Crying babies may be annoying to some, but it’s probably best to keep it to yourself.

Wal-Mart shopper attacked after imitating crying baby
By CHRISTINE VENDEL
The Kansas City Star

Prosecutors said a Kansas City man shopping at a Wal-Mart store grabbed a baseball bat from a shelf and attacked a man who had made a remark about a crying baby.

The victim, David Holbrook, 41, of Bonner Springs, suffered head injuries that required 14 stitches, as well as a broken rib and bruised kidney. He was treated at St. Joseph Health Center and later released. The attack occurred about 12:50 p.m. Saturday.

Police arrested Jefferson Uta, 26, of Kansas City, at the store at 9051 Hillcrest Road. Uta appeared in Jackson County Circuit Court on Monday to face first-degree assault and armed criminal action charges. He remained in jail Monday night in lieu of a $50,000 bond.

Police and court records gave this account:

Holbrook and his girlfriend were shopping for Christmas presents and walking through the toy department when they passed Uta and a woman with a crying baby. Holbrook imitated the baby’s cries, “Waaaa. Waaa,” and then the couple continued to the electronics department.

While there, Uta reportedly appeared with a wooden baseball bat on his shoulder. Holbrook said: “Are you going to hit me with the bat?”

Holbrook was struck in the head, police said. As he tried to regain his balance, he was struck in the back. Holbrook’s girlfriend screamed, and an off-duty officer working at the store responded.
…

Despite this being the season of goodwill towards men and all that it appears to bring out the worst in people.  Holbrook sounds like a smartass prick, but he didn’t deserve what happened to him.

What’s weird was that they were in different vehicles and neither knew the other was going to be on the road that day.  It’s the sort of thing that makes you pause for a minute to contemplate whether there just may be larger forces at work.

Link

Amish Tech Support fisks  the internet fridge being released soon by LG Electronics.

However, this gave me pause:

Swedish appliance maker Eletrolux (ELUXb.ST) delayed plans to launch an Internet refrigerator after conducting a trial using 50 households in Denmark.

I’m not shocked at all that somebody else wants to dive into this kiddie pool of a customer base. The shock of everybody wanting a piece of this crumb is about the same as when I found out that there were several manufacturers of scrotum-piercing tools.

(Emphasis mine)

Um, and just where did he find that tidbit about the (wince) scrotum-piercing tools?

Link via Instapundit

Last year on Halloween Edward Rivera, of Lorain, OH, knocked down a 10-year-old boy and stole his candy.  Rivera pled guilty and was sentenced to stand outside a local hospital today between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. handing out candy and wearing a sign that says, “I’m sorry. I will not steal from children.”

He’s lucky I’m not a judge.  I’d have given him time in jail (and put in an unofficial word to the jailers to tell the other inmates that he hurt a child).  What he did is despicable.

asparagirl commented on this first, but I just couldn’t believe what I saw.  Jason Rubenstein has been collecting idiotic political comments for a few weeks.

This one, though, just takes the cake:

“Dude, this whole shooting thing in Washington [D.C. area] is horrible. But I hope whoever is doing it is anti-Bush and keeps doing it as a protest until Bush steps down and we can have a real election!”

And people wonder why I bash leftists (I’m trying to wean myself from calling them liberals, which they most assuredly are not).  Maybe we’ll get lucky and this bastard will be the next victim.  Let’s see how he likes his little protest then.

Last night I made a comment on Jane Galt’s discussion board regarding a post that mentioned Hillary Clinton is planning to run for president (like we didn’t already see that one coming).  In that comment I complained that there are a number of groups nationwide that could come together to make it more likely that she could be elected.  The groups that I mentioned were “Soccer Moms”, (urban) professional women, and the media.  Let me state for the record that my comment was not very coherent, as it was late and I was tired.

The interesting thing that came out of this was the vehemence of the response from a “Kate”, who accused me of being misogynistic and xenophobic.  While she didn’t really have much of substance to say, she was very upset (so upset that she couldn’t even do me the courtesy of getting my name right).

Her first objection was that at a time like this, when there’s more important evil in the world, how could I conceive of Hillary Clinton as evil?  I consider her evil because she is a socialist.  I don’t care what she calls herself, but her world outlook is socialist (remember “Hillary Care” anyone?).  As a libertarian, I find the concept of socialism evil in all its forms.  And I don’t have any qualms about saying so.  It’s exactly at a time like this, when we’re confronted by evil in the rest of the world, that we need to be aware of it at home.  We’re so wrapped up in trying to be “nice” and politically correct that people won’t make judgements anymore (lest they be accused of misogyny or xenophobia ).  Well, I’m making one now and I mean it.  I will not be dissuaded from this course.

Perhaps I sometimes come off as a bit arrogant or superior, but that may be a function of my background and temperament.  I am an I/T Architect and I started as a programmer.  In my line of work if you blind yourself to reality in the interest of ideology you will fail at your job.  Like many in the engineering professions, I have come to my political philosophy through observation and study of the alternatives (I know, that pesky empirical evidence thing again, which is anathema for a liberal—I guess that makes me an arrogant jerk, too ).  It is through this that I arrived at libertarianism (note the small “l”).  To me, the only way for us to achieve success as a society is to promote the success of the individual (for ultimately there is no society, only the individual).  This means equality of opportunity and personal responsibility, which is in direct opposition to the philosophy of those who would expand government further into our lives.

It was late when I made the post, and I was tired, so I probably didn’t express myself very well (as another poster pointed out later).  However, I brought up the example of the “soccer mom” as someone who might vote for Hillary.  This made me a misogynist in Kate’s view, because I would dare single out a group based on gender (or so she assumed).  In actuality I would include some men in this group, which to me is a catch-all term for a group of people who want the government to protect everyone from everything and make the world safe.  I do have quite a bit of disdain for this group, because in making everything safe, they also remove personal responsibility from the equation, which actually makes the problem worse.  This group favors a national health care plan (ask Canada or Britain how they like theirs), gun control (Million Mom March—argh!), mandatory helmet laws, mandatory seat-belt laws (complete with jail time), welfare, etc, ad-infinitum.  Every one of these is an expansion of the state into the realm of the individual and every one of these destroys personal responsibility, which brings demands for further government interference (a vicious cycle).

As for Kate’s swipe at me for a perception of xenophobia in regards to a friend of mine who was recently naturalized, I find that attack particularly noxious.  I trust this coworker as a competent programmer and as an individual.  Of course I didn’t clarify the situation very well, but in this case, my coworker did not know much about Hillary Clinton’s scandals or about her political beliefs.  Why didn’t she know about them?  Because she was influenced by what she saw in the media.  At this point, it is simply not possible to deny the bias of the media (I am certainly not going to entertain any further argument on the matter).

I was mistaken in naming (urban) “professional women” as a group.  It certainly sounds inflammatory now that I think about it.  Besides, the people to which I am referring can be put into the soccer mom slot without much pounding.

There is a group of people who think that we must be protected from ourselves and from others.  If you think I’m arrogant, think about their position for a minute.  These are people who think the rest of us are too stupid or inept to take care of ourselves (and keep from hurting other people).

I live by a small set of fundamental rules.  People are free to do as they choose, provided they are not hurting another person.  People are responsible for their own actions (in many ways, this is a corollary of the first rule).  Government has a legitimate role in the common defense and in providing a framework for addressing injuries done by one individual against another.  Anything beyond that is not legitimate.  Further, it is in violation of our constitution (which is a topic for another day).

To me, the “soccer mom” group (which has the meaning noted above—maybe I need a new term) represents the nanny state, which I find abhorrent.  It is not misogynistic to point this out and to speak out against it.  I will not be intimidated by namecalling into silence on this issue.  The road to a police state is paved with good intentions.  But if we speak out now, we may have a chance of saving ourselves.

So it turns out that the terrorist scare in Florida may have been a joke.

Federal sources involved in the investigation said they believe the three men – all U.S. citizens – were playing a stupid joke on another restaurant patron who gave them a suspicious look.

Well, I guess the joke is on them now.  This really isn’t the kind of climate in which to be joking around like this, especially if you’re of middle eastern descent.  Racial profiling may be forbidden for the police, but people do it all the time on an informal basis and it should be expected as a given.

Enough about their stupid joke.  I found this part of the article somewhat annoying on first glance.

According to police sources, all three men at first were uncooperative – denying consent to search the car.

’‘It was probably not the right time for them to be copping an attitude with police,’’ said one federal law enforcement source who was up all night monitoring the investigation. “But that’s exactly what happened.’‘

I don’t know exactly what happened, but I certainly hope that this “federal law enforcement officer” doesn’t think refusing permission to search a vehicle is “copping an attitude.”  I have great respect for peace officers, but I will never consent to a search just on general principles. 

On a side note, I have very little respect for “law enforcement.”  I treat officers with deference because I respect the peace officers among them.  As for the law enforcers, I do so with great reluctance, but I do so anyway because they are quite dangerous.  There is very little that we can do to protect ourselves from outrageous abuses of power.  To make it worse, the courts are predisposed to believe the police before they believe us.  Consider those people in Houston who pled guilty just to get out of jail after the bogus trespassing arrests.  Or, consider the currently unfolding cases in Haltom City of police and jail guards attempting to rape inmates.

Dell now claims that they don’t discriminate against anyone and that the government made them do it.  I still don’t trust them and I still won’t do business with them (especially given their stupid CHL policies), but I guess there’s nothing more to be gained by flogging Dell.  The marketplace will sort them out eventually.

Read on for Dell’s last email.

Dear Valued Customers and Friends:

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the facts regarding a customer

issue reported in the media and Dell’s position on political or social

issues that many of you care deeply about.

Regarding Handgun Rights/Handgun Control….

Dell is a publicly-traded, customer-focused company with customers,

shareholders and employees on both sides of many public, social and

political issues. Our place is to serve our customers rather than to endorse

or support one position over another in public debates outside the scope of

our industry.

We do not discriminate against any business, regardless of the products or

services they sell, nor do we discriminate against individual customers. We

do, however, respect the right of any organization or individual to have

their own point of view. We follow all laws, rules and regulations.

Regarding allegations that Dell supports Handgun Control organizations

through the Dell Affiliates program…

Dell as a company remains neutral on handgun rights and handgun control.

Dell customers can support causes and organizations, if they choose, through

Dell’s affiliates program and charitable websites such as igive.com and

progressivefunds.com. These sites feature links to Dell’s website. Dell’s

affiliates program provides a way for customers to support the cause or

organization of their choice through their Dell purchases. Affiliate

participants, such as igive.com and progressivefunds.com, include

organizations and causes on different sides of nearly every social issue.

Some of the organizations participating through Dell affiliates such as

igive.com and progressivefunds.com., promote handgun rights, others promote

handgun control. Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) has been reported as one

organization that participates in this program. Others including The Gun

Owners Foundation and the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners

Foundation, Inc. also participate through Dell affiliate igive.com.

The only organizations prohibited from participating in Dell’s affiliates

program are those that promote sexually explicit material; promote violence;

promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality,

disability, sexual orientation or age; or promote illegal activities.

Regarding the assertion that Dell cancelled Mr. Jack Weigand’s order for a

notebook computer because of his firearm association…

We made a mistake. Mr. Weigand’s order was improperly cancelled because we

did not gather the additional information required by U.S. law to process

his order. Dell flagged Mr. Weigand’s order (initiated under his company

name Weigand’s Combat Firearms) for additional follow-up (and then we failed

to do so) because of the word “combat” in his company name. This internal

control is in place to ensure that a domestic purchase is not redirected to

an end user for a prohibited use (such as the creation and development of

weapons of mass destruction) or to a country that has been restricted from

receiving U.S. technology exports (such as Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq).

This due diligence is required by U.S. law. We also review orders for words

such as “nuclear,” “missile,” and “plutonium.” Dell’s process excludes

reviews for “guns” or “firearms.”

The mistake was ours because we failed to follow our process. We failed to

call Mr. Weigand for information that would have satisfied legal

requirements and ultimately would have resulted in completion of Mr.

Weigand’s transaction. We have apologized for this mistake directly to Mr.

Weigand. We have tried to make it right with our customer by giving him a

free computer for his trouble and inconvenience.

Dell has many customers and employees who are handgun owners and

enthusiasts. We know that gun owners and advocates, such as Mr. Weigand, are

law abiding Americans, and as such, can understand and appreciate our

efforts to comply with American export laws, while serving all customers.

We have heard from many of you over the last few days, and we appreciate the

opportunity to speak with you directly about these issues. Your

relationships with us, and your feedback about our products and services are

crucial to our success.

Sincerely,

Tom Green

Senior Vice President,

Law and Administration

Dell Computer Corporation

Dell has opened up a can of worms with America’s firearms owners.  It all started when they cancelled an order for a laptop from Jack Weigand, owner of Weigand Combat Handguns Inc.

Their reason?  The word “Combat” in the name of his company.

Dell claims that due to export restrictions they must screen all potential buyers.  They claim that their only mistake was failing to contact Mr. Weigand to confirm that he wasn’t going to use the laptop for nefarious purposes.  However, this event has exposed their profiling scheme and how it is being used against law-abiding Americans.

However, it appears that the problem runs much deeper.  Another case has just surfaced on tx.guns where a potential customer was told that he was on Dell’s “undesirable customer” list because of his membership in pro-rights (NRA, TSRA, etc) and pro-hunting organizations (Trophy Game Records).  This leads to some troubling questions.  What does Dell consider to be a desirable customer?  How did they determine his membership in these organizations?  What business is it of theirs anyway?

Links:

• Jack Weigand’s Dell page
• Article from Newsbytes
• Article from Wired
• tx.guns posting concerning Dell’s “undesirable customer” list
• Armed Females of America’s Boycott Dell Page

I fired off an email about this to Dell. Their response fails to answer a single point that I raised in my original email. It is a perfect example of how not to handle a response to this kind of problem.

In an extremely rare condition, an Italian woman gave birth to a girl in December and is expecting triplets in March.  It is believed to be the first case of a woman being pregnant for a full twelve months.