Street Takeovers

Reader Mike L. sends me this heartening news:

Dangerous street takeovers are happening more and more often in Oklahoma City and across the nation, which is why an updated city ordinance is cracking down on large groups of people who illegally block intersections, roads, or parking lots. Street takeovers can include street racing, or can simply involve participants using their vehicles to block intersections while they take over the area with friends.

Not only do illegal takeovers increase crime, they also block medical responders during emergencies.

The updated ordinance includes vehicles being impounded for 90 days, while participants can be jailed for 60 days, as well as face fines of more than $2,000.

My only suggestion is that the towed cars are taken not to impound lots, but straight to scrapyards where the car crushers are waiting.  To paraphrase Samuel Johnson:  nothing concentrates the mind more than an imminent crushing.

And the fine takes away the deposit for a replacement.

Lottery Dream #14

If I had the dough, I might buy this place:

Up for sale, this near-8000 square-foot property has five bedrooms and six bathrooms.  It was custom-designed and built in 2016 and sits on nearly 400 acres of rolling countryside.

The Arkansas house has a huge warehouse for parking cars, with more car spaces than bedrooms for people.  But the most amazing feature is a 1.2-mile race track that threads through the countryside around the property.

…as long as there was room left on the property for a 100-yard rifle range.  And I’d convert one of the larger garages into an indoor pistol range.

But that’s just me.

I Did Not Know That

Via Insty, a very interesting factoid:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is an airborne disease transmitted via aerosols, which are spread from the oral and nasal cavities—the mouth and the nose. In addition to the well-known division and spread of the virus in the cells of the respiratory tract, SARS-CoV-2 is also known to infect the cells of the lining of the mouth and the salivary glands.

Commercially available mouthwashes contain a number of antibiotic and antiviral components that act against microorganisms in the mouth. One of these, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), has been shown by a team of researchers led by Professor Kyoko Hida at Hokkaido University to reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the mouth, primarily by disrupting the lipid membrane surrounding the virus. While there are other chemicals with similar effects, CPC has the advantage of being tasteless and odorless. Their findings were published in the journal Scientific Reports.

I use Scope mouthwash at least twice a day (morning and bedtime, but this is not repeat NOT a product endorsement) — have done so for years — and yes, it contains CPC, according to their own blurb.

Of course, future studies may find that cetylpyridinium chloride causes hair to grow on your liver or something, but sufficient unto the day, as a wise man once said.

I should also point out that this prophylactic measure is not exactly a new thing:

Perhaps if schools still did this kind of thing — you know, stuff that is actually helpful as opposed to crap like CRT indoctrination — the whole Covid lockdown bullshit may have been avoided.

Dept. Of Righteous Shootings

Chalk this little episode up to a “nick of time” coincidence:

According to authorities, the woman in question had just picked up her pistol the day before, after waiting the 10 days required under California law between the time of purchase and when gun owners can actually take possession of their newly-bought firearm. Little did she realize that she would soon end up using the gun to fend off an attack on her husband in their own home.

And here’s the good part (with my emphasis):

In a 911 call at 10:20 p.m., a resident of the Wilding Ranch subdivision on the city’s east edge reported that a neighbor had called and said she had just shot an intruder at her house.

When deputies arrived, they found a dead man near the home’s front entry. The residents — a 50-year-old woman and her 45-year-old husband — said that the apparently intoxicated stranger had tried to force his way into their home.

According to the sheriff’s report, as the husband fought with the intruder near the front door, his wife ran to the bedroom to get a revolver, which she said she had brought home on Friday. Returning to the entry, she fired all its rounds into the intruder.

None of this one-shot or double-tap stuff for Our Heroine:  ALL SIX bullets pumped into the choirboy’s worthless ass.

Sing it from the rooftops, brothers and sisters.

Next: The Supremes

Oh, I like this kind of thing:

A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law that bans Big Tech from censoring speech based on political viewpoint on Friday.

House Bill 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users banning users simply based on their political viewpoints. The law also requires several consumer protection disclosures and processes related to content management on the social media sites to which the bill applies. These sites must disclose their content management and moderation policies and implement a complaint and appeals process for content they remove, providing a reason for the removal and a review of their decision. They also must review and remove illegal content within 48 hours. House Bill 20 also prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content.

Needless to say, the Left went into full hair-on-fire mode:

The law was promptly challenged by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They argued that tech companies have a First Amendment right to select and curate the content people post on their platforms. They were able to get the new law blocked, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed that decision — and won.

Fortunately, common sense and Constitutionalism prevailed.  In the judgment of the 5th Circuit:

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. In the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks* could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone — as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”…Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,”…Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community…

The 11th Court found differently, hence it’s off to the Supremes we go.  And they can’t punt it back, because two federal appeals courts have conflicting rulings.

Let’s see what happens.

*Note how banks were specifically mentioned, which should make this little episode interesting.