Posted: 10 Aug 2008 12:27 PM CDT
The Uniontown school officials have announced their intent to draft a taser policy for their police officers at the schools. This policy will potentially be discussed at their August 18, 2008 meeting and could be implemented as soon as next month.
In Uniontown Area, Pennsylvania, there is a discussion going on about a taser plan being set up which would allow the use of tasers to be used in the Uniontown schools. The plans are receiving mixed reviews.
Reactions to these reports are mixed, with the school's director of security asserting that giving this option to the officers of the district would be giving them " the safest possible conditions for children, staff and visitors than as a weapon "directed at the students."
The ACLU, via their attorney, says he cannot envision a need to use tasers in a school setting. They also believe that using tasers would be asking for trouble.
At a public meeting on Wednesday night, concerned parents and residents questioned the need for tasers as consultants called tasers an "useful extra tool" to be used instead of a firearm in gaining control of certain situations.
Ken Trump, a former school security director who heads National School Safety and Security Services, said a device like a Taser -- which delivers a powerful electric shock to incapacitate a person -- potentially can be helpful if an adult non-student intruder threatens harm to himself or others.
The high profile cases of deaths occurring after the use of a taser, and abuses of the use of the weapon that incapacitates a suspect, by authorities, that make spectacular headlines is also discussed in the article.
Ken Trump, a former school security director who heads National School Safety and Security Services, addresses those concerns by saying "The key is conservative use. I think we can say, if we can break up a fight in the hallway in a traditional way, then what's the point (of a Taser)?"
The article goes on to discuss the high profile cases, specifying last months headlines where a 17-year-old Winnipeg boy with a knife became the youngest Canadian to die after being zapped.
Another example was the recent in the Charlotte area which prosecutors said last month that the officers involved with a 17 year-old boys death would not be prosecuted after they zapped the suspect when he advanced on officers.
However, medical studies have shown that exposure to a conducted-energy device, or CED, like a Taser, is safe in the "vast majority of cases," according to a June report by the National Institute of Justice.
One of the three district school police officers that would have the ability to use tasers, should the need arise, is Don Homer, who is a 30-year law enforcement veteran and has been certified to use a Taser for eight years and is currently Uniontown's director of security and he states, "Probably the majority of my concern is protecting staff and students from something that could happen from outside the school. You want to be prepared. If you're not, it's too late."
The Southmoreland school director, Ken Alt, who worked in the state prison system, believes that his district would not necessarily follow Uniontown's lead in implemented a taser policy, but he does state that he thinks it could be useful. He also states one major point that many have said in recent discussions about tasers with the statement, "I think if the guy's trained and qualified it's definitely a plus. You never know anymore. Common sense is the biggest thing."
The common sense issue is one that continues to be debated, especially after a recent event where a man died after being tasered 9 times.
Some might argue that common sense is the biggest issue in regards to the use of tasers, yet what kind of test can you give law enforcement officials that will determine if they have an appropriate amount of common sense?
[Update] Here are Uniontwon's crime statistics.
Posted: 10 Aug 2008 10:29 AM CDT
(Note- I am having a problem with Reuter's links today so I am grabbing the relevant quote from Hot Air, which quotes Reuters.)
I pointed out yesterday that Barack Obama's response to the Russia-Georgia conflict was far from satisfactory, while John McCain issued a statement that showed he understood the difference between an aggressor and a victim, Obama called on restraint from Russia and Georgia.....asking the victim to show restraint in defending their home.
A complete lack of experience was shown by Obama by making that statement.
Today it seems that Obama boned up a little and discovered what was actually happening and has readjusted his position with a different statement... amazingly enough, now his statement more matches McCain's original statement.
Obama's new statement:
That is what he should have said yesterday, and Hot Air points out, generously, that Obama was in transit to Hawaii, so Mccain offered his statement first, but that is neither here nor there.
The fact is Obama issued a statement before he knew the facts, something that he has a habit of doing, and then had to toughen up a bit when he learned the difference between "aggressor" and "victim".
He should have kept his mouth shut until he understood what had happened and Hot Air states it perfectly:
McCain obviously took time to determine first that Russia had indeed attacked Georgia before demanding restraint from the victim. It's apparent that McCain has a better grasp of the situation and understood its ramifications as events unfolded. Obama issued a boilerplate statement that generically demanded that everyone start getting along, and had to modify his stance as his 300 foreign-policy advisers had a chance to tutor him on the conflict.
This was a 3 am moment which shows splendidly that Hillary Clinton was dead on and Barack Obama is in no way prepared for that 3 am call White House call.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Said That While She And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Had Crossed "The Commander In Chief Threshold ... You Will Have To Ask Senator Obama With Respect To His Candidacy." Sen. Clinton: "In this election we need a nominee who can pass the commander-in-chief test. Someone ready on day one to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a president who passes that test, because the first and most solemn duty of the president of the United States is on protect and defend our nation. And when there is a crisis and when the phone rings whether it's 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 a.m. In the White House, there is no time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a time of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator Mc Cain will be the nominee for the party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander in chief threshold. And I believe that I have done that. Certainly Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy." (CNN's "Newsroom," 3/8/08)
PowerLine makes a very valid point:
Obama has apparently continued to deliberate on the subject. Given some more time to think about it, one can infer from this Reuters story, Obama has made a big decision. Obama has decided that it's better to sound like John McCain.
No matter how many experts one surrounds themselves with, it is their instincts that matter when running for the highest office in this country and Obama has again shown himself to be categorically unprepared for that job.
The Presidents of Presidents of Poland, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania issued a statement:
We, the leaders of the former captive nations from Eastern Europe and current members of the European Union and NATO– Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – are extremely concerned about the actions of the Russian Federation against Georgia.
The McCain Report brings up the question of Obama's judgment in his attempt to equate the victims with the victimizers.
Last but not least, PowerLine brings us John McCain's latest statement after he has spoken to Georgian President Saakashvili for the second time:
This afternoon I spoke, for the second time since the crisis began, with Georgian President Saakashvili. It is clear the situation is dire. Russian aggression against Georgia continues, with attacks occurring far beyond the Georgian region of South Ossetia. As casualties continue to mount, the international community must do all it can to avert further escalations. Tensions and hostilities between Georgians and Ossetians are in no way justification for Russian troops crossing an internationally recognized border. I again call on the Government of Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Georgia.
The portion emphasized is in reference to Barack Obama's previous assertion that "It's both sides' fault — both have been somewhat provocative with each other."
Barack Obama has shown a considerable lack of understanding of the whole situation from the beginning and once again has issued very public statements that he has had to adjust as he learned the truth of the matter.
Biden and Clinton were right, the presidency is not a job for on the job training, to which Obama has proven without a doubt is his modus operandi...learning as he goes.
(Note- Headline changed to include Clinton's comments as well)
Posted: 10 Aug 2008 09:43 AM CDT
When John Edwards said in his statement to ABC "I would welcome participating in a paternity test. I'm only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one", I think everybody with a brain knew that the other shoe would drop promptly and his mistress, Rielle Hunter, would immediately refuse to have DNA testing done.
Sure enough, as predicted, Hunter is refusing to allow a DNA test to be performed on her daughter.
Rielle Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, says his client is a private individual who is not running for public office and that she wishes to maintain the privacy of her and her daughter.
Edwards can deny he is the father of Hunter's baby until he is blue in the face, but no one will believe him at this point because he denied the affair as well until everybody knew about it and he was exposed publicly by the National Enquirer....we all know now his declarations of it all being "tabloid trash" were nothing more than lies.
The Chicago Tribune points a couple of things:
In a statement Edwards issued Friday, he pointed to another man as "the apparent father." And although Edwards did not identify the other man, a lawyer for Andrew Young, a longtime but little-known confidant, said his client is the father. Young, 42, was described by acquaintances as an unassuming family man from North Carolina who developed a loyalty to Edwards.
A little more about his "admission" on ABC News' Nightline as well, comes from a surprising source, the very liberal Huffington Post, who obtained emails from Hunter which show that Edwards may have also lied through those pretty teeth in the interview that he was supposedly coming clean in.
The Huffpo writer points out, emails "sent by Hunter suggest that her romance with Edwards was in full bloom that spring. In early April, Hunter wrote about a trip she had taken to North Carolina to see the man whom she affectionately referred to as 'my love lips.'
A week later she wrote another email in which she described the mental anguish of "being in love with a (still somewhat dysfunctional) married man."
So much for his highly touted "confession" being anywhere near honest.
The fact is he got caught with his pants down (figuratively)and went on the news to admit what everybody already knew, then he proceeded to lie about everything else.
Just as his denials last October did, these denials about the baby and about the timing of the start of the affair, this little conveniently timed "refusal" to let the baby be DNA tested, will only keep the door open to this story until the National Enquirer (who had sources that were spot on in many areas) busts him on this as well.
I say the National Enquirer because although the MSM has finally jumped on this story, they were completely irresponsible in doing any actual investigating until it hit them in the head like a shovel, so I doubt they will put any real legwork into finding out the truth of the timing of the affairs beginning, nor the paternity of the baby.
If Edwards was not going to come clean about everything, he might as well have kept his mouth shut because all he did is create a firestorm in the news that is not going away and he handed everyone a whole new set of questions to dig into.
Posted: 09 Aug 2008 06:48 PM CDT
The bad policies include: Immediately Provide Emergency Energy Rebate, Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Cracking Down on Speculators, Capping-and-Taxing, Renewable Fuels Mandates and Fuel Economy Standards.
The Heritage Foundation delves into Barack Obama's newly unveiled energy plan and finds some good but as they say, "it was mostly bad", as they walk through the bad policies, explaining how costly Obama's plan is.
They go through each of the items in detail.
Immediately Provide Emergency Energy Rebate:
The summarize their findings and show that this plan would reduce supply, increase the demand for gas, and rely on windfall profits taxes on big oil. They then go on to show how that plan has already been tried and failed "miserably", in their words.
Of course, there is a considerable populist appeal to taking more in taxes from big oil at a time when they can most easily afford it and giving the proceeds to taxpayers when they are straining to pay high energy costs. But the last time it was tried, the windfall profits tax (WPT) backfired badly. It discouraged expansion of domestic energy supplies and led to increased oil imports. According to a 1990 Congressional Research Service study, the WPT in place from 1980 to 1988 "reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent." These unintended consequences were among the reasons why the WPT was repealed in 1988 and why similar bills should not be introduced today.
That plan is described by economist Don Boudreaux as "trying to put out a fire by dowsing it with jet fuel."
Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR):
They explain the intended purpose of the SPR is a federally maintained petroleum stockpile intended to make up for any shortfall caused by a temporary supply disruption. They go on to point out that tapping it would lower prices temporarily but would drain the supply within a six month period, to which prices would again rise and there would be no stockpile geared for the originally intended purpose.
They go on to ask what would happen to the U.S. if it were hit with a severe energy crisis and had no stockpile as well as pointing out the national security and economic implications.
But the SPR is not up to the task of making oil cheaper--at least not for very long. The world uses about 86 million barrels of oil per day, and U.S. consumption accounts for 21 million barrels of that total. Relative to this, the 700 million barrels in the SPR is not very much. Granted, an extra 3 to 4 million barrels per day would lower prices, but the SPR could maintain that pace for no more than six months. After that, the price of oil would likely return to its previous level, and the SPR would be empty and thus no longer available for its intended purpose as an insurance policy against a supply disruption. It would then take many years to refill the SPR.
Cracking Down on Speculators:
Heritage points out that speculators can help consumers at the pump and that their role in increased prices is "marginal, at best".
They point to the The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation that died in the Senate in June as well as a study on the economic costs of that legislation the burden cap-and-trade legislation would impose on the economy. They point out the Lieberman-Warner bill would have imposed a $4.8 trillion hit to GDP by 2030 and nearly 1 million jobs lost in certain years saying that Obama's plan would not lower prices, but in the long run would increase them as well as costing jobs.
Renewable Fuels Mandates and Fuel Economy Standards:
Under Obama's new energy plan, 10% of America's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. Now that food prices have risen dramatically, there is bipartisan consent, along with statements from environmental and global hunger groups, that the ethanol mandate has been an absolute failure.
They conclude by saying that Obama's plan makes baby steps in the right direction by increasing supply and advocating nuclear, but that even those specific parts of his plan are flawed and they end by saying, "The unfortunate part his plan is that it repeats the same mistakes of the failed policies introduced in the 1970s, along with a few other bad ideas for good measure. These policies will lead to more restrictions on energy supply and higher costs for Americans — all to change the earth's temperature .1 of a degree."
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank in operation since 1973. American voters seem to agree....at least for now because according to Rasmussen Reports, 81 percent of Americans believe that the development of new energy sources as an urgent priority and they believe that need is more important than reducing current energy usage.
65 percent believe that finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume. 28 percent think reducing current usage is more important.
McCain has gained some momentum on the energy issue since he first proposed in early June lifting the long-standing ban on offshore oil drilling. Most Americans have responded positively to the idea of offshore drilling which Obama strongly opposed for several weeks. The Democrat now appears to be more supportive of it at least in part because, as the New York Post reported today, "Obama's internal polling shows that he's getting killed on this issue."
They also find that voters like Obama's proposal for a $1,000 energy credit for working families but are evenly divided on his plan for windfall profits tax on oil companies.
American are much less enthusiastic about Obama's plan to tap into the SPR, with 57 percent thinking that $4 dollar a gallon gas prices is not enough justification to tap in to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with only 31 percent thinking it is.
In a separate survey late last month, McCain had gained ground on Obama on energy issues, with 46% of voters saying they now trusted the GOP candidate more than his opponent in this area versus 42% who say they trust Obama more. Two months ago, Obama held a four-point advantage.
In a Washington Post editorial, they specify the windfall profits tax and Obama's call to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and they call them "gimmicks" not unlike what Obama called John McCain's plan for a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving.
Everyone agrees that gas prices are tapping into the wallet and the politicians disagree on the best way to handle the problem. For the moment, the plurality of Americans prefer John McCain's ideas.
Then again, this is politics and the "by the numbers" page, can change in a political heartbeat.
Posted: 09 Aug 2008 04:08 PM CDT
John McCain's radio address: (MP3 file)
Good morning, I'm John McCain. As you may know, the Democratic National Convention is just a couple of weeks away. It was four years ago, at the same gathering, that America heard a fine speech from an Illinois state senator named Barack Obama. He's done pretty well for himself since then. And the smart money in Denver is on another celebrated performance.
Emphasis mine... McCain needs to keep reminding people that Barack Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with celebrity status.
McCain also needs to make sure he takes on actually policy issues that are important to Americans, as energy is, and continue to remind the American people that Obama is more about reducing use than he is about increasing production.
This is where McCain has it over Obama hands down.
According to Rasmussen, Americans by an overwhelming majority find an "urgent national need to find new sources of energy, and this need is more important that reducing current energy usage".
This is an issue that John McCain needs to hit hard, often and continue to pound home.
More at Boston Globe and CNN, via memeorandum.
Posted: 09 Aug 2008 02:36 PM CDT
It really shouldn't be a real challenge, but who knows, Nancy Pelosi is the one that has dragged congressional approval ratings to the lowest point in the history of polling for congressional approval. 35 years.
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan qualified Friday for a November showdown with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, collecting the signatures needed to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress.
Cindy Sheehan's platform is that Pelosi wouldn't impeach George Bush and even if she somehow managed the miracle of winning Pelosi's spot in Congress, she wouldn't obtain the Speaker of the House position so she couldn't impeach Bush anyway.
Still a cat fight is a cat fight and it should prove to be very interesting to see how badly Sheehan hammers on Pelsoi while Pelosi cannot say much about Sheehan because of her status as a gold star mother (lost a military child in war).
Popcorn worthy if nothing else and Sheehan says she wants traditional debates so she can challenge Pelosi on her failure as Speaker of the House.
Don Surber does point out one thing Pelosi did:
Oh wait. I forgot raising minimum wage, which we conservatives predicted would raise unemployment and increase inflation. Which it did.
Got to love that guy!!!
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|