audible on the moon.



Still not sure about the Fed-Soc.

Well, Duh. Coffee Saves Lives.


, , ,

Coffee keeps you alive.

Go ahead and have that cup of coffee, maybe even several more. New research shows it may boost chances for a longer life, even for those who down at least eight cups daily.

In a study of nearly half-a-million British adults, coffee drinkers had a slightly lower risk of death over 10 years than abstainers.

The apparent longevity boost was seen with instant, ground and decaffeinated, results that echo U.S. research. It’s the first large study to suggest a benefit even in people with genetic glitches affecting how their bodies use caffeine.

Overall, coffee drinkers were about 10 percent to 15 percent less likely to die than abstainers during a decade of follow-up. Differences by amount of coffee consumed and genetic variations were minimal.

The results don’t prove your coffee pot is a fountain of youth nor are they a reason for abstainers to start drinking coffee, said Alice Lichtenstein, a Tufts University nutrition expert who was not involved in the research. But she said the results reinforce previous research and add additional reassurance for coffee drinkers.

“It’s hard to believe that something we enjoy so much could be good for us. Or at least not be bad,” Lichtenstein said.

There you have it: “Coffee is the fountain of youth.” You probably already knew that. I’m sure this woman is still alive thanks to coffee:

A South African woman was mistakenly brought to the morgue and stored in a fridge after she was declared dead following a car accident.

The unnamed woman was discovered breathing by a morgue worker who was reportedly writing a report and checking on the body, according to TimesLive, a South African news site. The Distress Alert paramedics who brought her in said that she had shown “no form of life.” She is currently being treated at a hospital.

The fountain of youth and it also revives the dead.