patrick.net

Forged "commercial paper" (short term commercial loan conracts) in China

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177673

She's become a better person since being an agent.

You are all so cynical. Jeesh! Did anyone even stop to wonder what the babies did to provoke the woman? Maybe they thought the saying was, "now is the time to CRY" instead of "buy?"

That's me, the voice of reason.

Our society is fucked. If you read the article, this was not spontaneous behavior, she ingratiated herself to the parents in a premeditated fashion to gain access so that she could attack helpless infants - I'm not advocating any illegal acts here, but this woman should be put to death immediately and painfully and our failure to do so illustrates how hopelessly weak willed we have become. I've rarely heard a better case for burning at the fucking stake.

“now is the time to CRY”

Priceless lulz. By the way, there is another thread about the same topic...

http://patrick.net/?p=613218

Mrs. Hench is expected to serve only ONE year of the prison sentence.

JimAtLaw says

Our society is fucked. If you read the article, this was not spontaneous behavior, she ingratiated herself to the parents in a premeditated fashion to gain access so that she could attack helpless infants - I’m not advocating any illegal acts here, but this woman should be put to death immediately and painfully and our failure to do so illustrates how hopelessly weak willed we have become. I’ve rarely heard a better case for burning at the fucking stake.

Put to death for causing a minor injury? Gee, good thing you didn't overreact. Society isn't "fucked". There have always been mentally ill people, and there probably always will be. Sometimes people do crazy shit. Why is it that there always seems to be someone who goes off the deep end and thinks it's a sign of the apocalypse?

Or perhaps you were joking?

Nope. Someone who repeatedly attacks helpless infants is evil IMHO - calling a large proportion of people who perform over the top evil acts "crazy" is excusing their behavior and is a symptom of of our collective weakness and utter failure to confront what stands before us. Evil people should be put down rather than consuming $30,000+ per year of societal resources to house and feed, let alone released afterward as this woman will apparently be after a very short stay in jail. What will stop her from hurting more infants in the future? Not much, apparently.

If you're "crazy" and wander out into traffic, or rant at strangers that the CIA is controlling your mind, or stand there drooling uncontrollably, unable to take care of yourself, I have sympathy and think perhaps we as a society should figure out a way to take care of you. Numerous (she did this 8 times that we know of!) repeated and premeditated attacks on babies by a reasonably intelligent and cogent adult? Nope.

Explaining away repeated incidents of violence against the most helpless with deception and premeditation as "crazy shit" by the "mentally ill" is whitewashing what I can only view as evil. Again, I can't advocate any illegal acts, but as the father of a new baby, I can only imagine what I would do if someone attacked my child - it seems you view what she did as only a "minor injury" (gee, wonder what effect this might have on any of the numerous kids she assaulted...), but I for one hope she is not permitted the opportunity to hurt any more children.

Hey, this brings up another question - shouldn't this woman's real estate license be pulled? It's not like she's not going to run into children running open houses or working in a real estate office, and she's obviously not someone who can be trusted not to be misleading. The fact that another Realtor hired her tells you a lot about this business.

Gameisrigged is correct; the woman is obviously mentally ill. Not that it excuses her behavior - but it helps to understand her inability to control her impulses. She should be monitored when she is around children - or anyone for that matter. But death? That's a knee-jerk reaction. The truth is that people do things that aren't easily explained.

However, my daughter & I were talking about this. If we were present when a child was injured, we would probably assault the perp. The kid that was slapped at Walmart, I'd have whacked the guy with whatever was nearby.

There are mentally ill people walking amongst us. From some of the replies & posts on patnet, I dare say that some of those people are here.

JimAtLaw says

Nope. Someone who repeatedly attacks helpless infants is evil IMHO - calling a large proportion of people who perform over the top evil acts “crazy” is excusing their behavior and is a symptom of of our collective weakness and utter failure to confront what stands before us. Evil people should be put down rather than consuming $30,000+ per year of societal resources to house and feed, let alone released afterward as this woman will apparently be after a very short stay in jail. What will stop her from hurting more infants in the future? Not much, apparently.
If you’re “crazy” and wander out into traffic, or rant at strangers that the CIA is controlling your mind, or stand there drooling uncontrollably, unable to take care of yourself, I have sympathy and think perhaps we as a society should figure out a way to take care of you. Numerous (she did this 8 times that we know of!) repeated and premeditated attacks on babies by a reasonably intelligent and cogent adult? Nope.
Explaining away repeated incidents of violence against the most helpless with deception and premeditation as “crazy shit” by the “mentally ill” is whitewashing what I can only view as evil. Again, I can’t advocate any illegal acts, but as the father of a new baby, I can only imagine what I would do if someone attacked my child - it seems you view what she did as only a “minor injury” (gee, wonder what effect this might have on any of the numerous kids she assaulted…),

Yep, knee-jerk reaction. "Let's kill all the crazy people". Death penalty for scratching? Apparently you are serious. I'm starting to wonder if YOU are mentally ill. Your attempt to paint this as though I don't think it's a serious matter is dead wrong. It's quite serious, but the fact is that a scratch is not a major injury. Even if it WERE, death-penalty for battery is not appropriate. I can't believe you would advocate elevating simply battery to have the same penalty (or higher) as murder. And your screen-name seems to imply you are an attorney. If you are, you must have been asleep throughout law school and cheated on your bar exam.

Also, you appear to be woefully naive about what motivates people to do certain things. There is nothing to gain by harming a child. This is obviously a case of someone who is screwed up in the head. "Evil" would be an appropriate description of, say, the head of Goldman Sachs, who destroyed the U.S. economy and decimated the middle-class merely for his own personal financial gain. Evil is acting for your own benefit, knowing full well that there will be devastating consequences for others because of your actions, but choosing to take those actions anyway.

If you are such a fan of draconian law, there are a number of countries that you could move to, currently enemies of the United States, where they love to invoke the death penalty for minor offenses. Perhaps you would be happy living in one of those countries.

but I for one hope she is not permitted the opportunity to hurt any more children.

No, duh. Nice black-and-white thinking there. Either you think she should be summarily executed, or you are in favor of children being hurt, eh? Nothing in between those two options, huh?

gameisrigged says

Yep, knee-jerk reaction. “Let’s kill all the crazy people”. Death penalty for scratching? Apparently you are serious. I’m starting to wonder if YOU are mentally ill. Your attempt to paint this as though I don’t think it’s a serious matter is dead wrong. It’s quite serious, but the fact is that a scratch is not a major injury. Even if it WERE, death-penalty for battery is not appropriate. I can’t believe you would advocate elevating simply battery to have the same penalty (or higher) as murder. And your screen-name seems to imply you are an attorney. If you are, you must have been asleep throughout law school and cheated on your bar exam.

Um, no, apparently you missed that law school is about what the law is, not what we wish it were. And the fact that you both egregiously misstate my position ("let's kill all the crazy people?" Um, no...), and describe this as "simple battery" is revealing - we're talking about serial, premeditated violence against infants.

To equate this to one guy punching another in a bar by labeling it "simple battery" makes it pretty obvious that you and I simply do not see eye to eye on the nature of this woman's acts. I don't suppose that matters though, as in any event you suggest that the death penalty is "not appropriate" for serial batterers, even causing major injuries. Suffice it to say I disagree - if you're repeatedly committing violent assaults, I'd be just fine with the death penalty. (It's not the law now, but I'd be fine if it were.) A huge percentage of violent crimes in our society are committed by repeat offenders, and they often escalate. So after repeated unprovoked assaults, especially against children, I think I might be just fine with putting someone down. On a personal level, I'd also wager that you have never been a victim of violent crime - let someone carefully deceive you and then violently assault your spouse or child, someone who's done it many times before, and then let's talk about the right penalty for this "simple battery."

gameisrigged says

Also, you appear to be woefully naive about what motivates people to do certain things. There is nothing to gain by harming a child. This is obviously a case of someone who is screwed up in the head. “Evil” would be an appropriate description of, say, the head of Goldman Sachs, who destroyed the U.S. economy and decimated the middle-class merely for his own personal financial gain. Evil is acting for your own benefit, knowing full well that there will be devastating consequences for others because of your actions, but choosing to take those actions anyway.

Ah, I see, so serial killers who simply murder strangers and then move on to the next, who are not "acting for [their] own benefit", are not evil then either by your definition, just crazy. I see. And I'm being "naive" here. Indeed. Again, let's just say you and I do not see eye to eye on the nature of evil. If you like hurting people just for the hell of it, this is evil in my view, not just crazy - there doesn't have to be a profit motive IMHO.

gameisrigged says

If you are such a fan of draconian law, there are a number of countries that you could move to, currently enemies of the United States, where they love to invoke the death penalty for minor offenses. Perhaps you would be happy living in one of those countries.

Nope, not for the vast majority of things, I'm hardly a fan of draconian law - but serial, violent attacks on children, infants even? Planned, premeditated, executed with deception? To me, again, this sounds like evil - not the same as a "simple battery" like one guy punching another in a bar. It seems you and I view the nature of this woman's acts and what they say about her, and the extent to which society needs to be protected from her and people like her, very differently.

gameisrigged says

No, duh. Nice black-and-white thinking there. Either you think she should be summarily executed, or you are in favor of children being hurt, eh? Nothing in between those two options, huh?

Hey, it's just "simple battery" right? So she's getting exactly what she should by your standard - out in a couple of years at most, probably less, and around children again within a few years at most. Great.

And re: nothing in between those options, I never said or implied there wasn't, which would be appropriate in the vast majority of battery cases - just that based on the description of this woman, she sounds to me like she's not just sick but evil, a menace who I would never think society should feel safe to have on the street, let alone working in a real estate office. And I don't feel like having to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and house people who fall into the "evil" category is a good use of tax dollars.

I suppose it's really a broader question about the death penalty in general, especially for serial/repeat violent offenders against children - and that's what this woman is. I'll admit that my off-the-cuff reaction to this is a bit on the extreme side, for reasons I don't need to go into here, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's crazy to think that this woman should never walk the street again.

JimAtLaw says

To equate this to one guy punching another in a bar by labeling it “simple battery” makes it pretty obvious that you and I simply do not see eye to eye on the nature of this woman’s acts.

What's with the strawman? I never said it's the same as one guy punching another. I said it is battery. Apparently you aren't an attorney, or you would know that. Just because two actions are the same crime doesn't mean they're equivalent. I wouldn't consider murdering Hitler to be the same as murdering Mother Theresa, but they ARE both murder. I wouldn't consider a starving person stealing a loaf of bread the same as a wealthy person stealing money from an orphanage, but they ARE both theft.

I don’t suppose that matters though, as in any event you suggest that the death penalty is “not appropriate” for serial batterers, even causing major injuries.

I said it's not appropriate for the woman in question. Don't put words into my mouth.

On a personal level, I’d also wager that you have never been a victim of violent crime

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. You think anyone who is the victim of battery must automatically be in favor of the death penalty for battery? You MUST be kidding.

Ah, I see, so serial killers who simply murder strangers and then move on to the next, who are not “acting for [their] own benefit”, are not evil then either by your definition, just crazy. I see. And I’m being “naive” here. Indeed. Again, let’s just say you and I do not see eye to eye on the nature of evil. If you like hurting people just for the hell of it, this is evil in my view, not just crazy - there doesn’t have to be a profit motive IMHO.

Well yeah, if you think people like Ted Kaczynski or Jared Lee Loughner are motivated by a rational thought process, then you are naive.

It seems you and I view the nature of this woman’s acts and what they say about her, and the extent to which society needs to be protected from her and people like her, very differently.

I think that's another strawman. You don't have to kill people to protect society from them. I think we should try to protect people from danger, but unlike you, I don't believe the penalty for simple battery should be death. I know that in some cultures, people believe that the penalty for adultery should be death. I don't agree with that either.

So she’s getting exactly what she should by your standard - out in a couple of years at most, probably less, and around children again within a few years at most. Great.

Ah, strawman number 3. I said no such thing. YOU said the woman should be killed. All I said was that I do not believe she should be killed. I did not say the sentence she received was appropriate, nor did I say a longer sentence would be inappropriate. And by the way, did you even read the article? Because it specifically said she is NOT allowed to be around children.

And re: nothing in between those options, I never said or implied there wasn’t, which would be appropriate in the vast majority of battery cases - just that based on the description of this woman, she sounds to me like she’s not just sick but evil, a menace who I would never think society should feel safe to have on the street, let alone working in a real estate office. And I don’t feel like having to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and house people who fall into the “evil” category is a good use of tax dollars.

O.K., so how many times would a person have to commit battery for your death-penalty to kick in? twice? 3 times? 4 times? Or is this just some vague knee-jerk reaction that you haven't really thought through?

I'm not going to respond point by point any further, as this conversation is not productive and you're making it personal (calling me insane, saying I'm not an attorney, etc.), repeatedly fabricating positions for me like accusations of my wanting to "kill all the crazy people," trying to deny and dance around the words that came off your own keyboard (e.g., the "death-penalty for battery is not appropriate"), and most revealingly, denying that even serial killers who kill for pure pleasure, as long as they're not robbing you or otherwise "acting for your own benefit" from it, are evil. Our perspectives on evil differ greatly.

You repeatedly characterize what this woman did as "simple battery" and stand on the position that she is not evil. We simply disagree, and I would put assaulting children, especially repeated premeditated attacks, in a different class, though legally it may not be under our current system. (I believe the word "predator" is appropriate for this person.) We both know that under our system of justice, she will in all likelihood be around children again in a few years at most. My take is that whatever is necessary to keep that from happening should happen, and that if that's a needle, so be it, and I'm not sure I'd want my tax dollars paying to support her for the rest of her life to prevent it either. You disagree, and relish the opportunity to attack me personally for that. Knock yourself out.

http://barackobamaeatsbabies.com/

I ask, when will the madness end?

JimAtLaw says

I’m not going to respond point by point any further, as this conversation is not productive and you’re making it personal (calling me insane, saying I’m not an attorney, etc.), repeatedly fabricating positions for me like accusations of my wanting to “kill all the crazy people,” trying to deny and dance around the words that came off your own keyboard (e.g., the “death-penalty for battery is not appropriate”), and most revealingly, denying that even serial killers who kill for pure pleasure, as long as they’re not robbing you or otherwise “acting for your own benefit” from it, are evil. Our perspectives on evil differ greatly.
You repeatedly characterize what this woman did as “simple battery” and stand on the position that she is not evil. We simply disagree, and I would put assaulting children, especially repeated premeditated attacks, in a different class, though legally it may not be under our current system. (I believe the word “predator” is appropriate for this person.) We both know that under our system of justice, she will in all likelihood be around children again in a few years at most. My take is that whatever is necessary to keep that from happening should happen, and that if that’s a needle, so be it, and I’m not sure I’d want my tax dollars paying to support her for the rest of her life to prevent it either. You disagree, and relish the opportunity to attack me personally for that. Knock yourself out.

O.K., I will. First, it's ironic that you would bitch about me misrepresenting you after all the strawmen you have thrown around. Second, you are mired in a meaningless semantic argument about the "definition" of evil, which is irrelevant. The POINT here is that there is a difference between a person who commits a crime for no rational reason because he has a mental disorder, and a sociopathic person who commits a crime for personal gain because he does not care if his actions adversely affect others. Both have psychological disorders, but they are of a different sort. A mentally ill person might, for example, suffer from a delusion that a terrorist has ordered him to kill someone, and if he does not, then the terrorist will detonate a bomb and kill 10,000 people. This person might actually believe that he is saving 10,000 lives by his actions. Something like that I would consider more tragic than anything else. You can call it "evil" if you like, and I wouldn't argue that it's not within the definition of evil, but it misses the point. I don't consider that the same as a person who shoots someone and takes his wallet simply because he wants money and doesn't care if other people die.

Finally, this whole rant you are on about my allegedly not making any distinction between a repeat offender and a one-time offender, is absurd. I never said any such thing. The law ALREADY makes a distinction between the two. The rest of your post just twists the argument into a fallacious appeal to emotion, pretending as though I don't care about children, which is utter hogwash. You may feel that the death penalty for any crime that gets your knee wildly jerking is the only way to "protect society", but I disagree. Again, if you dig draconian law, why don't you move to a country that practices it? Have fun with that; I'm sure glad you don't make the laws here.

Read much?

"the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the internet.

The legislation, which would grant US President Barack Obama powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a senate committee, "

Is it anything like "Obama-not-born-a-US-citizen" wackiness?

Shrekgrinch, we missed you. I hope your time in solitary confinement wasn't too traumatic. Everyone here at Patrick.net is hoping the prison psychologists can achieve a treatment breakthrough for your conditions.

It's not terribly whacky to want to build an communications infrastructure apart from The Man's.

The Bay Area has a long, proud tradition of this form of anarchy.

http://www.historyofphonephreaking.org/docs.php

The EM commons has been sold to the higher bidder. We wuz robbed, and if we can grab it back I say go for it.

http://commonground-usa.net/license02.htm

I posted it by that Egypt article because they really could have benefitted from short-wave internet replacement. The government could not have shut that down.

government can jam shortwave.

but the actual article in question is waaay out into tinfoil land alas:

Determination and Tracking of Sun and Moon

The exact same equipment that is used for Moon Bounce can be readily used to find and track the sun and moon by searching the sky using a consistent pattern and looking for the unmistakable signature of "sun noise". Finding the sun and moon is relatively easy, even with a heavily overcast sky, software to track these noise sources over long periods of time can establish the new geographic location as well as equinox dates in the event of crustal displacement.

wat

Tenouncetrout says

Read much?
“the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the internet.
The legislation, which would grant US President Barack Obama powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a senate committee, “

"The U.S." is doing no such thing. Joe Liberman (the biggest fucking dickwad in office) has proposed such a bill.

If the operators went along with it (an they might), it would be the worst thing to ever happen to the internet.

But that's just Joe. Joe is a dickhead.

If they wanted to they could, just that would screw so much business in the process that the consequences would be dire.

They would most likely shut down facebook/twitter/etc... just the popular media... and again we are ways from the time that government will need to do something out of self preservation.

After all government already tracks all the phone calls, has ability to filter internet traffic, and they do have a Guantanamo prison outside the system of laws.

Kevin says

Tenouncetrout says

Read much?

“the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the internet.

The legislation, which would grant US President Barack Obama powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a senate committee, “

“The U.S.” is doing no such thing. Joe Liberman (the biggest fucking dickwad in office) has proposed such a bill.
If the operators went along with it (an they might), it would be the worst thing to ever happen to the internet.
But that’s just Joe. Joe is a dickhead.

Wuzzie Wuzzie Woo! He's Senior Droopy and he coulda been a contender.

Man how times change, 6 years ago, he was the best thing since a long chin.

Never a better time to buy.

http://www.missilebases.com/properties

SoCal Renter says

Is it anything like “Obama-not-born-a-US-citizen” wackiness?
Shrekgrinch, we missed you. I hope your time in solitary confinement wasn’t too traumatic. Everyone here at Patrick.net is hoping the prison psychologists can achieve a treatment breakthrough for your conditions.

Seriously funny.

Interesting that people would bother attacking an insurance policy mentality. What skin off your ass is it, anyway? What could possibly be your stake in someone else's desire to protect against risk, of any kind? Or for any reason?

Perhaps it's merely the cathartic joy of pretending to be superior to another human being. Just don't forget that in doing so, your untreated childhood traumas begin to show.

Packet radio for shortwave already exists, as do a few other alternatives...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio

All of which tend to be quite slow.

Then there's Internet 2, which no one seems to know about despite that several local-level politicians in major metro areas are campaigning on this. In a nutshell, Internet 2 is a replica of China's method of Internet control, except it's for the US.

Another clever comment. How in the world do you come up with these?

Sanskrit? Oh my. So cosmopolitan.

i disagree

The Words Or come from Old German and mean to copulate.

Realtor is Huge Fucker and
Banker is prohibited Fucker or Ass Fucker.

Well, you learn somthing new every day.

And to think that just yesterday I thought they both had the same meaning as santorum.

But how are realtors and potatoes related?

bubblesitter says

But how are realtors and potatoes related?

In a just world their professional vocabulary would center on "Do you want fries with that?"

yummy!

Katy Perry says

yummy!

You mean realtors?

Troy says

bubblesitter says

But how are realtors and potatoes related?

In a just world their professional vocabulary would center on “Do you want fries with that?”

LOL.

I am betting by 2012 -13 the rents will be around 750 again out there, (Sorry Rentalinvestor) I am sure you dont agree, and I feel strong about that. Prices should be 100,000-135,000 once again in that same time frame. Double dip is going to hit hard not this is of course pure speculation, and stranger things have happened.

A bit of "homesteading grants" is not a bad idea, especially in Detroit.

But I sure hope they have the sense to attach some strict rules that officers must live in their homesteads for X>5 years, can not flip them, cannot work on the house while they are supposed to be at the firehouse, and so on. Maybe a profit-sharing plan?

Just visit Detroit once and you'll see why it's still no bargain at $1,000. I would not live there even for free.

It's very dangerous, there are few jobs, lots of racial tension, high property taxes, corrupt city government, and poor services. Oh, and a brutal winter.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/08/murder-city-danger-forbeslife-cx_de_1108murder_slide_2.html

Lately Detroit has only half as many murders per year compared to when I lived in Michigan. Michigan. But it's still the WORST in the United States.

Chicago has the same winter, but it's an infinitely nicer place to live. Safer, cleaner, lots to do on the north side at least.

They should just demolish the houses already. NOBODY wants them.

shrekgrinch says

Yeah, that is why I bumped up the proposed grant and let anyone qualify. You’d be surprised by how many people would take up the offer. I am sure you wouldn’t take a job at Wal-Mart either, but over 20,000 people applied at the Super Wal-Mart in Oakland right before it opened.

On Walmart's wages, a $1,000 house would be affordable. I know people who work at Walmart that qualify for food stamps.