 Click through to save this country!
| Saturday, April 26, 2008 |
| Whine |
Winehouse cautioned over assault Winehouse arrived in a people-carrier and was surrounded by paparazzi | Troubled pop singer Amy Winehouse has been cautioned for common assault, police have confirmed. The star, whose battle against drug addiction has overshadowed her recording success, spent the night in the cells at Holborn Station in London. The 24-year-old singer was questioned by police about an alleged assault in north London on Wednesday. She agreed to attend the station voluntarily but has now left the police building. Winehouse's spokesman said in statement: "Amy Winehouse was questioned this morning at a London police station in connection to an incident in Camden in the early hours of 23 April, 2008. BBC This woman is the only person I know of that is more screwed up than Brittney Spears, and yet she continues to be admired and loved by many. Instead of getting help and turning her life around, she simply continues on because her 'fans' continue to justify her destructive existence.
The only way she will ever get it turned around and maybe live past 30 is if the people who claim to love her actually start acting like it.
Labels: Amy Winehouse, Drug addiction, entertainment, government, London, police, Police station, United Kingdom |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 06:15 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Monday, April 7, 2008 |
| Plates |
Jennifer Muir of The Orange County Register reports on the California Department of Motor Vehicles' "Confidential Records Program," which was created 30 years ago to keep DMV records of police officers private from criminals. The program has since expanded to cover "hundreds of thousands of public employees – from police dispatchers to museum guards – who face little threat from the public. Their spouses and children can get the plates, too." BoingBoing Click through and read why it is important that people have the license plates. Since I work (nominally) for the government, I wonder if i can get them :)
Labels: corruption, crime, government, law enforcement |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 21:05 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Friday, November 9, 2007 |
| Immigration |
Seems I got a letter in the mail today from my employer. They want me to sign a form showing that I am 1) a US citizen or 2) a LEGAL immigrant. (I work nominally for the government) I have no problem with this and am actually glad to see them doing it. It’s about time enforcement of the law became something an employer would want to do. I was looking at the form to figure out why me (I’ve worked there for 4+ years now) and saw that it was policy that everyone hired after April 2002 had to submit the form. This makes me both happy and sad. Happy that something is being done at my employer for legal immigration (even though it is not a ’hotbed’ of illegal activity) and at the same time very sad that it took over 5 years to implement this simple form. Friday Free-for-all at StoptheACLU!
Technorati Tags:
Labels: government, illegal immigration, immigration |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 11:31 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 24, 2007 |
| Saying no to the nanny state? |
Seatbelt bill hits bump in the road By GARRY RAYNO New Hampshire Union Leader Staff 1 hour, 27 minutes ago Concord – The mandatory seatbelt bill hit a bump in the road when the Senate Transportation and Interstate Committee voted to recommend the bill be killed. The committee voted 3-2 on the recommendation and the full Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill May 31. On Wednesday, committee chairman Sen. Robert Letourneau, R-Derry, voted to recommend killing the bill, joined by Sens. Bob Clegg, R-Hudson, and Betsi DeVries, D-Manchester. Committee vice chairman Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, and Sen. Molly Kelly, D-Keene, opposed the recommendation. The bill, HB 802, passed the House last month by 13 votes. New Hampshire is the last state in the country without a mandatory seatbelt law, although restraints are required for children and teenagers.(link) Filed: nanny state, safety, New Hampshire, law, BlogPower, LordNazhLabels: government, law |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 09:03 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
| Sunday, February 11, 2007 |
| Living Wage |
Suprise news from the economic front. It seems that raising the minimum-wage has indeed created a living wage ... for the people that didn't get fired or have their hours reduced.
Why is it that no one on the left will ever understand that if a business must pay more to make a product, they will raise prices or cut costs. To cut costs, you get rid of people or hours (hence killing the effect of raising pay). And most business (initially) will cut costs instead of raising prices so they dont' damage their market share. Later businesses will begin to increase prices after the cuts to costs have been finished (economics 101) and then the people making the new 'living wage' will be just as poor as they were before government intervention into supply and demand. New wage boost puts squeeze on teenage workers across Arizona Employers are cutting back hours, laying off young staffers Chad Graham The Arizona Republic Feb. 10, 2007 12:00 AM Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power. That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month. Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees. (link)
Of course this is only in Arizona, but if a nation-wide bill passes, this will be the result nationwide. Yes the minimum wage is a very poor wage to make and will not support a family. Lost in this statement is the fact that most people making the minimum wage did NOT support a family and also that most (probably 99%) business that pay the minimum also offer raises after a certain amount of work time (or improvement). So the 'workers at minimum havn't had a raise in 10 years' meme is shot also. If someone had been working for that rate for 10 years, they seriously need to look into that business and their pay practices. Also the person needs to be looking into other employment. __________ Reason to think Filed: minimum wage, Economics, nanny state, teens, logical conclusion, LordNazhLabels: economy, government, wages |
posted by Lord Nazh @ 18:31 | View blog reactions |
|
|
|
|
|
|