She was charged with three counts of Aggravated Haftin' To Be Uproared.

Authorities aren’t sure where – or how – Erin Holdsworth, 28, of Hiram, started her night on Oct. 11. All they know is that it ended with a car chase down Route 422 that, at its fastest, reached 128 mph.

Officers also know that, when they found her, she was wearing nothing but fishnet stockings, g-string panties and a pair of high heels.

Police say Holdsworth was seen speeding, but refused to pull over. She instead led cops on the harrowing high-speed chase.

Spot the error:

WJW-TV reports that a docket filed at Chardon Municipal court lists Holdsworth as being charged with one count each of “OVI, refusing a blood alcohol content test, fleeing and alluding, criminal damaging, driving under a suspended license, speeding and reckless operation.”

I got the picture from this account, which disagrees with the first: It says the "fishnet" in question was not in the form of stockings, but a see-through top.

Either way.

Thanks to Monty.

Posted by: Ace at 01:22 PM | Comments (294)
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

Or, as she puts it, she dreams of a "society without it haftin' to be uproared you know fear of what governent is constantly puttin' on us."

Here's a little bonus: She talks about Homeland Security checkpoints "everywhere I go traveling throughout the train system and the rail system." She makes it sound like she does this quite a bit. Almost like it's her... occupation to randomly sneak on to trains.

You know what I'm saying.

A lot of these OWS people, complaining about their inability to find work... It's not clear to me that they'd be employable in virtually any capacity.

That goes double for the dummy college students, who have absolutely no skills (by their own bad choices) but who consider themselves to be quasi-upper-class and so of course would not lower themselves to do any of the jobs they actually could do.

I mean, this isn't a college student. But this shows the unreality of thinking here.

Really? Can't find a job in cosmetology?

Why do you think that is? Let me guess. Wall Street, right?

Video of the suspected Hobo Agitator below.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (389)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

He's extremely bothered by the sighting of a camera's shadow in Deep Space 9.

Here he generously offers the show's producers his services in checking every second of their film for such out-of-place, versimillitude-destroying camera shadows.

Be on notice, though: If you don't take him up on this offer, you will suffer a wrath more hellacious than Satan himself. (Which doesn't really make sense but whatever.) more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:28 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, I forgot, the British/European system: You don't have to be on the government dole, per se. You just have to trick a company into hiring you, and then sit back and do nothing but collect your company check, because the company simply cannot fire you under virtually any circumstances.

Same rational economic decision -- if you can do practically nothing and still get a fair check, why work? Why not just sit on a chair at "work" and do nothing?

Sure, you'll forgo promotions and raises. But, not all people value the marginal dollar in income the same. Some people might, quite rationally, prefer to work on their novel on the employer's time.

Or gamble. Or flirt. Or whatever.

Britain is considering the incentives they've built into their no-pink-slip system of dysemployment.

Britain’s “terrible” employment laws are undermining economic growth and should be overhauled, according to the confidential report obtained by The Daily Telegraph (Published below).

It says that British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so that firms and public sector bodies can find more capable replacements.

Under current regulations, workers are allowed to “coast along” and employers are left fearful of expanding because new staff may prove “unknown quantities” who are impossible to sack, the report says.

The radical recommendation to scrap the concept of unfair dismissal is made by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist, in a report commissioned by David Cameron.

What a radical idea -- permitting employers to decide if they're getting their money out of their paid employees.

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Good video.

I have a weird take on this. Or maybe it's not so weird.

To start, let me say that I'm not for income redistribution, period. I oppose taking undue amounts of taxes from the rich. Period.

But there are two parts to redistribution: Taking from one, and giving to another.

My take here is just about which part is worse.

So, to reiterate, I am against the whole transaction, period, and not in favor of taking from the rich.

But I think it's kind of interesting to ask which part of this exchange is worse.

I think, oddly enough, it's the "giving to another" part of it, not the "taking from one" part.

And the reason is simply that we do not want people to be indolent. You cannot guarantee a Minimum Standard of Living to all people, whether they work or not, with their basic necessities paid for, and expect a high fraction of them to actually work.

Because the sort of people drawing these benefits will not be, as a group, highly skilled. Their labor will not be worth terribly much to any employers. It will be worth something, of course.

But it will be worth some amount of pay which is just at the barely-getting-by level. Not much more.

Now, if you're guaranteeing the entire population Barely Getting By government wages, then what inducement do they have to work? You'd be a fool to work under those circumstances.

This country long ago provided what liberals call a "basic social safety net" for most people. This box was long ago checked.

The next item on the agenda is simply expanding this, giving people more free money.

At we're getting to the point where it becomes a good, defensible economic decision to just do nothing and take a check.

And at that point society collapses, because once you convince so many people that it's their right to just sit back and be taken care of, you run out of money in a hurry, because while the rich can be taxed at a high enough level to take care of a fairly small fraction of the idle, no one has enough money -- not even the rich, not even the more-wealthy-in-aggregate Middle Class -- to put half of the frigging country on a permanent dole.

There is a social penalty to not working, to living on the dole. Such permanent welfare types are considered lower-class. "Respectable" people avoid this status.

But when more and more people are doing this, the social stigma against it goes away.

That happened in the black community. That's happening in Europe.

It will happen everywhere this is tried. Because it's insane to expect people to work at a job -- which is frequently stressful, unpleasant, and difficult -- when they can get by okay enough doing nothing at all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:57 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, my theory was wrong. Assuming this is true. Which I'm not entirely sure about.

The Ohio State GOP escorted Mitt Romney to Cincinnati for what seemed like a simple campaign appearance. Romney was brought to a phone bank where conservative activists were calling citizens to support John Kasich's reforms to Ohio's public employee unions (the reforms cut benefits and the union's ability to negotiate on health-care issues). The repeal of these reforms has been put on the ballot in Ohio and is polling well–it's called "Issue 2."

...

But GOP chairman Kevin DeWine, who did not support Kasich's gubernatorial campaign, brought Mitt Romney, displaying his political clout. But apparently no one informed Mitt Romney what the Ohio ballot initiatives were about or whether he had a position on them. When asked yesterday if he supported Issue 2, Mitt Romney punted. "I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said. "Those are up to the people of Ohio."

...

Two sources with ties to Governor Kasich suggested that the Romney appearance was designed to humiliate Ohio's governor.

Specifically, they suggested, Romney was advised not to take a side on this unpopular issue.

"I can tell you that those [DeWine's] sentiments [about Issue 2] have been made clear to governor Romney. The opinion of those close to the [Ohio] chairman is that Romney should stay as far away from this thing as possible. That it is unpopular," said the experienced operative.

Is this true, or is it spin from Romney supporters? Although the sources here are "close to Kasich," they might also be Romney supporters.

Further, is it incumbent on outside actors to inform Romney's campaign that he's taken a position on this already, as the article suggests? Was that Kevin DeWine's job?

And still further: Even assuming the general contours of the situation here are accurate, why didn't Romney take an actual position supporting Kasich anyway?

Or, if the situation was too sketchy, why not avoid the call center altogether? Why go to the call center at all if he'd been advised by Kevin DeWine to punt on issue important to the serving governor John Kasich?

If this is mostly true, Kevin DeWine should be evicted from office. This is cowardly, sneaky crap. If he's in love with the Public Employee Unions he should say so publicly instead of playing passive-aggressive games behind the scenes.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

JWF doesn't know whether this Occupy The Couch protester is serious or doing a parody. I'm voting serious.

Verum Serum has a lot of videos of the Oakland PD busting the protests.

I'm perplexed as to why some Democrats -- like, almost all of them -- thought that supporting OWS would be a net vote-winner.

They didn't know where this was heading? Towards violence, disorder, and riot?

Or did they know, and still thought that was where they wanted to take the country?

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (291)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Verum Serum, the pressing need for a dedicated Occupy Police Blotter.

Bryan Preston is right: The Occupiers are reliving the creation of civilization. They're currently learning one of the most elemental lessons: There are barbarians afoot, and they will attempt to rape your women unless Strong Men guard the walls.

Three young punks threatened to kill a 24-year-old Occupy Wall Street protester for pressing charges over an assault at the group's Zuccotti Park encampment, police said.

"You got our friend arrested. We're gonna kill you! Watch your back!" the trio warned the young woman on Monday - two days after her complaint led to the arrest of Garfield Leslie, police said Tuesday.

Leslie, 19, of Brooklyn, had offered to sell the woman drugs at the downtown sit-in, police said.

When she declined that offer and his romantic advances, he punched her in the face and then dished out more blows to a friend who had come to her defense, police said.

After clocking the friend, police said, Leslie then punched the man's girlfriend for good measure.

Are the assailants Occupiers, or just random street-rats?

Well... given that these miscreants are minorities, and the Occupiers are as white as Michael Moore's milky moobs, I'm guessing random street-rats.

Update: And yet another one from Verum Serum -- police investigate gang rape at Occupy Glasgow.

That kind of viciousness is all too common. There are monsters around.

What's more worrying is that there were people within earshot of this attack. With the girl crying out... the rape continued, without interference.

From "John" at Occupy Glasgow:

this has really worried folk – especially the girls staying here. It is not something you’d expect to happen with so many people around.

If people heard her crying out (and they must have -- these are not huge encampments, and there are no walls to contain sound), why did no one stop this?

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Good, I suppose, by a minimal definition of good.

Romney issued a statement long ago supporting these reforms.

So what happened here? Why did he not clearly re-state that support when asked about the initiatives?

I think this was one of the few moments when Romney, whose strongest suit is doing his homework, had forgotten to do his homework. I think he forgot what position he or his campaign had taken on the initiatives, and he really should have checked that beforehand. After all, he was visiting a call center making calls on behalf of the initiative. It's going to come up.

And, having forgotten his exact level of commitment to the issue, he offered up a series of semi-supportive but oddly distancing statements about it. ("It's up to the people of Ohio to decide," that sort of thing.)

So, three points:

1, he didn't do his homework here, and really the one thing I like about Romney is that he does his homework, so when he doesn't, it leaves me wondering what good he is at all.

2, not sure of what his previous statements were, he was cautious and disciplined and tried to offer a lukewarm response that he calculated, quite incorrectly, would get no press at all and would not cause him any consternation.

3, the Trouble with Romney. This last point illustrates why a lot of people are having trouble rallying to Romney. I am not going to knock caution and discipline per se. I think they're somewhat important, and currently under-valued in conservative politics. (Whereas "letting it rip" and so on are over-valued.)

But there's a point at which caution, which is defensible, becomes pure timidity, which is not. And it's worrying that, having forgotten his programmed strategy/position points, his natural inclination wasn't simply to say "Of course I support these reforms!"

If he'd forgotten his exact position, his brain would naturally next turn to his basic instincts to answer the question. And it's worrisome to a conservative that his instincts could not supply a good answer.

This is sort of basic stuff for conservatives. Isn't it?

It's worrisome that, when asked a question he's not fully prepared for but which should be easily answerable by relying on basic instincts and core ideological impulse, Romney comes up a bit empty and has to offer up a noncommittal answer.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (227)
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Did Air Force One drop a chunk of frozen toilet waste on the Occupy Wall St. crowd in Vegas?

Mitt has flipped, flopped and flipped again on the Ohio union ballot issue. He's totally supporting Kasich now.

I feel bad for the spokesperson they sent out yesterday to say this.

Gov. Romney believes that the citizens of states should be able to make decisions about important matters of policy that affect their states on their own.

Her spin is, er, no longer operative.

Ever notice that so many of Romney's statements sound like an NFL referee? "After further review...."

Posted by: DrewM at 08:03 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.