Stunning: Norway murderer can only get 21 years for killing 92 people and wounding others; could be on weekend parole in 7.

.
This slaughter may... finally... cause Norway to fundamentally review and change their society to one that actually bears some resemblance to reality.

When you think about it, the loss of 92 people out of 4.9 million, for purposes of comparison, would have roughly the statistical impact of the loss of roughly 63 times that many here in the US, based on our population sizes... Norway with 4.9 million, the US with 307 million or so... or 5800 killed... almost twice that of our 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The idea that this guy could ever see the light of day again is incomprehensible... like many of the policies of the "living-in-a-cocoon" euro-governments where reality is an abstract construct and you get the economic strength of socialist countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Span and Italy... ongoing, slow-motion train wrecks.

Norway has the lowest incarceration rate in Europe, roughly a 8% or so of that in our country.

Laws like this, obviously, are why.

Why Norway's worst mass killer will be given a jail sentence of only 21 years... and could be on weekend parole in seven

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:29 PM on 24th July 2011

• Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

Killer: Anders Behring Breivik, as seen on his Facebook profile

Norway's mass killer faces a maximum jail term of just 21 years. Astonishingly, that is the longest sentence available to judges in Norway's benevolent justice system.

In England and Wales, repeat killers can be told they will die behind bars with a 'whole life' tariff, and killers who use a knife or gun face minimum terms of 25 and 30 years.

But in Norway, few killers serve more than 14 years.

Even those given the maximum term can be released after two-thirds of their sentence, and many are given unsupervised weekend parole after just one third.

Only in exceptional cases, if officials consider a prisoner is still highly dangerous, will sentences be extended for additional five-year blocks.

Norway’s incarceration rates – the number of people jailed per head of population – are among the lowest in Europe. Some 66 are behind bars for every 100,000 citizens, less than half the figure for the UK.

The age of criminal responsibility is 15, compared with ten in England  and Wales.
Lack of jail spaces means some offenders can wait weeks or even months before being locked up.

Many spend this time at home, often in the heart of the communities where they committed their crimes.In one notorious case, two boys who killed a five-year-old girl were back at school within two weeks.

So... how's that working out for them?

The cowardice of Jaime Herrera: We can't touch Social Security.

.
Ridgefield Barbie signed off on yet another propaganda piece prepared for her... showing yet again that the one thing we can count on her for is to lie, and the other is to lack the courage and vision that members of Congress MUST have to get us out of this mess.

She tells us:

"I am not a DC veteran?" Seriously? Part of your election campaign shtick was your lies about the job you had getting coffee for Cathy McMorris Rogers... you know, that "Senior Legislative Assistant" lie of yours?

How come you were a DC veteran THEN... but you're not a "DC veteran" NOW? Obviously, whoever wrote this garbage for you doesn't know you.

Your bizarre insistence that Social Security is off the table shows you to be the gutless disappointment I knew you were going to be.

EVERYTHING has to be on the table. EVERYTHING. And that INCLUDES Social Security. Because as much as people depend on it now, they'll depend on it even more when it disappears because gutless empty suits like you put your re-election ahead of doing what's needed.

As for "Congressional Leadership," you wouldn't know it if it bit you in your wide-glide butt. Leadership means doing the tough thing... the hard thing... when it needs to be done. And that's simply not possible for a coward like you.

You had... and failed... your first test when you mixed it up with Tim "The Liar" Leavitt and he slapped you so hard your mom felt it and you went silent on the bogus issue you were trying to convince people you were on... but many of us knew you were just playing politics and you didn't... really... mean it.

We have the government we deserve. But I am ashamed that you're a part of it.

Cross posted on Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

I'll be filing a PDC complaint against Bart Hansen and the Vancouver Fire Department on (Monday) Thursday (Technical problems with my fax machine).

.
Take a quick look at this article.  Guess what's wrong with it...

Which month of the calendar is this?

Blog: All politics is local

Subscribe

By Andrea Damewood (Columbian Staff)

July 22, 2011

The excellent Fire in the Park fundraiser event is this Saturday, and we all know Vancouver City Councilor Bart Hansen loves public safety. He loves public safety enough to pose, high school senior photo style, on a fire engine:

Best comment? Al Angelo III's: "What month of the calendar is this!?!"

Hansen will emcee the event, which will pit local chefs and firehouse chili aficionados against their peers in a cook-off to benefit Share.

The event will be from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. at Esther Short Park. Admission is free. Chili tasting is $1 a cup, and tasters will be part of a people's choice award for best chili.

The event is sponsored by the Vancouver Firefighters Union (who also sponsor Hansen with $800 in campaign donations for his reelection run this year and an endorsement).

For afficianadoes, the use of official fire equipment and official uniforms infers agency endorsement and is, therefore, a violation of state law.:

RCW 42.17.130

Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — Prohibition — Exceptions. (Effective until January 1, 2012. Recodified as RCW 42.17A.555.)

No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities:

The democratian knows this, of course, but like all democrats and those who work for their agenda (See their cover-up of Rep. Jim Jacks misconduct in Olympia that led to his expulsion from the House) the paper, instead of pointing out the violation doesn't even mention it, instead using it as a campaign piece for the candidate in question.

That's the sliminess from the local rag that I've come to know and appreciate.
.

So... why hasn't the democratian been doing their job while continuing to rabidly support this horrific rape of a bridge/loot rail project?

.
We're cursed with a publication that utilizes situational ethics as their watch word when it comes to reporting on projects THEY support... such as this bizarre waste of billions for a project we don't want in the form of billions wasted on a bridge and loot rail, all the way down to bending US over to pay for a ballpark THEY want by jack US with taxes that THEY won't have to pay... all so THEY will make bank off the advertising.

Today's idiocy from Brancaccio involves the fact that The Rag told us first about the problems with tolls providing enough money.

Their "in-depth" reporting consisted of a single paragraph, buried in one of their interminable cheerleading articles for this criminal waste of billions of dollars... never, apparently, to address the issue again... until the Oregonian blew the lid off it and the rag was forced to print something... again failing to print the entire story because, well, you damned sure don't want to give people like ME any MORE ammunition to prove how criminal, dishonest, and fraudulent the scum supporting this massive waste of money have actually become.

“Cortright contends that planners are probably greatly underestimating construction costs while overestimating toll revenue. (The CRC) focuses on projections that traffic will steadily increase across the new bridge, even though traffic counts actually declined across the existing bridge from 2005 to 2009

And that's it.

You would think a slimeball like Brancaccio would spend at least as much time going after that as he has going after me, instead of, once again, breaking his own shoulder patting himself on his own back for burying a paragraph like this in a story that should have been treated like the Oregonian treated it.

But when you've been bent over by, and have become one of the special interests shilling for a crap pile like this, the idea that you would do or say ANYTHING that might slow it down or, God-forbid, stop it altogether is just out of the question.  So, you sit on information like this.

Because when you want something that YOU won't have to pay for like the scuzball Brancaccio wants this bridge/loot rail project... it's easy to close your eyes to information that might make this project go away.

For example, I haven't seen anything about all this from Tim "The Liar" Leavitt or Steve "The Liar" Stuart, two of the most rabid bridger/looters.  And the downtown mafia/Identity Vancouver types sure seem quiet all of a sudden.

And the democratians own sleazeball, John Laird?

Not a peep.

But here you have it.  Brancaccio and his cold sore of a paper have continued to rabidly support screwing us EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THE NUMBERS DIDN'T WORK.

And this time, Lou... there WAS a paper trail.
.

Was it four months ago the cancer on our local society began their Jim Jacks cover up?

The little clock widget continues the countdown from the day political journalism finally died at the democratian.

It was 120 days ago that then State Representative Jim Jacks was unceremoniously ejected in a web of lies, drunkenness and misconduct with female staffers, all while our local rag stood there, paralyzed like it had just been visited by a Tarantula Wasp, stung, and had the egg laid on it's abdomen to be eaten alive later after the egg hatched.

Given the last election cycle and Lou Brancaccio's despicable columns crucifying candidates and others smart enough to oppose his twisted world view, it's hard to deny his efforts to protect a fellow leftist, particularly one who had carried the rag's agenda like Gunga Din bringing Slurpees to the troops out in the field.

There's precisely no excuse for this floor-flusher's failure to have gone after Jacks with all the enthusiasm he displayed in going after, say, me... or Peter Van Nortwick... or as he was winding up to punch Brent Boger before others with some decency knocked him into next week.

Let's set the stage.  Then Rep. Jacks (D-49) was a drunk.  He engaged in misconduct with his own legislative assistant and with a female staffer from OPR.  He was o0berved by another legislator engaging in that misconduct on St. Patrick's Day this year in Olympia.  As a result, he was gone before the week was out.

I know this.  Brancaccio knew off it, and when he had his bogus interview with Jacks, he had a journalistic duty to ASK Jacks about it... but instead, all we got was this garbage:

Being an alcoholic is a difficult thing in and of itself. But oftentimes, having one too many also results in bad behavior.

So I asked Jacks if his drinking resulted in his doing anything inappropriate. At first he wasn’t exactly sure what I meant.

“I have no criminal record. I’ve gotten no DUIs. I’m sure I’ve driven when I should not have been driving. But I resigned because I had to fix my problem. I resigned because I’m an alcoholic.”

Still, I pressed him further. Notwithstanding the drinking while driving, is it possible that someone might show up later and say you did something inappropriate to them while you were drinking?

He said no.

The interview moved forward.

"The interview moved forward."

Codespeak for "I let him off the hook and didn't ask the questions that needed to be asked."

Questions like this: 

Did you, in any way, engage in conduct that could be construed as sexual harassment of anyone?

Did you engage in “drunk calls” to anyone?

Did you engage in unwanted advances to anyone at any time generally, but legislative staffers particularly?

That Jacks never got popped for anything criminally as a result of his alcoholism doesn't mean that he did not engage in the kind of conduct that would result in his caucus wanting to get rid of him in a hurry, as quickly and as quietly as possible.  And those are not the actions on the part of a caucus that result from mere alcoholism alone.  Brancaccio knows that as well as I do.

These are the kinds of questions, based on the information readily available to Lou or any other journalist, that SHOULD have been asked.

But when you're in full democrat protection mode, and you already know the answers and you don't want those answers published... why even ask the questions?

I've been right all along.

Brancaccio doesn't know... because he doesn't want to know.

Any other genuine journalist would have asked the same questions or similar.  But not someone with a reeking left wing bias.

And you know damned well that if Jacks had been an "R", the entire interview would have centered around those questions and those questions alone.

Just another day in the Lazy C's twisted world. And imagine how much better off we'd be without them... and him.