Disqus - Latest Comments for kedgemon

Re: Court: Serial liar Glass can't be a lawyer

kedgemon — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:55:45 -0000

and yet, Sergio Garcia is allowed to practice

Re: Pilot, passengers jump to safety as skydiving planes collide

kedgemon — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:49:02 -0000

Fine, whatever, it's a bit of notable weekend irony. But why did the pilot have a parachute on? He wasn't planning to jump.
Does it really work like in the old Looney Tunes where Bugs jumps up out of hte pilot seat and grabs a parachute as the plane is going down? I'm pretty sure that parachutes aren't just backbacks you can throw over your shoulder in a couple of seconds.

Re: Air marshal accused of taking upskirt pictures of passengers

kedgemon — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:45:46 -0000

The "Witness" is lucky to have gotten the phone to someone else before being arrested for attacking the air marshall. When law enforcement officers are involved, things can go very poorly for aperson doing the right thing.

Re: Sagging Green Bay, Wisconsin, bridge snarls traffic

kedgemon — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:52:57 -0000

Thanks for this. I'm not sure any of the whiners posting here read the story.
The bridge didn't sag. The infrastructure isn't faling apart. The support pier sunk into the earth and pulled a section of bridge down. I hope they disconncted it from the bridge right away to halt additional damage.

Re: Syria possible strike: Get up to speed in 20 questions

kedgemon — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 09:59:59 -0000

Wait, so without the U.N., President Obama is trying to put together a coalition of the willing based on clear evidence that all the senators. national security advisors, etc believe regarding possession and use of banned weapons?

That sounds deliciously familiar.

Re: 50 Science Misconceptions—Debunked!

kedgemon — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:51:15 -0000

The other side of the moon gets more sun than the side we can see because the other side doesn't have to put up with eclipses.

Re: Supreme Court countdown: Big rulings coming

kedgemon — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:15:24 -0000

Rights are not given by the governemnt. Those are privledges (like driving a car). Rights are those things which government can not take away (approximately centered around self-determination).

Arranging your financial affiars under a one-signature catch-all that is based in a patriarchal home model where men work and women raise children is not an inalienable right given by God (or whatever you don't believe in). It is part of the category of administrative arangements that people make with the state.

Re: Background checks on gun sales: How do they work?

kedgemon — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:02:11 -0000

Wow, you are really all over the place. Try to focus.

Drunk driving laws punish people who are caught driving drunk. A law forcing you to wait longer at stop signs would have no impact on people who run stop signs. That's all I said.

I'm not sure how you are leaping to the waiting period arguement. You know there isn't a federal waiting period, right? There is also no federal permit. If you had to wait for one that is an issue between you and your State. I deal with that by living in a different State than you do.

I believe the point that S Mann was making is that if it worked so well to simply make a law that sounds good, then we should just make murder against the law and be done with it.

Re: Background checks on gun sales: How do they work?

kedgemon — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:37:35 -0000

To refine your analogy, expanding the background check program would be more like trying to address the problem of people ignoring stoplights by mandating that everyone stop for a full 5 seconds. You might say, "What's wrong with that? It would ensure complete stops."
In fact, the people who don't stop at stop signs still aren't going to stop at the stop signs. the new law will just cause additional headaches, traffic, and potential unenteded violations for the law abiding citizens.

Re: Safety Vest Meets FHWA Standards

kedgemon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:34:52 -0000

The Jeff Paniati letter mentioned above written from the FHWA to the ERSI does not say anything about Public Safety Vests (ANSI 207) being used in lieu of the legally required Class 2 ANSI 107 vests. The letter in fact only acknowledges the retroreflective requirements of the 207 vests and promised to propose that the ANSI 207 vests be allowed in the future. No one has the authority to modify or dismiss federal law without putting the changes through the normal Amendment process. That process is underway. The comment period closed earlier this year and according to the FHWA, the revised rules will probably be available in the second or third quarter of 2009.

For now (or more correctly, after November 24th) only ANSI 107 certified garments (class 2 or 3) will satisfy the requirements of 23 CFR 634.

A more thorough writeup on the high-visability vest issue can be found on the Responder Knowledge Base website at:
https://www.rkb.us/200647