Socialism + Unfettered Immigration in Sweden

Sweden: 'No Apartments, No Jobs, No Shopping Without a Gun':
October 3, 2015

Here's what happens when you live in a country where there are few, if any, controls on Immigration:

 During the last few decades, Swedes have had to get used to the government (left and right wing parties alike) prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes. The high tax level (the average worker pays 42% income tax) was been accepted in the past, because people knew that if they got sick, or when they retired or otherwise needed government aid, they would get it.

Here's what happens when the society is based on Socialism:

 Now, Swedes see the welfare system failing them. More and more senior citizens fall into the "indigent" category; close to 800,000 of Sweden's 2.1 million retirees, despite having worked their whole lives, are forced to live on between 4,500 and 5,500 kronor ($545 - $665) a month. Meanwhile, seniors who immigrate to Sweden receive the so-called "elderly support subsidy" -- usually a higher amount -- even though they have never paid any taxes in Sweden.

And here's what happens when you put them together:

 Worse, in 2013 the government decided that people staying in the country illegally have a right to virtually free health and dental care. So while the destitute Swedish senior citizen must choose between paying 100,000 kronor ($12,000) to get new teeth or living toothless, a person who does not even have the right to stay in Sweden can get his teeth fixed for 50 kronor ($6).

Any questions?

Anybody?

This WILL be on the Final Test, in November.

Power of the People comes from the Government. Or ... not.

Symbolism | The View From North Central Idaho:

 People, especially young men, want power, to feel empowered. Welfare laws what they are, there are few good fathers to be role models in a lot of inner city “families.” Boys and young men look for “strong” men to emulate, and they see gang-bangers above shop-keepers in the social hierarchy. The anti-gun laws have created the inner city gang problem, and here is the underlying mechanism. Gun laws are not only unconstitutional, they are anti-human, they are anti-black, anti-business, anti-woman, and anti-equality. As people are wont to say, “read the whole thing.” It’s not long.

...

I tried to comment on this statement, but my input could not be accepted.  Which is probably "A Good Thing", because what I have to say is too extensive to be embodied in a comment form.

Here is what I was trying to say:

It's another way of saying that you are respected if your overlord (in this case, the government) cannot or will not stop you from grabbing power.   Shop-keepers are intrinsically law-abiding citizens, so if their government will not allow them to have "local power", these honest citizens have no recourse but to bow down to those who will TAKE power.
All of the negative consequences follow from the governmental decision to rule by fiat.  The Poor Man without power --- TAKES power!

Expansion:

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

Desecration on UK Commonwealth World War Cemetery in Benghazi - YouTube

I've tried to say this so many times, and I've never had the guts ... or had the exact/specific example to say what I wanted to say. Perhaps today, given this example, I can say it.

I BELIEVE .... all cultures produce their fair share of idiots; most often, among their young.
I BELIEVE .... each generation is driven to discount the values of their fathers, at least when appreciation for the contribution of a foreign culture is concerned. And probably in all other circumstances, especially if the new generation has been "brainwashed" by the radicals of the previous generation.
I BELIEVE .... that this sort of disrespect for their history is not limited to the Muslim population ... but it is here presented precisely that way.
I BELIEVE .... that the presentation of Muslim or Islamic ill-behavior is often presented precisely to denigrate their culture (ignoring that "Young Boys Behaving Badly" is not limited to any specific culture). Note that English "YOBS" have been found to desecrate World War memorials, as well.
SEE BELOW!
I BELIEVE .... that this specific culture is currently more susceptible to bad influences from their elders than are other cultures. Specifically, many Islaamics consider themselves personally "At War" against the West because of the recent incursions against the East from the West, for political reasons which are not generally accepted by these Eastern influential persons.
Or are they?
I BELIEVE .... that any religion may be confused with cultural influences; because of the specific belief system which is Islam, there is a history (including, admittedly, "The Crusades") which encourages the dichotomy between the 15th Century "history" and the 20th century.
On the other hand ... is the influence religious or cultural?
I BELIEVE .... that the recent migration between Islamic lands and European lands has encouraged Islamics to rebel against their perceived anti-bias. That is, the migratory Islamics feel persecuted because they THINK they are persecuted against.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this persecution is not without basis; however, the dichotomy of "I am a foreigner, thus I am treated as an alien" among immigrants is not primarily generated by the host country (s) as much as by the immigrant's unfulfilled expectations.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that this fulfillment has less to do with what the immigrants had been led to be believed, than with what they chose to believe .. often with little or no encouragement from their host country.
I BELIEVE .... that when young men find their dreams unfulfilled, they tend to react against those peoples who they expected to provide the fulfillment; their own actions seem, to them, to be entirely reasonable.
However, they may be right.
I BELIEVE .... that Socialism is one of the factors in the disillusionment of immigration. New "citizens" reasonably expect that they will receive "Cradle to the Grave" support from their new host countries. When that level of support is not ("automatically") provided to them, they react negatively; and their friends and relatives from their country of origin mirror that disappointment, even if/when they are not directly affected.
I BELIEVE .... that the guy in the video who climbs a ladder and begins to hammer against the Christian cross with the obvious expectation that he can thus dislodge it... is a prototypical exemplar of people who have unrealistic expectations. In a word; he is an idiot.
I BELIEVE .... that the guys in the video who begin whacking vigorously at the base of the cross-pillar reflect at the guy pounding at the cross itself; they probably don't REALLY expect to take down the Christian symbol, they only wish to register their own personal protest. The RESULTS are unimportant; the EFFORT only serves to display their displeasure. (Note that the video ultimately does not extend to display any meaningful results, but tipping over gravestones is so instantly gratifying!)
I BELIEVE .... that this video is an ultimately embarrassing null-effort by the perpetrators. They are only expressing their frustration, and probably not dissing the brave men who gave their lives for their benefits. It's sad that they have no more productive manner of expression, just as it is sad that that they are so willing to denigrate the efforts of perfect strangers who died for their freedom to desecrate their graves.
I BELIEVE .... these kids are a bunch of Useful Idiots who someone will take advantage of, in order to make a political point.
I BELIEVE .... that I have just done that.


I wonder if they will be proud, or embarassed, that a Westerner will use their vandalism to show how shallow is their character?

OR ....

will we remember the November 05, 2005 incident when Muslim graves were desecrated in a British graveyard?

Hundreds of police officers were drafted on to the streets of Birmingham last night after dozens of Muslim grave headstones were damaged at a city cemetery, triggering concerns about fresh race riots.

The desecration was discovered yesterday morning by relatives visiting the Muslim part of Handsworth Cemetery in Birmingham.

Leaflets were also scattered among the grave stones with insults against Muslims which were attributed to a unknown group calling themselves Black Nation. Up to 45 headstones were smashed or pushed over.

We're real big about decrying the desecration of British graves by Muslim youths .... but why don't we notice the similarly despicable action against Muslim graves by British youths?

(Note that this reference was at least 100 levels down in a Google Search! Sure, it took place 7 years ago .... but why did it take such research in depth to find it? Could it be because we are so quick to condemn others for the things that we do ourselves?)

Fat Pride

Opposing Views: NEWS:Should Fat People Be Protected Under Hate Crime Laws?

This article helps fill my Equal Opportunity Blogging quota in three areas:

1. Cite Opposing Views while they do all the work of actually researching the subject
   
2. Sneer at Hate Crimes and other versions of Nanny Statism
   
3. Hold The Brits up to public ridicule

The theme is: should Hate Crimes include offenses against not only Race and Religion and Sexual Orientation, but also Fat-ism?

I've coined the phrase "Fat-Ism" (fatism?) to loosely address the sin of discriminating against people because they are fat. I don't want to make it sound as if I'm singling out Fat People, if only because I don't want to be charged with a Hate Crime in case I ever visit England or San Francisco. Yes, I am actually talking about Fat People, but my guess is that it soon will be the 21's Century's "N-Word". And I'm not willing to say "Obese" because I've already got an "O-word.

But The Brits are all up in arms ... which is a neutered term in Great Britain, since they are no longer permitted arms ... because they think that Fat-ism is as bad as Racism and Genderism and Ageism and all the other dash-isms describing folks who think they're special because they're different from everybody else.

The Opposing Views article talks about, if you can believe this, the "Size Acceptance Movement".

Geez, what will they think of next.

Back in London, members of the Size Acceptance Movement said they constantly face discrimination because of their waistlines. Kathryn Szrodecki said that in the UK fat people are stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked. "I have been discriminated against - I am a YMCA qualified fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises."

If you purport to be a teacher of grammar and you demonstrably cannot parse a sentence, nobody will accept you as a believable expert grammarian, either. Should we establish a League of Incomprehensible Grammarians for your defense?

This is beginning to remind me of Monty Python and the "Silly Walks". Twenty years ago it was funny; today, it is actionable. I do believe that the sun has begun to set on the British Empire.

BUT:
the article also quotes another interviewed person:

Marsha Coupe said. "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train. They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!'"

... and you know, that sort of sounds familiar. I recall grade school (shudder!) and the kid they called "Stinky" and threw dirt clods at during recess, because his/her family was trying to survive with an alcoholic mother and father and the seven siblings didn't have much chance at the cold-water shower, or clean clothes. They were lucky to have two sets of clothes, and laundry was not a common option. But we hated them because they smelled bad, and anyone who had the seat next to them was teased because they were said to "love Stinky Alphreda Cleveland" (true story).

I remember a "Fatty", whose mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she, and she was indeed very well fed. Biscuits and potatoes and gravy, oh my! And that was just breakfast.

And I remember the skinny kid in Junior High School, who won the annual competition for First Chair in the Tuba Section ("Double-E-Flat Sousaphone) and got beat up by the other to Fat Kids who could carry the weight in a parade, but never practiced as the skinny kid did.

(I was "the skinny kid", but no more. Bet I still couldn't beat up the Fat Kids, though.)

Sorry, bit of a Senior Moment there, what?

Anyway, it's true that children can be unbelievably cruel, especially to kids that are different from everybody else.

I have to accept that The Brits, and even San Francisco have a point: people are discriminated against because they are ... well, Fat. It isn't as obvious or as prevalent in the adult population as it is among children, but it's still there.

The thing is, it really isn't reasonable to discriminate against people for their race. Even if you think some races are lesser than others (Racism), it's unreasonable to take it out on the individual. After all, they didn't choose their parents any more than you did, and if your attitude against people of other races is the hand-me-down bigotry of one generation to its children, you probably didn't do a very good job of choosing your parents either, now did you?

When you get into the non-gene-based bigotry, then it gets rather messy. People who hold an instinctive bias against Homosexuals, for example, are often heard saying "Well, they could just change their behavior, couldn't they?" It's a slippery slope, which goes even harder against people who Body Mass Index (BMI) is higher than, say, yours. (Before you speak, visit that last link and see how far from the 'norm' you are. Then think about it.)

It's easy to say "well, they could just eat less and exercise more, couldn't they?"

Easy to say isn't easy to do, usually. There's a lot involved here, including genes, family history ("... mother always made sure that they were as well-fed as she ...") and self-image just to name a few.


If you're not already in that place, put yourself in that place for a while. We're the product of our genes (nature) and our up-bringing (nurture). All of us. If you're an Adonis or an Aphrodite, you probably had a lot of luck in both life-lotteries. You probably also have worked hard to maintain your temple-like body. Good for you, and I do envy you for your self-discipline.

I work with a fellow, and also a lady, who both have a BMI far higher than mine. They are absolutely excellent at their jobs ... both technical. Think about it: you may be able to do one-handed push-ups (yes, I have been re-reading Robert B. Parker's "Spenser" series), but can you de-bug an SQR program or define a computer application from the point of view of the user of that application?

For that matter, I know an IPSC shooter who outweighs me by a hundred pounds, and he's a gentle friend who typically out-shoots me on even the run-and-gun field courses.

I don't buy into the "Inside every Fat Person, there's a Skinny Person crying to be let out" philosophy. But I do believe that when we judge people by appearances, or by how closely their life-style matches ours, we diminish ourselves unconsciously much more than we diminish them meanly.

Both Sides Now:
Having looked at "Fat-ism" from every aspect, I still don't think that it's a reasonable solution to make "Fat-ism" a Hate Crime.

Why?

Because I believe that the entire concept of "Hate Crimes" is hateful. It's too easy to go overboard, to live life by The Rules rather than a realistic attitude toward life and behavior. It's like comparing Digital to Analogue. Digital gives us the Internet; Analogue gives us Van Gogh. I trust that's self-explanatory, and if it's not you must be a Digital person who is patently guilty of Analogue-ism.

See how silly that sounds?

...

I leave you with one more thought.

San Francisco (Open up that Golden Gate) has already passed some Fat-ism legislation. Brrrr ... the mere act of using "San Francisco" and "legislation" in the same sentence makes my teeth ache and my manhood shrivel.

This from the cited article:

... where a law bans so called "fat-ism" in housing and employment. It also stops doctors from pressing patients to slim down.

San Francisco lawyer Sondra Solway told BBC News, "The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes."

Oh, okay. So I didn't invent the term "Fat-ism" after all. Whew! That's good, I feel no more need for shame.

When San Francisco passes a law that disallows my physician to nag me to stop smoking, I may begin to feel some respect for them. (I would ignore the good advice, of course, as I always do.) Other than that, this is just one more excellent example illustrating that the Nanny Statism that is San Francisco is similar to the mindless predatory actions of a rabid skunk.

It (the culture and administration of San Francisco) smells bad enough even when it's healthy. When it gets sick, the only effective remedy is to put it down, then cut off it's head so the veterinarian can examine what's left of its brain to determine whether, if you've been bitten by it, you need to take that painful series of anti-rabies shots.

Brrrrrr!

PBS: How will "Non-Sectarian" Programming Change It?

PBS board to vote on sectarian programs (Seattle Times)

According to the Washington Post, Public Broadcasting Service's board are scheduled next month to define the one of their basic precepts: not to broadcast "religious programming".

News Reports refer specifically to Television programming; at this time it is not clear whether any decision or clarification of terms will similarly apply to radio programming.

The discussion, some station managers fear, could lead to a ban on broadcasts of local church services and other faith-oriented programs that have appeared on public stations for decades despite the prohibition.

The Public Broadcasting Service's board is to vote next month on a committee's recommendation to strip the affiliation of any station that carries "sectarian" content. Losing its PBS relationship would mean a station could no longer broadcast programs that the service distributes, from "Sesame Street" to "Frontline."

Not being much of a television watcher, I can only remember from my childrens' youth how much they (and I) enjoyed "Sesame Street". Disenfranchising a station would have a powerful impact on local programming, one which no station would easily ignore.

In my locality, I've been listening this afternoon to my local PBS radio station. They just finished a two-hour programming complex (several similarly related programs) which might be called "Songs of The South". The last program was "Alabama Music", which prominently featured Hank Williams.

A preceding segment might be termed "Black Music of The South", which featured Jazz, Blues, Soul ... and Gospel.

It would be difficult to imagine an attempt to portray this segment of American culture without including Gospel music. If this attempt to Bowlderise programming content were to be enforced, the programming would (inaccurately) suggest that religious music was not an important part of American culture.

That is, by definition any reference to religion, no matter how innocuous or how important and/or necessary to the content, would be identified as "objectionable" by implication.

This isn't 'just' a corporate decision; this is a decision which affects how the First Amendment may be applied to Public Broadcasting. Even though it would currently affect PBS, under the current administration it would establish a dangerous precedent.

The worst part of it is, it's a decision which is not made by The People (the "Public" which the system is intended to serve), it's not even a decision which will be made by Congress ... our elected representatives.

Should it be?

If, for example, Clear Channel radio made the decision to discontinue any "sectarian content", that would be a legitimate Corporate decision. One wonders, though, whether the PBS Directors can legitimately make this decision.

There are doubtless those PBS patrons (listeners or viewers) who truly do find "sectarian" or "religious" programming objectionable.

The First Amendment, though was defined specifically to protect "objectionable speech".

And there are may be even more PBS patrons who will be disappointed that Public Television and/or Public Radio will no longer be permitted to present content which may be considered "religious". Or "Sectarian".

It depends on whether the word "sectarian" means "applying to a specific religious sect to the exclusion of others", or "applying to any non-secular content".

The dictionary definition doesn't define sectarian as religion in general; it refers to a "sect" as:

a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.

And "Sectarian":

1. of or pertaining to sectaries or sects.
2. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
3. narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc.

[emphasis added]

I don't personally go out of my way to listen or view religious programming. If something come up which I choose not to listen to, or to view, I simply change the channel or do something else. I don't demand that it be removed from the airways because it offends me.

But not everyone is like me.

In the New Liberal / Politically Correct culture which we have watched develop during the past generation, there seem to be a narrowly defined group of people whose attitude is that anything which offends them must be forbidden. And we are deferring to their selfish demands.

In other words, we are catering to a Sect.

Now, that offends me.

So, you thinkyou like the idea of National Health Care

President Nero Obama has included National Health Care as the primary plank in his platform during the Presidential Election in 2008. He won both the Democratic Nomination (over Hillary Clinton, author (along with her husband Bill the Philanderer) of HillaryCare in 1994. Well, Obama is prettier than Hillary so we can't disagree with the Democrats on that point.

But I digress.

If Obama is successful in placing the Federal Government in control of our Health Care ... we're screwed.

Remember, "The Government" (at various levels ... Federal, State and Local) are the people who are in charge of:

• The U.S. Postal Service
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax and Explosives
• The Department of Environmental Quality
• The Department of Education
• Congress
• The Justice Department
• The Department of State ("HillaryCare Part II")
• The Department of Motor Vehicles
• The Internal Revenue Service
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• Congress, which approved --- and The President --- who initiated T.A.R.P.
  

In the words of Yul Brynner: "Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera".

Are these the peoplewho should be in charge of your Health Service?

No. They're politicians and Bureaucrats, whose only priority is either getting re-elected or Empire Building ... or both. These people would screw up a Wet Dream; I dn't know abut you, but I don't want them to decide whether they should allow their limited resources to be allocated in relief of my medical miseries.

Here's a Case in Point, from our British Cousins:
GP refuses stroke call out

A FAMILY whose father died after medics misdiagnosed his stroke three times and refused a home visit have won an out of court settlement.

... Jeffery Wingrove, 48, died in hospital less than 48 hours after collapsing at home with severe vomiting and crippling headaches.

Too ill to move, his wife Isabelle, 52, rang her out-of-hours GP service run by a privately contracted firm who twice refused a home visit despite her pleas.

Claiming he did not qualify as he was not elderly, they instead offered to fax a prescription for pain killers to her local pharmacy for her to collect.

Paramedics were called as his condition worsened but they misdiagnosed Jeffery with severe vertigo and gave him paracetamol instead.

By the next day Jeffery was in so much pain he was rushed to hospital by ambulance where a scan revealed an infarct on the left side of his brain.

Part of his brain had been severely damaged by a stroke. Doctors attempted surgery but he died the following morning.

‘ All they had to do was come and see him, which my usual GP would have done at the drop of a hat. But it was too much trouble for them. ’

During the subsequent investigation harrowing call recordings were released of Isabelle pleading with the doctor to come and help him.

Isabelle, of Braintree, Essex, said: ”If he had been ill in on a weekday he would still be alive today. They held a gun to his head and they pulled the trigger. He was never given a chance of survival.

”All they had to do was come and see him, which my usual GP would have done at the drop of a hat. But it was too much trouble for them.

”I told the doctor he couldn’t lift his head off the pillow and I had no chance of moving him as he was 6ft tall and I’m only 4’10”.

”I was just ignored no matter how much I pleaded. The hospital told us if he had been treated sooner he would have survived.”

Was this a case of "We're not interested in moving from our comfortable chair", or "Judging from your description, there's no major emergency here", or "We don't have the resources to respond to EVERY call, and we have other things to do right now"?

It's impossible to tell from the limited information given in the article.

One thing is clear, though: the National Health Services is controlled by Bureaucrats and Accountants, not by Medical Experts. Certainly, the people in charge are neither Philanthropists nor Care Givers. If they were, their priorities would have generated a certain sense of Urgency after the second call, certainly after the third telephoned plea for help.

The family won a six-figure out-of-court settlement for clinical negligence from the East of England Ambulance Service and the GP involved last month.

...

The family - Isabelle and sons Marc, 14, and Danny, 23 - intend making a complaint to the General Medical Council about the GP who has not been named.

It is understood the GP no longer works for Primecare.

A spokeswoman for the East of England Ambulance Services NHS Trust said: ”We have co-operated fully with the investigation and do not feel that it is appropriate to comment at this time."

A spokesman for Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust said he could not comment on the specifics of what was a ”terrible tragedy” as the matter was still subject to possible future actions.

Swell. The government (or NHS, which is the same thing) threw the doctor under the bus and washed their hands of all responsibility.

The lesson here is that the poliiticians make the rules, the Doctors are required to abide by them ... and when anything goes wrong, the Doctor gets the axe. Notice that the article does not mention a review of Governmental Policies or Procedures in an effort to prevent recurrence of this kind of tragedy.

Oh, let's call it what it really is: a screw-up of monumental proportions, because England cannot actually afford to run a National Health Service.

This should serve as a warning to we who are about to allow Obama to implement a similar bureaucratic quagmire on we, the Citizens of the United States of America.

Since Obama has saddled us and our children with (more or less) NINE TRILLION DOLLARS of debt (borrowed from the Chinese, who have no love for us), which is (more or less) equivalent to our Annual Gross National Product ... and in the process doubled our National Debt during the First One Hundred Days of his reign administration ... America also cannot afford to fund a National Health Service, either.

Sure, he claims that it will be 'an option', and that it is not intended to replace Private Medical Insurance plays but to supplement those plans available to those who can afford to pay for private insurance.

On the other hand, this is the same President who promised "The most transparent administration in American History", and that he would personally evaluate every bill which was presented to him "line by line" ... and then pushed for T.A.R.P., which was a 1600 page bill, before the members of Congress had time to read it. And doubtless before he had time to read it and discuss it, either. Not that he really cared; the bill fit his personal agenda, and that's the important thing.

---

Judging by the preceding editorial comments, one might arrive at the conclusion that I am becoming increasingly disillusioned about the leadership provided by Obama.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Obama has never served in an executive position in a company which actually produces a product, which is accountable to stockholders (or employees), yet he has the unmitigated gall to presume to take over some of the biggest corporations in the country (eg: General Motors) to the extent that he has arbitrarily assumed the right to fire the CEO, set salaries, and determine the product line which that and other companies can produce.

Obama has committed to the establishment of a "Civilian Corps" with funding comparable to the American Military, with goals and directives which have not yet been determined, which is not accountable to anyone other than Obama, and the membership of which currently seems slated to be obligatory, rather than voluntary.

Hell, even our military is an "All Volunteer" organization, but not the Obama-Crats.

I do not trust the man. He is committed to tax rules which are specifically and clearly designed to accomplish his personal goal of "Redistribution of Wealth". He has established 'forgiveness' tax rules which establishes a Dolist population greater than the producing tax-payers. In fact, those who pay NO taxes will be rewarded with a 'tax rebate', taken from tax-payers.

Does this sound like the actions of a man whose intention is to provide quality Medical Care for lower-earning, retired and otherwise indigent Citizens?

Or does this sound like the actions of a man who wants the Government to control every aspect of our private lives?

I know what I think.

What do YOU think?

Is "The British Model" of Health Care appropriate to a bankrupt First-World Nation?

you can't ... you can't defend your home?

Xavier Thoughts: Ryan Frederick's Interrogation

The trial of Ryan Frederick is in progress.

Xavier Thoughts has a video of the initial interrogation of Ryan Frederick immediately after having shot dead a police officer who was "busting through" his door.

A quick recap: Ryan Frederick was at home, alone, in his home when he heard someone "busting through" his door. His dogs were barking, he had discovered a break-in the previous day and was already fearful for his property and his life. When he heard the noise he reacted instinctively to repel what he considered (perhaps rightly) aggressive attackers.

The man who was "busting through" his door was a police officer. Failing to identify the person who had forcefully entered his home without previous warning (remember, Frederick was asleep) he shot and killed that person.

Last September I wrote about this, in what may be a slightly more complete summary.

The police arrested him, and this entry replays the audio record of his initial interview ... while he was still suffering from "Fight or Flight" overload, without benefit of a lawyer, and deeply in the pangs of conscience.

As Xavier states in his article, "It is not easy to listen to Ryan Frederick's interrogation immediately after he shot a police officer. It is, however, informative."

Frederick's mood shifts moment to moment, from fear to grief to aggressive to defensive to explanation to expiation to anguish to trepidation to ... it's difficult to name an emotion which does not appear in this (about two minute, maybe three) video.

A few statements ring clear:

• Somebody was busting in my door!
• I thought they were trying to kill me.
• You can't ... you can't defend your home?
• "You can't just shoot through a door! (police interrogator)

One sequence which I found particularly revealing was:

• Frederick: Somebody broke into my house yesterday, and ...
• Interrogator: What did they steal?
• Frederick: Nothing!

This is a tragedy on all sides, which is not helped by Frederick's admission that "I smoke marijuana, okay?"

If I had found myself in that position ... If I had discerned that someone broke into my house and didn't steal anything ... I would have reached the inevitable conclusion that the people who entered my home uninvited weren't after My Stuff. I would have assumed that they were after ME!

But hey, I'm just another paranoid gun-nut, right?

There were elements which set up this situation, elements of which the police were aware but Frederick was not. Among these elements was the fact that the police had been told by an informer that Frederick was growing Marijuana for sale, that the informer had illegally entered Frederick's home the previous day looking for evidence of a 'growing operation', and (having found no such verifiable evidence) reported the presence of scales, bags, fertilizer, grow-lights and "a plant" that looked like Marijuana. In fact, the plant was a juvenile ornamental with a leaf structure similar to Marijuana, and all other items were part of his hobby ... growing ornamental plants. (NOT Marijuana.)

One interpretation of the events which seems acceptable (at least, to me) is that Frederick was the victim of an unreliable police reformer with ties to the informal drug culture, that the informer had personal animosity toward Frederick, and that he (the informer) was determined to interpret his findings in the light which would best encourage the police to treat Frederick as a "Major Dealer/Grower".

Testimony has suggested that the police did announce themselves before engaging in an aggressive entry. Ryan's initial interrogation seems (again, to me) reliable in stating that he did not hear an announcement that he was being visited by the police. As he said, "I was asleep ... there was nobody in the house but me and my dogs" and he was awaken by the barking of the dogs.

And he grabbed his gun, and someone "busted through my door", and he thought someone was trying to kill him. So he shot at them.

And hit, and killed, a police officer.

---

The police confiscated a lot of 'stuff': grow-lamps, scales, small plastic bags, seeds, etc. All things which would logically be expected for the police to find on the premises of a Marijuana Grower.

But they didn't find any Marijuana plants.

---

I personally find it all to easy to believe that the police, in their zeal, took the unsubstantiated word of an informant (a known felon) and aggressively assaulted the premises of a man who they believed to be a Grower.

Frederick, who probably was asleep when the assault began, reacted as if he was the victim of a Home Invasion. (We hear about that often, and the police cannot seem to do anything to protect us from this criminal phenomenon.)

Ultimately, to my mind, this seems to be a situation in which the police did invade a home of a private citizen who interpreted it as a Home Invasion, and reacted to defend himself and his property.

But the police will never give up in their prosecution and, ultimately, persecution of Ryan Frederick. They are unable to admit that they made a mistake in judgement. They are unable to admit that their aggressive tactics may have served to construct a situation which the home-owner could only react in one way: to defend his life.

And so it comes down to a trial, in which the police may find themselves as much on trial as does Ryan Frederick. With one significant difference: The police are a unified organization. They only see one color: Blue. There are no shades of grey in their universe.

Frederick, on the other hand, is and remains a man who is confused, frightened, and (as he says): "I don't have anybody!"

A rich man would have walked by now. There is no evidence that Frederick as participating in any illegal activity apart from the private consumption of Marijuana (a "crime" punishible by nothing more than a fine, much like a traffic ticket.) Not much justification for killing a policeman.

Frederick is A Man Alone. Confused, frightened full of remorse and finding himself in a position similar to a kernal of corn in a remorseless grinding mill, Frederick has no-one to call upon for help. No family. No friends. No helpful member of the Third Estate. (Well, perhaps except for one.)


From Xavier thoughts of Match 23, 2008:

Frederick was armed with a .380 pistol. He fired at the figure. The shot killed a police officer, Jarrod Shivers, who was serving a "no knock" search warrant. Shivers was a narcotics detective and a father of three children. Frederick had no prior criminal record, and he was not growing marijuana as a confidential informant had claimed. Frederick was arrested and charged with first degree murder. Two .380 shell casings were recovered, as well as a .223 hull. Judge Thomas M. Ammons III has denied bond. Frederick is represented by attorney James Broccoletti.

---

As I listened carefully to the original interrogation tape, I was struck by they image of Frederick in a Cage, bouncing from one set of bars to the next, bruised and battered but certain only of his inalienable rights to defend himself and his home.

Except for that one moment, when in the smallest of voices he asks:

"You can't ... you can't defend your home?"

---

I think he can. And I think the aggression of SWAT teams who, masked and costumed and armed with all of the latest Big Ticket Item armor and weaponry, is probably wasted on such a small-time operation such as that which the considered Frederick to be a very minor member.

The police have screwed the pooch on this one. Instead of simply saying "OOPS! My Bad!" -- they have no choice to go after Frederick in the most aggressive manner possible, in the sure and certain confidence that their local Presecutor will support them beyond the point of reason.

After all, they're The Good Guys.

Aren't they?

As you will find, Curt has been keeping track of this case far better than anyone else.

The Brits -- Our American Future?

I've got time for only a few more derisive articles which castigate the British Empire's suicidal descent into Socialism, until we begin our own similar descent now that we've elected The Marxist One as our personal savior.

Let's take a few minutes and savor the many ways in which an intrusive Big Government can screw up our personal life. For the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume that "The Brits" includes England, Canada, Australia and (perhaps to some smaller extent) the Scots and the Irish.

[Did you know that God invented Whiskey so that the Irish would not rule the world? True fact, trust me on this. A further thesis is that God invented the English so that the Scots would not rule the world, and He invented the French just to confound the English. But that's a subject for a future post. Okay, probably not.]

I got an email from Julie Jigsaw, from Australia last week. She has been writing about the recent decision of the Australian Government to bowlderize the Internet.

Well, we seem to have dodged that bullet.

THE Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians.

When the idea was first mooted, there was the concept of an "opt out" option, where users could contact their ISP and say "no, thanks" to this filtering.

This option has now been REMOVED.

When the plan comes into effect sometime next year ALL internet access through Australian ISPs will be censored.

As far as I am concerned, this is a very dangerous path to start walking down.

The Senator in charge of this travesty is Stephen Conroy and, despite trials being planned for later this year, he doesn't know what content the mandatory filters will bar!!!

According to this article there will be two levels of filtering - one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a "clean feed", censoring adult material. So we're not just talking about porn here.

So much for Australia. Let's move outside the immediate British Sphere of Influence. I invite you to read Erica Jong's prediction that "Obama Loss will 'Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood will Run in the Streets". (!)

Erica Jong:

"Beware of the man who denounces women writers; his penis is tiny and he cannot spell. "

Well, apparently we dodged that particular bullet, too. Brrrrrrr! It makes my tiny penis shrivel to chance incurring The Wrath of Erica.

Fortunately, there are a few Women Writers whose works I admire: Bujold, Evanovich, Grafton, Rand ... hey, where's Jong?

Not there.

Moving right along, let's zero in on Socialism Central ... England.

London to get Bomb-proof recycling bins.

Central London's financial district will begin installing bomb-proof recycling bins from next year, the company responsible for the product said Monday.

The bins, which cost around 30,000 pounds each to produce and install, will also feature news and weather information on LCD screens that are part of the bins.

"From a blast technology side, it's just something that should be there," said Brian James, the chief operating officer of Media Metrica, the company providing the product.

"You don't expect to get into an accident, but you make sure you have seat belts," he told AFP.

Okay, so England is going to spend over $60,000 each for garbage cans, to occupy the 'high risk' areas of London, and they're touting this as if it is A Good thing.

Reason why, is that 20 years ago the IRA dumped some bombs in garbage cans ... er, 'dust bins'.

It's axiomatic that The Military will spend billions of dollars to fight The Last War. That is, for Vietnam we (America) had tanks and stuff that would have been Good To Have in WWII. In Iraq, the American Military had Hummvees which would have been handy in Viet Nam. Maybe. Except that in this century they didn't have what theLiberals were fond of referring to as "Adequate Armor".

In Viet Nam, we didn't have "Adequate Armor"; we had flack jackets which wouldn't stop an AK47 bullet or a ChiCom Directional Mine from messing up your day. [Another blog article which will never be published.]

Today, when airplanes have been pounded into skyscrapers and (locally) Suicide Bombers are packing bomb-vests onto Trams (or whatever Brits call the subway) and onto busses, and thinking about liquid Binary Bombs on airplanes, the Brits are worried about someone blowing up their dustbin.

Okay, that sounds about right.

The Atlanta Bomber had the same idea ... about 10 years ago. Gee, if we had bomb-proof garbage cans on the streets of Atlanta, Georgia, we wouldn't have indicted whats-his-name .... without, as it happens, any shred of proof.


The Brits are looking very much like the Horse who got his head stuck in a tree last week. Think: Ostrich.

Finally, let's stick with The Home Country ... England .. and concentrate on the way it controls its citizens waste:

A company boss faces a £300 (pounds, about $630) fine for failing to declare his sandwich wrapper as "industrial waste".

Frank Hughes, 62, was threatened with the penalty by a council official during a spot inspection at his office and told he may be punished over his used tea bags.


The businessman, who runs a small scaffolding firm, works from an industrial unit with his wife Liz, 61, while their team of labourers visit sites across Liverpool.


But the official insisted they had flouted new nationwide laws which force companies to declare industrial waste despite the couple explaining they only have cling film from their home-made sandwiches and soggy tea bags.


Yesterday Mr Hughes branded their action "laughable".


He told the Daily Express: "In the face of recession, Britain should be looking after its small businesses, not hitting them with as many stealth taxes as they can dream up."


"They want to fine me £300 for sandwich wrappers. The world's gone crazy. We got a letter from the council's environmental waste department, like everybody else, about six months ago asking us to declare the waste we produce."

"Used Tea Bags?"

They want to ding him two days wages (in an average Western economy) for throwing his Used Tea Bags in the wastebasket?

Wait! Wait .. wait ...

Wait for the punchline.

Like you, I'm entirely outraged by this last report. But we now (today) have to stop and consider the story in the context of our future.

Within the next four years, My Fellow Americans, we too will be subject to equally draconian regulations.

Not laws ... we have control over them. Well, maybe not.

But Regulations?

That's Administrative, not Legislative.

That's Bureaucrats, not Legislators.

The folks we elect get to hire the Bureaucrats who set the Regulations without any input from us. And we will have no choice but to observe them. No, they won't throw us into jail ... unless we refuse to pay the onerous fines they impose.

We can expect to be the Victims of Bureaucracy for the next umpteen years. And there'e nothing ... absolutely nothing ... you can do about that.

Think about it.

Welcome to 1984, we're all Winston Smith in our fresh-minted Orwellian World.

And it's all our fault.

"All that is necessary for the triump of evil is that good men do nothing."