Thursday July 28, 2016
Jump to content
I have to tell you right up front: I am NOT pulling your leg. This really happened. I was afraid if I didn't say that up front you might think I had something up my sleeve besides and elderly and slowly wrinkling arm. :-)
This is the story:
On a hot day in China, car that had been driven a long way and was, as could be expected, hot was stopped at an intersection, where it burst into flames.
The result of the investigation?
Did it say that a brake had overheated and caused the fire, as I've actually seen happen (not to me) on a long downhill drive? Did it say that a fuel leak had occurred? Did it say that some piece of plastic under the hood had melted and caught fire? Did it say that someone was smoking and....?
Well, you know. Did it say any of the couple of dozen things that can happen?
It said, "According to the investigation, spontaneous combustion was caused by the hot weather and the fact that the car had been traveling on a long journey."
Spontaneous combustion? Are they kidding?
But that's not the part I wanted you to hear. Believe it or not, with an absolutely straight face, and not poking fun at our Chinese friends, the UK Mirror reported the story just as it came off the wire — and even added a little editing to it, I suspect.
Here's the headline:
"Hot weather causes car to spontaneously combust - with three passengers trapped inside."
I know what you're saying: "Oh, my God, those poor people! Trapped inside a burning vehicle. What a horrible way to go!"
And this line doesn't help any either. "In the clip, flames can be seen engulfing the car as thick black smoke billows across the road, obscuring the view of fellow drivers."
But down at the bottom the next to last paragraph says: "The three people in the vehicle all managed to escape without injuries, thanks to the prompt response of the emergency services."
Hey! Come on! If a car catches fire and is "engulfed in flames" the people either get themselves out right there and then or they are fried. If it took just five minutes for "emergency services" to get there they wouldn't stand a chance.
And why, one might ask, could they not just open the doors and step out? In the story saw two pics. One showing the flames starting, at which time the car was by no means "engulfed." Only one side was aflame. In the second photo the car was totally aflame. Want to bet those Chinese folks very intelligently bailed out between photo A and photo B?
Or — and this is the question — How the hey does a car "spontaneously" combust, when "spontaneously" means "occurring without external stimulus?"
PS: Want to see the actual photos? Go here:
Ah, yes! Off the beaten track. All this reminds me of a true story I recently heard.
An American politician went to Africa to take a closer look at an African politician who had just cropped up in the political scene of a small nation and was running for President. He followed the politician around for three weeks, amazed at the loud reception the man got everywhere he went, and even more amazed at the way the man's viewpoint echoed that of our own president.
Everywhere he went huge crowds listened as the new young politician filled the air with rhetoric. At every one of his seemingly magical orations the people shouted "Umpah! Umpah! Umpah!" over and over again at everything the young man said. Over and over, as the young man repeated words that rang very familiarly in the American's Washington trained ears, thousands of people shouted, "UMPAH! UMPAH! UMPAH!"
Finally, after three exhausting weeks of following the man around and listening to the roar of the crowds he decided to find to place to sit somewhere and quietly put together the notes he had made, certain they would fit in somewhere in current discussions. He selected a five star hotel lying beside a sprawling ranch in the southern regions of the tiny nation. There, in a light plane, he was landed in a wide pasture surprisingly dotted with hundreds of cattle and littered with their rather pungent droppings.
A hotel attendant showed up to lead him across the pasture to the hotel. Stepping lightly around the many piles they had to dodge the attendant turned to the politician. "I apologize for all this, sor," he said smiling through a set of gleaming white teeth. "Thee cattle seem to have have invaded thee area we normally use only for aircraft, so I must ask you to please be careful not to step in any of thee umpah."
And then, with the law as clear as glass about what should be done with roughly 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally, most of them from Mexico and other Latin American nations, President Obama had the gall to sign an executive order that would have allowed 4 million of those illegals, those who have lived here illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no proven criminal record in the United States other than the fact that they sneaked across our borders, and who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, be shielded from deportation and supplied with work permits.
Is it any wonder that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, some very tough tough questions?
Justice Kennedy expressed his concerns over that executive order very well. He made it plain that Obama had exceeded his authority by having the executive branch set immigration policy rather than carrying out the laws passed by Congress and signed by more than one former presidents, including, of course, Democratic presidents.
I think that one comment Justice Kennedy made says it all. "It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside down."
The simple truth is that is Justice Scalia had not died there isn't the slightest doubt that the Court would not have been split 4-4, but would have very thoroughly shot down that executive order.
The bottom line in any discussion of what Obama tried to do is the question whether or not he has the authority to change, ignore, or disobey a law passed by Congress and signed into law by a former president. Obvious, he does not have that authority. He tried to take it and got slapped down for it.
The trial judge in federal court was quite clear in what he said, which was, "U.S. immigration law “flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization."
And when the Obama administration took the case to the 5th Circuit Court of appeals they again got shot down. The Fifth Circuit held that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else.
I mean, be reasonable. U.S Senator John Corwyn, who though a Republican is by no means a rabid partisan said it exactly right when he said, "“By going around Congress to grant legal status to millions of people here illegally, the president abused the power of his office and ignored the will of the American people. The president can’t circumvent the legislative process simply because he doesn’t get what he wants, and I’m glad the rule of law was affirmed.”
Isn't that the right way to look at this? Congress long ago passed a law regarding the proper procedures for immigration. That law takes a very mild view of illegal immigration, simply providing that those who sneak across our borders will be sent back. What happened recently was that the Obama administration not only failed to stop the flow, but actually encouraged it.
Ah, Pat. The trouble with that intersection is not that it's poorly designed. It's the fact that no intersection can handle the amount of traffic they are trying to squeeze through it.
When are we going to get the bypass?
I tel you what, I'd like to see just one statistic: What percentage of cars passing through Payson stop here for any reason?
I suppose that's natural enough, Pat, considering the raking over the coals that the police around the nation are taking in the mainstream media.
First of all, Chuck, I owe you an apology. I changed field in my handling of your reply earlier today and changed it to the part of my comment that starts with "Of course, you may actually believe what you said and have may some justification in your mind for saying it (as for example the dead silence in the mainstream media about such bills even though they exist), but I have to tell you that this is one area that I truly stay current on."
Most of the stuff above that, in particular these two paragraphs, I edited out because they came out sounding too smart-alecky, and that's not the way I operate.
"Chuck, Can you please explain what you just said? I'm genuinely sorry to have to tell you that as someone who watches Congressional bill activity very closely I'm shocked at what you said. But first a general comment, before I get into specifics."
"Exactly what what was it that Congress should have done? Should he have been impeached and removed from office? I agree, but the chances of the Senate convicting him were few and none, as we all know."
How in hell they got back in I do not know. I was working offline and I guess I must have selected the wrong part of what I done when I pasted it all back n.
The whole statement should have started with this: "Of course, you may actually believe what you said and have may some justification in your mind for saying it (as for example the dead silence in the mainstream media about such bills even though they exist), but I have to tell you that this is one area that I truly stay current on."
See the difference? That's a much better way to start a comment where opinions are concerned. Anyway, I apologize. Just plain screwed up.
And for everyone's info I often work offline and edit what I say to avoid anything that comes out sounding different from the way I meant it to sound.
Okay, here's what I started out to type for tomorrow morning before I noticed (with quite a shock, I don't mind telling you!) that some edited out stuff was back in. Normally I don't post at this time of day. I prefer to be at peace with the world in the evening, focusing on how grateful I am that I've had another day with my beloved wife. I thank the Lord for that every day. This forum may be "fun" and interesting to do, but Lolly is my life.
Anyway, Chuck, you seem to have misread that comment in Wiki. The case went against the President I'm sorry to have to point out. The tie was in effect a defeat for Obama because it upheld the injunction by received by Texas and all those other states. I mentioned that in a prior string, so I just put a comment on that string (807) so that so you could read it and see how everything worked. Sorry, Obama lost on that one, but it's easy enough in reading stuff like that to lose track of what's a win and what's a loss.
Have a good one!
I only made a comment here today so that you could all read how it was explained what a 4-4 decision in this case would mean. It was simpler than having to repeat it all again in string number 953.
I'll just make this short and sweet.
The Dallas Police Department, which was struggling to recruit officers, has seen a surge in job applications after the ambush shooting this month that killed five officers and brought global attention to the Texas city, officials said on Friday.
During the 12 days following the July 7 shooting, the department said it got 467 job applications, a 344 percent increase compared with the 136 in a similar period in June.
That says something to me, something that makes me feel just a little bit good.
You don't have to agree.
How do you feel about it?
"Tom, if you Google "Mahin Khan" you will get several local stories about him. He is autistic and has additional unspecified mental health issues. He has been in psychotherapy since he was 15. I think that a person with these types of problems would engage in lots of "suspicious behaviors" as he probably has a lot of trouble being deceptive."
Ah! That explains some things. I wondered about it but have been on a long winded project trying to understand the 2015 school law (federal, that is) which is impenetrable, so just haven't had time to research it.
"He is likely a dangerous person..." et al. Yes. We have to the the "right" thing. The problem is trying to find out what it is, isn't it?
"Others might say that that is likely the problem. 3 years of "psychotherapy" will probably make most folks crazy."
Put me in the "others" column. Ever read the book The Making of a Psychiatrist? I've spent a lot of time studying psychology and psychiatry, make no claim to be being an expert, but would not put my self in the hands of one of those people under any circumstances.
"But you make a real good point."
"What DO we do with the lunatics once we (society) have identified the individual with the lunacy??"
We used to house them. Now we don't, or if we do I don't know about it, although I have long since given up researching the area out of disgust. Just out of curiosity, am I right or wrong? (I hope I'm wrong.)
"Just simply pointing out the silliness of their argument will never change their minds. Too closed."
Bob, want to get scared? I can't give you a reference because I now stay away from such places (and away from places on the other side of the issue) but go look up the rules (not laws, by the way) about such things. They'll scare the pants off you!
Listen, you and I are both reasonable people, but the regulations that are being passed are not written by people like us. They are written by people who want all guns taken away. That's the sad thing about our nation at the current moment; we have too much of that kind of thing going on.
Why some people believe that the solution to so many problems lies in words on a piece of paper I do not know, but you and I — and Chuck as well — know that it isn't true. The solution to problems lies in changing people, not changing rules.
How do you change people? I know no other way than using history to teach them the lasting values embedded in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, letting them see for themselves what is true and what is sophistry. The problem is that wherever I look in American education that is THE weakest area. Our kids simply are not absorbing the values they need to have to understand why Americans have been willing to die for what we have.
Last login: today