Monday, September 01, 2014

Simple, Fair & Constitutional School Funding

There is an old maxim which declares: "Why simple when, with a little effort, it can be made so beautifully complicated?".  This appears to directly apply to Wisconsin's "school aid formula" and those of many states.  Some of our hard earned tax-moneys are spent for various local and state-level bureaucrats (eg In both the Department of Education and local school districts), lobbyists and other like critters who attempt to form that program towards the interests of certain communities, teachers' groups (And the elected officials they have bought/rented/leased)--And are, therefore, not spent towards the education of our children.  [It even might be that spending unequal parts of state funds, on a geographic basis, for that purpose violates both the constitutions of both the USA and some of "The Several States".]

Since I am loath to present a problem without offering a solution, the following should be Wisconsin's method of allocating state tax funds for the education of our children.
1. All state aid should be paid out in vouchers to the parents/guardians of pupils/students in an equal amount per child without verified "special needs".
2. The parents/guardians of those with medically established (Reviewed not less often than every two years) "special needs" would receive a higher sum consistent with the real additional costs of educating medically verified "special needs" students.
3. Those parents/guardians would be allowed to assign those vouchers to the public/private school of their choice, filtering those payments through those persons should remove any "separation of church and state" objections if religion-based schools are selected for such payment. (Unassigned vouchers would default to the public school district in which each such child lives.)
4. Although any such private schools must meet certain minimum standards, those must not be designed by the same bureaucrats noted above.
5. All public and private schools must be bound by well defined ("Reliable and valid") and measurable goals.
6. The administrators of private schools whose students do not meet those goals to be legally presumed to be guilty of "Fraud". ***
7. The administrators of public schools whose students likewise fail to meet goals to be legally presumed to be guilty of "Misconduct In Public Office". ***
8. Provision should be considered for reimbursing the parents/guardians of home schooled children for texts, on-line educational services and the like---If, and only if, those students are periodically tested for educational level and their progress is consistent with other schools.

I note that transportation costs, in rural areas, could be reduced by returning to two-to-four room primary schools (With visiting specialists) where such could be demonstrated as economically sound.   Consideration should also be given to appropriate use of supervised (In such schools/town halls/other public buildings) of on-line high school classes---Perhaps, reducing the need to transport high school students to two days each week for lab/shop/physical-education and like classes.

Of course, all of those critters listed above would rise-up and wage Jihad against such a threat to their incomes and power and against those opposed to lock-step (Or, is it "goose step"?) school systems.
*** District Attorneys would be prohibited, by law, from not prosecuting such cases where anyone files, on oath/affirmation, a complaint as to such violations. Any such failure to be "Misconduct In Public Office" and authority to prosecute given to the Attorney General.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

The "Tueller Drill" Vs. Charging Criminals

Those who question the use of a gun against a charging and dangerous criminal should consider the below.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
1.   The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
2.   A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
3.   If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[4]


1.   Tueller, Dennis (March 1983), "How Close is Too Close?", S.W.A.T. Magazine
3.   Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page". Retrieved 2008-04

FBI "PC" Downsizing Of Armed Self-Defense

I very, very, seldom reprint other blogger's entire offerings, usually "quoting" and providing URLs (. However, doing so in the below entry would destroy its meaning!

For reference re: justifiable homicide

Posted by David Hardy · 29 August 2014 11:45 AM
In the dispute over how many self-defense cases occur, one data point often cited by those seeking to minimize the number is the FBI Uniform Crime Report's count of justifiable homicides (a legal category that includes self-defense). This is usually in the range of 900 a year, including several hundred by police. While that doesn't count self-defense that doesn't result in the perp's death, it is argued that it is inconsistent with hundreds of thousands or millions of defensive uses annually.
What's not realized is that the FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.
But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle -- the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as "commission of a felony."

Monday, August 25, 2014

The "Ferguson Drill": Stun Gun VS Firearm

There are those who maintain that the six shots fired into the 300-pound and illegal drug containing body of Ferguson Missouri's Michael Brown by a police officer were too many AND that the officer should have used some non-lethal alternative (ie A "stun gun").

I strongly suggest that all such persons be subjected to the following test/drill.
1. First, they must execute and make public waivers of liability for themselves, their families, their insurance providers and employer(s) such as none of them can bring any action for injuries (Including death) resulting from the drill/test described below.
2. That person is to stand, without a barricade, in the open and "armed" with only a standard (Usually one "shot") "stun gun".
3. Thirty feet  away a 300-pound 18/19-year old male youth (Perhaps provided with a medication to reduce pain) will begin a full speed charge, hands raised, at the subject and to, if he can, run over and strike down at the subject
4. Twenty-one feet from the subject there will be a marker.
5. When the charger is at/past that marker the subject may discharge the "stun gun" at the well paid "volunteer" teen-aged youth. [That paid volunteer would be provided a very large bonus if he could make any "full force" contact with the subject.]

"In lieu of flowers. . . ."

On Killing Michael Brown

As far as can now be determined Ferguson Missouri's Michael Brown:
1. Was legally an adult;
2. Was about 300-pounds in weight;
3. On the day of his death involved in a "Felony Robbery" as defined by the democratically passed laws of Missouri;
4. On the day of his death, was under the influence of illegal drugs;
5. Was endangering others by walking down the middle of a city street dedicated to vehicle traffic;
6. May have physically attacked and injured Officer Wilson before being shot;
7. Appears to have been charging Officer Wilson with hands raised on high as would imply the possibility/probability of preparation to strike down;
8. Was much more massive and physically powerful than Officer Wilson, even if that "clean record" officer had not been injured;
9. During that charge/attack appears to have been within 21-feet for which the Tueller Drill (About which please see on-line data) prescribes the use of deadly force to prevent injury/death to the innocent party;
10. Was struck by six bullets fired by an officer who appears to have had 13-plus rounds available to him AND, very properly, stopped shooting when Michael Brown "went down".

It may be that Officer Wilson's not placing all of his shots in "the center of body mass" was due to his injuries as already inflicted by Michael Brown.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Some Teachings Of The Koran

Muslims consider the Koran as the actual words of their Allah and not to be altered by anyone other than Mohammed.

  verses which preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public tranquility (i.e., 2:193; 8:39; 2:216; 9:41; 9:123; 66:9; 9:73; 8:65; 8:66; 47:4—15; 8:12; 69:30—33; 8:15—18; 25:52; 9:39; 9:111; 3: 169—171; 4:100; 48:29; 49:15; 2:154; 3:157—158; 8:59—60; 9:2—3; 9:29; 8:67; 4:84; 29:6; 29:69; 61:9—13; 9:36; 9:5; 9:14; 9:20—22; 4:95—96; 8:72—74; 3:142)
* verses which promote, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities (i.e., 4:101; 60:4; 58:23; 9:7; 8:13—14; 8:55; 25:55; 5:72; 9:23; 9:28; 3:28; 3:118; 4:144; 5:14; 5:64; 5:18; 5:51)
* verses which insult other religions as well as the religious beliefs of other communities (i.e., 5:17; 4:157; 5:116—118; 98:6; 68:8—13; 38:55—57; 22:19—21; 22:56—57; 5:36; 15:2; 72:14—15;41:33; 4:125; 25:27—29; 26:96—99; 3:85; 8:38; 31:13; 29:41—42; 37:22—25; 37:26—32; 25:17—19; 7:173; 21:66—67; 21:98—100; 16:20—21; 6:22—23; 6:40—41; 6:148; 2;221; 24:3)      

Monday, July 21, 2014

GUNS: Sale/Transfer Records = Registration = Confiscation

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun confiscation?

Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

Let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

J. Pawlak's Professional Qualifications


RELEVANT EDUCATION: BS (Psychology), 1964l Twenty-plus graduate credits in Social Work; Six credits in “Police Law” at a Technical College.

RELEVANT EMPLOYMENT: With Wisconsin's Department Of Corrections; Full-time from July 1, 1964 to September 1, 1998; One-year, part-time and as a “Limited Term Employee, after that.

Clients” & Locations: Adults and juveniles; Males and females; In institutions and with “Probation & Parole” services; In urban (Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties), suburban and rural areas.

Types Of Direct Service Duties: As a “Social Worker 1-3” (With functional title of “Probation & Parole Agent” when so assigned) I provided the following services: Preparation of “Pre-Sentence Investigations” (For the courts) and other social history reports; Direct counseling of “clients”; Referrals to appropriate internal and external education, counseling and other services; “Working” with the agents of such programs as to each “client's” needs; Investigation an actions taken upon reports of violations of probation/parole rules; Reports to the Parole Board (And its juvenile program equivalent);Etc..

Supervisory & Staff Duties: For some years I supervised a unit of 6-8 “Probation & Parole Agents”. I was also a “Social Service Specialist-1”, a “gofer”-plus position.
These duties included: The direct supervision, including audits and performance reports, of “Probation & Parole Agents”; More such audits in my staff position; Performing evaluations of contracted agencies; Assisting in the preparation of the (Then) Bureau Of Probation & Parole budget for eventual submission to the Legislature; Conducting “Preliminary Hearings” as to recommendation for the revocation of probation/parole; One instance of conducting a hearing (On a Mafia connected inmate as to an alleged violation of institutional rules); Sitting-in with “Program Review Committees” (As member and observer) and observing Parole Commission hearings;

Special Note On “Victims”: The preparation of “Pre-Sentence Investigations” required many, in-depth, interviews with the victims of crimes (Or, in the case of homicides and young victims of sexual offenders) their families.
Other such contacts were occasionally had as to claims for restitution or as to violations of probation/parole.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Bill Of Rights. Religion & Intent

1. The original intent of the "separation clause" was to prevent only the new Federal government from establishing a national sect/religion (As was the Church of England in the UK, the Lutheran Churches in parts of Western Europe, the Catholic Church in other parts of Europe, the Orthodox Churches in the East and, for that matter, various forms of Islam where such ruled). In fact, some of the Several States maintained "official churches" into the 1830s, and that without SCOTUS intervening.
2. President Thomas Jefferson addressed all matters of considering the Constitution as being best considered in the light of the intent of its authors (A).
3.  The current misunderstanding of that clause was written down by a Justice who was an active member of the KKK and who held a life-long hatred of the most orthodox of Christian Churches being the Catholic Church is based on one private letter of President Jefferson and was/is opposed to the intent of the Founders and two-hundred years of honoring the Judeo-Christian base of our exceptional nation.
 4. Such persons are attempting to unconstitutionally suppress orthodox Christianity and Judaism in favor of establishing  the "Religion Of Atheism" (B) as the "national religion" in violation of the First Amendment
A.   "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench")]
B.  James J. Kaufman VS Gary R. McCaughtey, et. al.; 7th US Court Of Appeals #04-1914;
Decided Aug. 19, 2005