kcjenkins

That is exactly what is wrong, Jack. This SHOULD be a scientific discussion, not a political one. Yet it has become primarily a political debate, based on mostly incomplete and sometimes outright false data.

Actually, you can NOT get to ATX Grand Poo-Bah. That is a special level Eric created just for ME. It is one of my proudest 'titles', btw.

I am going to post a link at the end, because the whole survey is fasinating. But for those like Tom, I'll give you the top items here: PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted. In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control. More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility. Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights. Top Line Takeaways Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials. 1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime. 2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect. 3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect. 25%said it would have a NEGATIVE effect. 4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff. 5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). And here is the one I found most impressive, in light of this discussion 6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident. 7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job. 8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence. Bottom Line Conclusions Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime. In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals. Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility. The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard. Here's the link to the full article http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

An oldie but goodie: A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?" Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers; "Sure, Why not?" The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cellphone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within mere seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data is stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves." "That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says Bud. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car. Then Bud says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?" "You're a Congressman for the U.S. Government", says Bud. "Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?" "No guessing required", answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows...this is a herd of sheep. Now give me back my dog."

And of course we believe them.

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. The man's response follows... DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2006. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, D Price District Representative and Water Management Division. avid L. *** Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries: Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County Dear Mr. Price, Your certified letter dated 12/17/02 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout Run, Pennsylvania. A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood 'debris' dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials 'debris.' I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.) I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the stream 'restored' to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English. In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2006? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not careful where they dump! Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office. THANK YOU, RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

Oops, almost posted a link, Tom. Former NASA Scientists Challenge Government Narrative On Global Warming April 19, 2013 by Ben Bullard PHOTOS.COM A new study group composed of former NASA scientists is challenging the mainstream narrative on the validity of global warming. About 20 scientists, most of them former members of the U.S. space program’s Apollo Team (the team that put America on the moon) organized The Right Climate Stuff research team last year to re-examine the belief that human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creating a global warming crisis. The team invited a number of scientists both for and against the conventionally accepted theory of global warming to study the issue, but stipulated that all presentations had to be backed by data. A year later, the team has come out with a sort of progress report that indicates the way it’s leaning so far. The report makes six assertions: The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not settled science. There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of unvalidated computer models. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. “Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.” Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy. The U.S. government is overreacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the Earth’s growing population, so control of carbon dioxide emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding anthropogenic global warming. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. The findings aren’t unique among scientists who dissent from the mainstream take on global warming. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change organized in the early 2000s as a research team united by a lack of a standing agenda on environmental policy. “Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the [u.N.-backed] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignores,” explains the group’s website. “Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

LOL Thanks, Tom. Looking forward to seeing you when I get out there. Looks like late May.

Good for you for not giving up, and especially for resisting the urge to scream at the auditor for her ignorance. That is sometimes the hardest thing. It is also frustrating to know that your client is still being cheated, because they have to pay you for the time you spend on educating someone who should not have that job until they have been educated!

And one policeman was killed and another critically in injured by the terrorists. I'm wondering if they have found any documents in their home explaining the reasons behind their actions? It's hard to believe there would not be. They are both Muslim, but that is hardly enough to explain such horrid behavior.

OK, Tom, I will keep that in mind. Often I've used a link just to limit the size of the message, but I'll do better, I promise.

Experts believe an update to anti-malware software MalwareBytes is responsible for taking thousands of computers offline. Until it's fixed, use other security software to stay safe online.

Remember, it's the IRS that ordered the software companies to no longer allow users to modify the forms. So I suspect that has led to also limiting overrides.

Way to go Christian. Always more than one way to get things done. Thanks for sharing that.

So I can't say anything nice about you, Jack? That's not fair!

I agree. I know clients will often accept a bill for something they really don't owe, if the amount is for less than the cost of fighting it would be.

Yeah, that sort of situation tens to be a no-win game, often deteriorates into all-out war, and you can end up collateral damage. At least that form gives you a way to protect yourself from having to side with either one. We used to have to do things like having the refund go to a lawyer to be divided,not a very good option, but the best we could offer before the new option of the 8888.

My 'guess' is that if you study the manual for your scanner software, there is a setting that will allow you to name AS YOU SCAN. Since you did not tell us which scanner you use, that's as close as I can get.

So true, it never hurts if you extend and then finish on time, but the reverse can be bad.

Hilarious sign, thanks for sharing that. By the way, how many of you know that Piggly Wiggly was actually the FIRST self-serve grocery store? Piggly Wiggly®, America's first true self-service grocery store, was founded in Memphis, Tenn. in 1916 by Clarence Saunders. In grocery stores of that time, shoppers presented their orders to clerks who gathered the goods from the store shelves. Saunders, a flamboyant and innovative man, noticed that this method resulted in wasted time and expense, so he came up with an unheard-of solution that would revolutionize the entire grocery industry: he developed a way for shoppers to serve themselves. Despite predictions that this novel idea would fail, Saunders’ first store opened September 6, 1916 at 79 Jefferson Street in Memphis. Operating under the unusual name Piggly Wiggly, it was unlike any other grocery store of that time. There were shopping baskets, open shelves and no clerks to shop for the customer – all unheard of! Piggly Wiggly Corporation, established by Saunders when he opened the first store in Memphis, secured the self-service format and issued franchises to hundreds of grocery retailers for the operation of Piggly Wiggly stores. The original Piggly Wiggly Corporation became owner of all Piggly Wiggly properties: the name, the patents, etc., and Saunders began issuing stock in the Corporation. The stock was successfully traded on the New York Stock Exchange for some time, but through a series of stock transactions in the early 1920s, Saunders lost control of Piggly Wiggly and had no further association with the company. Piggly Wiggly Corporation continued to prosper as franchiser for the hundreds of independently owned grocery stores allowed to operate under the Piggly Wiggly name and during the next several decades, functioned successfully under various owners. Piggly Wiggly was the FIRST to… provide checkout stands. price mark every item in the store. give shoppers more for their food dollar through high volume/low profit margin retailing. feature a full line of nationally advertised brands. use refrigerated cases to keep produce fresher longer. put employees in uniforms for cleaner, more sanitary food handling. design and use patented fixtures and equipment throughout the store. franchise independent grocers to operate under the self-service method of food merchandising. If you are ever in Memphis, go out and visit the Pink Palace Museum, which is housed in Saunders' beautiful former home. It's well worth a visit.

I think there is clear support for keeping the name. I'm in favor of it myself. And I am staying, if only because I'd miss this wonderful group too much.

Lion, good people with guns [remember, that includes most police] do stop many crimes, every day. Stop and think about it, please. Are you against police having guns? What stopped Adam WAS a policeman with a gun. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate, BECAUSE almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. And no one is suggesting that felons or the mentally ill should have guns. But we also recognize that they often do have them. And when they use them against others, it is seldom done in the presence of police. So giving the 'good guys' at least a fair chance to defend themselves is only fair, seems to me.

Gail, it IS illeagl, just seldom enforced. And besides, Bureau of Justice Statistics report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. Gun shows are touted as a problem- but they’re not. Legislators pushing more gun laws often will say they’re not looking to ban private sales; they just want background checks to occur. But how can a sale be a private sale if it must first be run through a federal agency? But more pressing than any other question, how would have or could have ANY of these measures stopped Sandy Hook? The gun used was grandfathered in and exempt from an “assault weapons” ban that had been in place in Connecticut since 1994, the mother was allowed to have it. More important, days before the killing, the shooter went to a Dick’s Sporting Goods to buy a rifle and was denied- the current system worked. So what did he do? He ent home, killed his mother and took and used her gun. Is anyone here naive enough to believe that, if she had not owned a gun, he would not have found another source?

IRS Gives Boston Taxpayers 3-Month Extension The Internal Revenue Service granted a three-month tax filing and payment extension to Boston-area taxpayers and others affected by Monday's explosions at the Boston Marathon. The relief applies to all individual taxpayers who live in Suffolk County, Mass., including the city of Boston, the IRS said Wednesday. It also includes victims, their families, first responders, others impacted by this tragedy who live outside Suffolk County and taxpayers whose tax preparers were adversely affected. The explosions occurred on the same day as Tax Day, April 15. Under the relief announced today, the IRS will issue a notice giving eligible taxpayers until July 15, 2013, to file their 2012 returns and pay any taxes normally due April 15. No filing and payment penalties will be due as long as returns are filed and payments are made by July 15, 2013. By law, interest, currently at the annual rate of 3 percent compounded daily, will still apply to any payments made after the April deadline.