This series of events couldn't get any stranger. As for the cause, nobody really knows.

Check out his New York Times article.

Around 11 that night, thousands of red-winged blackbirds began falling out of the sky over this small city about 35 miles northeast of Little Rock. They landed on roofs, roads, front lawns and backyards, turning the ground nearly black and terrifying anyone who happened to be outside.

"One of them almost hit my best friend in the head," said Christy Stephens, who was standing outside among the smoking crowd at a party. "We went inside after that."

The cause is still being determined, but preliminary lab results from the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission revealed "acute physical trauma" in samples of the dead birds. There were no indications of disease, though tests were still being done for the presence of toxic chemicals.

There are many theories as to what happened to the birds. High altitude hail, tornadoes, cold air. Perhaps any of the these things could have caused the birds to die.

The question I have is why would they be flying at night? If you pay attention; you rarely ever see birds (other than owls) flying at night. This is because most have poor eyesight in low light conditions. That's what makes it so strange to me. Not that they could have been bombarded by nature, but the fact that they were all flying at night high enough to "splat" when they hit the ground.

Now there are reports that the same species of bird are falling in Louisiana.

LABARRE — Hundreds of dead and dying birds littered a quarter-mile stretch of highway in Pointe Coupee Parish on Monday as motorists drove over and around them.

State biologists are trying to determine what led to the deaths of the estimated 500 red-winged blackbirds and starlings on La. 1 just down the road from Pointe Coupee Central High School.

The discovery of the dead birds — some of which were lying face down, clumped in groups, while others were face up with their wings outstretched and rigid legs pointing upward — comes just three days after more than 3,000 blackbirds rained down from the sky in Beebe, Ark.

All I have to say is that thousands of birds dying at relatively the same time is definitely strange.

You can't convince me that you wouldn't be a little worried if you saw a scene like the one above in your neighborhood.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is a wake-up call to anyone who doesn't think that government is going awry.

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

...the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this to be one of the deadliest weeks of the year on the roads.

But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.

It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area.

Wow! That means that if a judge is on-site, you have no rights? At the bottom of a Florida driver license it says, "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". I seem to remember something about the 5th Amendment, it contained the phrase, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Unfried, a spokes person for MADD, goes on to say that the check points will be well advertised; as if that makes it OK.

We're talking about blood tests here. This means the the government will stick a needle in your arm and take your blood without your consent. This can be ordered right at the check point where there is no indication that any law was broken, no probable cause. Of course you can resist and be held in contempt of court; you will probably also be charged with resisting an officer, who knows.

In these cases a judge is basically revoking your freedom, without any proof of wrongdoing (without any due process). I'm not sure how long this practice will remain in effect before law suits stop it.

Compare this "no refusal" practice to the Arizona immigration law. All of the civil rights activists were up in arms about the Arizona law (which first required offenders to break the at lease some law before being questioned). What if the government set up illegal immigrant check points? What would the response be to that?

With so many looking to ring in the New Year with a glass of champagne, think twice about what roads you take. Which brings me to another point. If you're drunk just take a detour.

They are doing these no refusal checkpoints in Texas as well. Listen to this woman's speech to the legislature in Austin. She is brilliant!

Precedence is a very dangerous thing. The government could claim that ANYTHING they do is for the safety of others. Does that mean that there is no limit to what government can do? Think about that for a minute.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is what you get when you allow bureaucrats to draft a budget.

VISTA (AP) — To trim $9 million from their budget, Vista officials say they will shut off half of the city’s residential street lights in March unless property owners agree to pay higher lighting fees.

Fees could cost residents of the north San Diego County city between $4 and $20 a year.

Lesson learned. Never live anywhere with "lighting fees".

If politicians are resorting to threats and extortion in an attempt to validate higher taxes; those politicians need to go. End of story.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Transcript from Reagan's Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine.

Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

Here is an AP article today 12-20-10 "Study maps need for kids' doctors in rural areas".

CHICAGO – There are enough children's doctors in the United States, they just work in the wrong places, a new study finds. Some wealthy areas are oversaturated with pediatricians and family doctors. Other parts of the nation have few or none.

Nearly 1 million kids live in areas with no local children's doctor. By moving doctors, the study suggests, it would be possible for every child to have a pediatrician or family physician nearby.

There should be more focus on evening out the distribution than on increasing the overall supply of doctors for children, said lead author Dr. Scott Shipman of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.

"I worry that it could get worse," Shipman said.

He said medical schools are graduating more students, but the result will be more doctors in places where there's already an over-supply. Indeed, previous studies have shown that doctors locate where supply is already high, rather than in areas with greater need.

Scott Shipman is exemplifying what Reagan was warning about. Shipman is talking about "evening out distribution" and "increasing overall supply" while referring to doctors; Human Beings! Does that not sound a little strange? Since the passing of the health care legislation there has been a change in the whole dynamic of health care. There seems to be a "consensus" that health care is a right, not health insurance, but health care. Now that health care is a right; do we not have the right to demand of those who provide health services to provide them as needed and where they are needed?

It will start with licensing. The state already dictates who can practice medicine; how hard is it to dictate where in the state a doctor's medical license is valid? Perhaps it will be limited by county.

The government is fighting right now for the ability to tax individuals for economic inactivity. If the government thinks that it has the right to tax people based on something they haven't done; how hard is it to believe that the government won't try to dictate the location of doctors based on studies like the one above? Based on what we've scene from Washington recently, is there any doubt that people aren't looking into this now?

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The UN has decided that it might be a good idea to "regulate" the internet? Let's see, where have we heard speech like this before?

WikiLeaks sparks push for tighter controls.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

Anyone who thinks that this doesn't constitute a "takeover of the internet" is naive. The fact that the Brazilian delegate felt the need to tell people otherwise is an admission of true intent. In other words they want people to believe that there is some other way of controlling the flow of information without a takeover.

There seems to be a long pattern of "officials" expressing a need to limit freedoms, then a followup remark stating that there won't be any lack of freedom as a result of their actions. If what these "officials" were expressing were true, their message could be articulated very simply. The fact is that their intentions are the exact opposite of what they say.

Why is it that when there is a problem with government, such as loosing classified documents, the proposed solution, all to often involves an attack on freedom. Were the WikiLeaks document dumps the fault of too much internet freedom, or lack of security on behalf of the U.S. government?

Those who want to regulate things tend to use the following logic. Because one individual dies while using a hair-dryer in the bathtub, hair-driers are the problem. So if that same person would have died using a toaster in the bathtub toasters would be the problem.

Why is it that so often the agent of action is blamed (then targeted for correction) and not the cause? It's like a drunk driver blaming a tree because they crashed into it.

It's the same line of thinking which always ends with an erosion of freedom. The nanny state needs to limit your freedom for your own safety, or in the case of WikiLeaks, for the government(s) safety.

UPDATE! -- Chavez thinks internet regulation is a good idea.

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

Government opponents and press freedom groups have been critical of the plan, saying it is one of several measures being considered that could restrict freedoms in Venezuela.

"We aren't eliminating the Internet here ... nor censoring the Internet," Chavez said during his weekly television and radio program, "Hello, President." "What we're doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, cybercrimes, through a law."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.