Giants stars ditch cars for scooters

It started when former closer Brian Wilson mentioned that he liked scooters to team chef Joe Day, who happened to build them as a hobby. Before long, Wilson, Tim Lincecum, Hunter Pence, Sergio Romo, and Brandon Belt were cruising to the ballpark from their nearby downtown homes on their own heavily modified two-wheel electric rides.

The project really kicked into gear after the 2010 World Series. With some free time on his hands during the offseason, Day started pushing his scooter-making skills to the next level at a shop called Rustworks in San Carlos.

A chef by trade, Day, 28, works well with his hands and can offer about as many modifications to his custom scooters as he does ingredients in his cuisine.

"He's just a solid asset to an organization that is caring and affectionate to everybody," Romo said of Day.

Romo's scooter has a custom orange paint job, a turbo button, three-inch speakers that are mounted to a custom plate featuring his number, 54; an iPod dock to crank out the tunes and his name is painted on the baseboard.

"Mine is up there, but I think Timmy's might take the cake a little bit," Romo said.

Lincecum's scooter has all the features of Romo's ride and a special carbon fiber trim.

During Giants telecasts you'll often see shots of Pence cruising around town on his 2 wheel electric scooter. While he gets most of the airtime, his ride is a bit less flashy.

"There are some other guys with some very expensive scooters compared to mine," Pence said. "I have a very low-cost scooter."

Mindful that former Warriors guard Monta Ellis severely injured his left ankle on a moped shortly after signing a six-year, $66 million contract, all of the scooters made by Chef Day include extra large brakes, as well as engines that don't go any faster than 25 mph for added safety. There hasn't been an incident with any of the Giants players.

Day made two scooters for Pence, two more for Belt, and is currently making two for Madison Bumgarner, who is soon to join the scooter-riding ranks. Having a second scooter is key because these guys don't just hum down the Embarcadero to the ballpark, they also take joy rides alongside their significant others. Day says the average cost of the modified scooters is $2,000.

"I found out from Pence, Lincecum and Romo because they all had one," Belt said. "I talked to them about it and they said that they had a blast on them. I thought it might be something cool, since I live in the city this year, that me and my wife could have and drive around on."

Belt's scooter features a larger motor -- because he says he is a "bigger dude" -- with special shocks. While his scooter is orange, his wife Haylee's scooter is powder blue.

Chef Day did some special paintwork on Belt's scooter and they added some decals with his nickname 'baby giraffe' and jersey number for a personalized touch.

Day, a graduate of the California Culinary Academy, has been the team chef for the Giants since 2009. Every day he does his own grocery shopping, meal planning, and cooks up to three meals for about 50 people -- including Giants players, coaches, and clubhouse staff members.

"Every day he has grass-fed beef and kale salad for me ready to go for lunch," Pence said. "He's awesome."

Day is able to find time to work on his side projects when the team is on the road or during the baseball offseason.

His fine cuisine and scooters are currently only available to people inside the Giants organization, but he is willing to branch out. Day recently started a Twitter account: @RocketPed. He says he will make his scooters available to everybody if the interest level is there.

 

WHAT TO LOOK FOR WHEN SELECTING A 2 WHEEL ELECTRIC SCOOTER?

There are various brands and designs of electric scooters on the market today. Some of the most widely embraced and popular among these are the two-wheeled ones. When making a purchase for a 2 wheel electric scooter however, it is important to consider some factors. A number of the considerations you should make are mentioned below.

POWER OUTPUT

Being electric devices, one of the most important things that you should pay attention to is the power output. This is because the various designs have an equally diverse range of power outputs. It is important to select that which has an output that is powerful enough to provide the kind of drive you desire.

BATTERY LIFE

Just like the power output, the battery life varies from one model to another. The bottom line however, is that you should go for one that has the longest battery life. This is because the longer this is, the longer the time you can spend using it. This will ensure that you can make use of it for a longer period before you recharge it.

WEIGHT CAPACITY

The weight capacity refers to the maximum amount of weight a 2 wheel scooter can be capable to bear and run efficiently. Though this is relatively the same for most designs, you should identify the one that ids suited for you based on your weight. In doing this, you can be guaranteed of riding on one that would not bulge under your weight.

SPEED

This is definitely a no brainer. You should be very awake to the fact that all the different kinds of scooters have various maximum speeds that they can achieve. This means that it is imperative to go for one that has the speed that you feel most comfortable with. However, more is always better as it gives you the ability to go wherever you want fast.

PRICE

Finally, you should highly consider the amount it would cost you to purchase a 2 wheel electric scooter of your choice. The price also varies from one to another and should be a key factor in the selection process. As with the speed, you should go for one that suits your Pocket.

Electric Scooter Buying Guide

They aren't just speed fixes or ways to get around for teens or young adults, electric scooters are real transportation solutions for those who don't need a large vehicle just to do their daily errands or to get from A to B. Buying your first electric scooter can be an intimidating experience if you've never owned anything on two wheels before. Consider these tips before you get started on your search for purchasing your first electric scooter.


Popular Electric Scooters

First thing you should ask yourself is who will be potentially riding your electric scooter. If it's just yourself, then the rest of the decision-making will be easy. If you expect other passengers to ride it regularly, consider what type of build you want to have for your electric scooter. Lighter, easier to handle scooters will be made largely of plastic, but they will also be more susceptible to damage from accidental drops or minor accidents. Maybe you can consider about china electric scooter, it's nice for adults.

The build quality of your scooter is very important, as needing to take your scooter in for repairs can cost you a lot of money at specialized scooter repair shops. If you intend on buying a scooter for your teenager, you should be looking at electric scooters made specifically for kids, rather than beginner-level scooters at scooter shops.


Electric Scooter upkeep

To expand on the last point about buying scooters for kids and adults: electric scooters that are found in places like Toys'R'Us are often much easier to maintain and are made for casual usage, while regular full-size scooters require more attentiveness and responsibility.

The batteries that come with kid's scooters are not as strong and don't hold a charge as well, made for a few hours of usage and needing at least twice as long to charge them. Also, most toy scooters have built-in batteries that may not be swapped or upgraded, while adult scooters allow for more freedom, depending on the manufacturer.

Another way to also research the longevity of an electric scooter is by confirming if it has genuine chrome plating to prevent rust and increase durability on its most vulnerable areas. Scooters tend to fall down unexpectedly, whether you're careful or not, having that extra layer of protection helps.

If you have chosen a full-sized electric scooter, learn as much as possible about what you can do to maintain the engine, any moving parts, and especially the braking system. You'll probably have change the brake pads a lot less often than a car, but you never want to have your brakes fail on a vehicle that leaves you so exposed.

The Internet scourges families

Recent studies show that 89 percent of married-with-children households own multiple cellphones and 66 percent have high-speed Internet connections, well above the national average of 52 percent for all households.Forty-two percent (42 percent) of parents contact their children every day via cellphone, making cellphones the most popular communication tool between parents and children; 52 percent of married-with-children households go online together at least a few times a week, and another 34 percent of those families have "shared screen moments" at least occasionally. Seventy percent (70 percent) of couples in which both partners own a mobile phone contact each other daily to say hello or chat, while 54 percent of couples who have only one or no cell phones do; 64% of couples in which both partners own a cellphone contact each other daily to coordinate their schedules and 47 percent of couples who have one or no cell phones do.

This appears to be wonderful on the surface until you listen to the tragic story of the wife narrating her ordeal with the Internet. A desperate wife writes: "My husband & I were only 21 when we got married. We've been married for 13 years and are facing a problem because of his internet sex addiction. I discovered he was visiting x-rated sites and masturbating. I confronted him about it. I was devastated! We talked and talked about it. He was sincerely sorry about it, made a promise not to visit such sites again. About a year ago I again discovered his internet infidelity and confronted him about it. I was so hurt, even more then the indoor Tracking! Over and over again he has said he's sorry, there is no excuse. So divorce is definite this time. But I love him! He is great husband and the best father there is. What can I do?"

This story is a classic demonstration of the deep spiritual crisis we live in today. We are not threatened by terrorism but by something a lot more devastating: the spread of technology and the Internet. Internet access is common everywhere and is being introduced to younger children. The argument is that we are now raising a generation of children and young people who are spiritually dull and live according to logic only.Inadvertently, we are raising children capable of any and every atrocity without raising an eyebrow because of their spiritual depravity. Tragically, technology is our Achilles heel that in the end will be worse than any weapon of mass destruction. It will destroy us from within. This frightening trend can only be reversed if more and more citizens listen to their consciences and say enough is enough.

Technology puts the "I" in the centre and ignores the fact that life is only worth living if "I" depend on my neighbour. We are infatuated with the ability the Internet gives us. To be able to obtain everything that is available at the click of the mouse gives us power and makes us feel invincible. We also feel that the Internet is the solution to all of our emotional and spiritual problems because for every emotional disorder, there is a self-help website or a group blog.Finding love in the Internet age usually requires at least a toe-dip into the pool of online dating site. A teenager took his life after he fell victim to Internet daters perpetuating extortion scams through dating site chat rooms. In this scam, unsuspecting victims begin a chat conversation with a potential match. After establishing trust, the scammer will begin to initiate more sexual conversation. Once many messages have been swapped, the scammer then posted the sexual conversations, along with his name and a picture, on a website saying that they were a cheater. They offered to take down the incriminating information after he had paid them hundreds of dollars. Once the money exchanged hands, the information remains on the site. Around the world, many divorced women over the age of 40, particularly in countries where Internet is a major way of life, have fallen victim to this scourge.

Families are breaking up because of sexual conversations online. This risk is that you really don't know to whom you are speaking and the possibility of extortion is very real, as is the chance of your reputation being ruined. But there is a good rule of thumb for online conversation: If you wouldn't be embarrassed to show it to your parents or Hands free access, then it's appropriate. The teenager who took his life could not consider what he was doing to his mum and dad or how much their lives would be drastically changed by his death. But how many other people suffered in this event?

The Internet becomes a sick and highly destructive device when it is used by crazy people like a 21-year old Great Neck, New York man who was charged in a criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan, USA with Internet extortion and cyber stalking. According to the affidavit, from May 2012 through February 2013, Adam Paul Savader sent anonymous text messages using Google Voice numbers to 15 women stating that he had nude photographs of the women and threatening to distribute the nude photographs to the women's friends and family members, unless the women sent him more nude photographs of themselves. Savader sent some of the victims links to a photo-sharing website where nude pictures of the victims had been posted. If convicted on these charges, Savader faces a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

The Internet is a great invention that was created to feed and continues to feed on a global economic system called capitalism. This system, according to Karl Marx, makes workers slaves to their passions and to those who own the means of production. It's about making money at any cost and those living under this system are lured into practicing religion so that they can forget about their economic exploitation. Karl Marx saw faith in religion under the capitalist system as a drug, and so he argued, in 1843, that "religion is the opium (drug) of the people". They will not rebel against the system because they are under a hallucinating drug. Under capitalism today, the drug of religion is represented by the Internet. The Internet is the drug that is supposed to cure all psychological and mental ills of today.

It is regrettable that we are quick to forget the old saying that "not everything that glitters is gold". The Internet has become our god, our idol, which we now worship instead of the true God. Yet we have never been lonelier or more isolated from other human beings. What use is it to have all the possessions the world offers right in my living room if it separates me from other people? The essence of community is being systematically destroyed. If in any culture the minds and hearts of the children and youth have been captured, the war is already won. We are succumbing to the same temptation that Satan put before Jesus: Worship me, and the whole world and its glory will be yours. It is this temptation that Jesus rejected by pointing Satan to the Scriptures. The greatest challenge of education, the greatest challenge to parents and teachers, is not to teach our children reading, writing and arithmetic, which are important, but to see that they do not become spiritually dull.

As we struggle to build modern families, we seem to be succeeding in creating separate worlds under the same roof via the Internet. There are two main reasons why the Internet does not bring people closer together. First, it eliminates interaction.Second, it dehumanises communication. By searching on the Internet for places to shop, they eliminate conversations that used to be held between friends and family.Then, when there are conversations on the Internet, because of the lack of face time, there is so little substance that no lasting connection is made. Also, these conversations tend not to be genuine because people will say things online without thinking, which, as social creatures, is not the way we were set up to interact.The Internet makes people more isolated and jaded towards their fellow human beings. Most people I know would rather stay at home and talk to strangers or play computer games rather than socialise with family, spend time with kids, play games, fish, camp or any other such social activity. Some of the evil products made by the Internet make millions rich by destroying real human love and lifelong marital bonds. Businessmen seek to divide and conquer by destroying God's gift to mankind in the form of human sexuality. Their agenda is to disrupt the family unit, ultimately rendering man and woman isolated. When the family is destroyed, mankind is powerless to resist their subjugation.

They have a multi-pronged strategy to achieve this goal. By polluting the culture with sex-based media propaganda, they create demand for instant carnal gratification devoid of responsibility or moral obligation. By sexualizing the youth, businessmen remotely control the next generation. When young boys and girls grow up believing that viewing online dirty material, engaging in "hook-ups," and "being hot" is the societal expectation, they abandon aspirations of seeking a soul-mate that will love and protect them for life. When men can be chained to their online lovers and cable-box companions, they lose respect for their partners and a chasm develops in their intimate relations.The fact of the matter is that true happiness can only be experienced with those that you love in the flesh, and who share your spiritual values. We must defeat the capitalist Satanist's agenda. The Bible says "there is a way that seems right to men but the end is destruction" and "see to it that no one takes you captive to hallow and deceptive philosophy which depend on human traditions than the teachings of Christ".

The world is plagued by false philosophy about sex. But pornography is a virus; a worm eating through the apple.Pornography is a destroyer of marriage, the home, self-dignity, society, chastity, moral value, careers and relationships. On the other hand, God is love; He'll forgive our sins if you repent. God hates all forms of immorality and defines it pretty well in His book. The Internet can be a scourge on the earth. Like Satan, it seeks whom it can devour and destroy, reaching into homes of innocent families. But families can get a screening service to monitor their home computers which should be kept in a public room of the house and not in the children's bedrooms parents cannot control what is being watched. Most of children do it because they are lazy and the computer keeps them busy and away from the parent. This is neglect and in even child abuse. When parents do not monitor what the child is accessing on the Internet, horrible things can happen. I think there should be laws against children having computers in their room for that reason.

Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!

Gun Control Issue Resolved in 1791

Our rights are natural, given to us by the Creator.  So, with that in mind, understand that The Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights are your responsibility.

In today’s America, there is a concerted effort to remove your gun rights.  But the right to keep and bear arms is so entrenched in the fabric of our society, the statists that desire to disarm you are also using a method that goes after the ammunition.  Bullets are hard to come by, of late.  Certain kinds of ammo, like hollow points, are under fire.  In California, starting in January of 2014, background checks will be required for the purchase of projectiles, if Jerry Brown signs the bill sitting on his desk.

It almost makes me want to take up the bow and arrow. . . almost.There is no enumeration in the Constitution that grants to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms.  In the first seven articles the authority to regulate firearms at the federal level is not granted.  In the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is told it “shall” not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.  But that was only added to the Constitution because the Anti-federalists feared that if it was not in writing, the federal government would ultimately infringe on our God-given gun rights.

The Second Amendment begins with a call for “A well regulated militia.”  A well regulated militia is not one regulated by the government, as assumed by many folks because of their flawed notion regarding the definition of the word “regulated.” The part of the amendment that calls for a well-regulated militia is stating that the militia must be a fighting force that is in good order.

We must remember that the word “regulated” in 1791 did not necessarily mean “to control and restrict,” as the statists claim in today’s political atmosphere.  The word “Indoor Positioning System,” according to the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary, was defined as meaning: “to put in good order.” The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes. So, a well regulated militia, from the point of the view of the founders, was a militia that was in good order.

The need for the citizens to be armed was made evident during the Revolutionary War, and the importance of gun ownership by the people of that generation was clearly portrayed by the context of the Battle of Lexington Green, where the first shot of The Revolution was fired.

The British Troops were marching toward Concord, Massachusetts, and a rag tag company of the Massachusetts Militia met the Redcoats at Lexington, to confront them, and stop them.  A shot rang out, which triggered a gun battle, and the War for Independence was in full gear.

But why was stopping the British at Lexington so imperative?  What made the revolutionaries so intent on doing whatever it took to prevent the King’s Army from gaining access to Concord?In Concord was our largest munitions depot.  Guns and ammunition were stored in Concord.  So, it can be said that the final straw - what made us fighting mad enough that we began a bloody revolution against England - was when they came for our guns.

The current push for gun control is not the first effort by the federal government to go after our ability to defend ourselves.  The federal gun-running operation called Fast and Furious placed guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels so that, if the democrats played their cards right, the guns would be used to kill many Mexicans, and then the party of the jackass could scream, “See what American guns have done?” hoping that American voters would demand a stop be put to the manufacturing of such dangerous weapons.

The operation backfired, two border patrol agents were killed, and the scandal grew to reveal what the Obama administration was trying to do.  The administration, with no surprise to anyone, has been lying about the operation from day one.  The media hopped aboard those lies, and have protected the president as best they could.  The democrats have circled the wagons regarding the Fast and Furious scandal, and the scandal that would have brought down any GOP President, thanks to quick damage control by Obama’s minions, remained harmless, and has been all but forgotten.

Prior to the Fast and Furious operation being exposed, the federal government, through the courts, attempted to gain the power of dictating to the States what they can, and cannot, do, regarding firearms by ruling against State Sovereignty in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case.

Before the ruling regarding Chicago’s handgun ban, in the Washington DC v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified clearly that the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment is the article that spells out the terms regarding gun rights in America, as the Anti-federalists desired.

We have to remember that State Sovereignty is an important factor, here.  All powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 10th Amendment supports the States’ rights regarding this issue, and the 2nd Amendment confirms the limits placed on the federal government regarding guns.

This does not mean the States have the right to infringe on your gun rights, however.  Remember, your right to keep and bear arms is a personal, fundamental, natural right given to you by God. The founders did not worry about the States infringing on gun rights, because the local governments were closer to the people.  They expected you to protect your right to keep and bear arms, and to not let your State become tyrannical regarding that issue.  But in today’s political environment, the argument has become all about the tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?  They seem to be stomping on our right to our guns quite readily.

My response to that query is always the same: “So don’t let them.”  Gun rights, be they protected in the Second Amendment, or listed in your State Constitution, is nothing more than ink on paper if you are not willing to defend those gun rights.

The only thing that can put our rights in jeopardy concerning State governments would be if we became so complacent that we stopped taking action to protect our rights.  With freedom comes the responsibility to fight for your freedoms.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 said it clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

The federal government knows this, which is why they are trying to use the courts to overrule your sovereignty, and to limit the kinds of firearms, and ammunition, you can own.In the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government was brought to the surface.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

Read the full products at http://www.ecived.com/en/!

Crowd gets tougher on leaders

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has thrown the lever to populism, calling for tighter restrictions on the sale of Australian land to foreign individuals and state-owned enterprises and admitting he feels ''anxious'' about foreign ownership.

The shift came as Mr Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott faced off at the third and final leaders debate of the 2013 campaign. Both leaders were noticeably tired but managed to present a more civil atmosphere than at previous encounters, even if the questioning from voters took on a harsher edge.

An exit poll of the hand-picked audience of 100 undecided voters scored the debate as a comfortable win for Mr Rudd with 45 votes, to Mr Abbott on 38. Nineteen remained undecided.Other questions dealt with Mr Abbott's gold-plated Paid Parental Leave scheme with Mr Rudd hammering the super-generous provisions as Hands free access, and at least one questioner agreeing.

Small businessman Ian, told Mr Abbott: ''I just think, that a fork-lift driver from Mount Druitt should not be paying his taxes so a pretty little lady lawyer on the North Shore on 180 grand a year can have a kid,'' he said. Mr Abbott countered by saying that big business funded the scheme, via a levy, not taxpayers.

Declaring himself ''old-fashioned'' when it comes to allowing access foreign access to Australian land, Mr Rudd said he was ''not quite as free market as Tony [Abbott] on this stuff.'' He said he was far more in favour of joint venture approaches to access foreign capital to ensure Australian land stayed in Australian hands.Mr Abbott said a Coalition government would lower the scrutiny threshold to ensure the Foreign Investment Review Board examined acquisition proposals above ''about $15 million'' - down from more than $220 million currently.

Mr Rudd's shift appeared to come without prior consultation. It came as the trailing Mr Rudd was also forced to defend his sustained internal campaign against Julia Gillard through this year. He claimed he did ''absolutely the right thing'' by replacing her.''I can say that through all of that I believe I was doing absolutely the right thing by the party and by the country,'' he replied to the questioner, Amanda.

Mr Abbott declared he would not close any Medicare Locals. The definitive guarantee appeared to be improvised after he had pointedly left open the possibility of closures less than a week ago when he said: ''Now, can I say that absolutely no Medicare Local will close? I'm not going to say that.''

 Police Chief Bill Blair has for quite some time been on the record as urging broader deployment of Tasers as an option less harmful than guns. Yet in an interview with the Star last week, the chief was careful to qualify his support of Tasers for front-line cops.

“It’s not risk-free. When they first brought them out, they made it sound like it was as safe as Tylenol. There’s a risk associated to its use. It’s what we call a less-lethal-force option. That’s a good thing — if you can do it. But you should always try to resolve these things using the least amount of force possible.’’

It’s all after-the-fact speculation, of course. Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack has claimed Forcillo called for a Taser to be brought before he fired his weapon nine times. Why he didn’t wait will no doubt be a matter explored at trial.

What is clear, from the numerous studies conducted, is that a Taser — like any other weapon — is dangerous in the wrong hands, no less when those are an officer’s hands. Many civil rights groups deplore the thing. These are the same people often most vocal in their condemnation of police shootings, particularly when the victims suffer from mental illness.

Amnesty International, for one, claims there have been more than 500 deaths due to Tasers since 2001. One of them was Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, zapped five times by RCMP officers in the Vancouver airport in 2007. That disturbing event triggered an exhaustive inquiry that delivered a slew of recommendations about when conductive energy weapons should be deployed — most crucially, only when there’s a danger the suspect will cause bodily harm, which still leaves it hopelessly discretionary. The Vancouver Tasering, also captured on video that the RCMP originally claimed didn’t exist, was deemed a homicide, with the officers acting too quickly.

The weapons gadgetry available to law enforcement is only as good as the decision-making, the judgment, of those invested with the authority to use it. And that judgment will not necessarily be sufficiently honed by a few days of training on stun guns. Indeed, there’s ample evidence showing that officers reach for the Taser more frequently, too frequently, than they would reach for a sidearm, in circumstances that don’t warrant use of force.

 They defuse with a fuse because they’ve got this handy new toy that emits an electrical current via wires and barbs which disrupts voluntary control of muscles — electro-muscular disruption technology, as described by the manufacturer, Taser International. Around the world, some 17,000 law enforcement and military agencies in more than 100 countries use Tasers now. In some jurisdictions, corrections officers use them to subdue prisoners as well. Little wonder Taser stock surged more than 30 percent in the last two weeks alone, though the spike is also attributable to police demand for the company’s merchandizing of wearable video cameras, tucked into a patrol cop’s vest, for the purpose of documenting incidents with the public.

It’s unclear where Toronto Police Services will get the money to pay for equipping all front-line officers with Tasers — which could cost up to $10 million. One suggestion is that cops pay for it out-of-pocket, which is unreasonable.

The Ontario government maintains its shift on Tasers was not influenced by Sammy Yatin’s death and certainly appears to have been in the works before that shooting. More likely, the Ministry was reacting to an inquest earlier this year in Midhurst — the first where use of a Taser was a “contributing factor’’ in the death, officially caused by cardiac arrhythmia due to a state of excited delirium. In that 2010 case, OPP responding to an assault complaint came upon Aron Firman, a 27-year-old schizophrenic who was Tased when he made a movement toward one of the officers. The SIU cleared the officer of any wrongdoing. But the inquest jury heard immensely contradictory evidence about what happened.

Specific cases can be used to buttress both the pro- and anti-Taser constituencies. Earlier this month, a suicidal woman holding a knife near the railroad tracks in Burlington was subdued by a Taser and taken to hospital under provisions of the Mental Health Act. A life may have been saved.


Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/!

Thousands pack commemorate 1963 march

Fifty years to the day after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a large crowd streamed onto the National Mall and listened as civil rights leaders urged them - sometimes defiantly - to keep fighting for equal rights and justice.

Civil rights leader and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young urged thousands who had returned to the spot to "Pray on, stay on and fight on."

Through on-and-off rain showers that were occasionally heavy, marchers making their way to the Mall waved banners that read, "The new Jim Crow must go" and "50 years later still fighting to vote," sang traditional protest songs and chanted, "Education is our right - education is our fight!"

The 1963 march focused on what Young called "the triple evils of racism, war and poverty," but he said King's speech focused mostly on poverty. "He said that the Constitution was a promissory note to which all of us would fall heir, but that when men and women of color presented their check at the Bank of Justice, it came back marked 'insufficient funds.' "

"Fifty years later," Young concluded, "we're still here trying to cash that bad check. Fifty years later, we're still dealing with all kinds of problems, and so we're not here to claim any victory - we're to simply say that the struggle continues."

Wednesday's march started about 9:10 a.m.Banners and T-shirts and chants focused on the Trayvon Martin verdict and on protecting the Voting Rights Act. Other banners focused on gun control, mass incarceration of African-Americans and equal access to education. Marchers of all ages and races walked the route together, some singing songs such as "We Shall Not Be Moved."

Reginald Gilluno, 39, stood next to a portrait of King made of melted crayons and makeup so that people who are visually impaired could feel the power of the portrait. His mother, Oni Gilluno, 57, was 8 years old in 1963 and acknowledges that much has changed since the first march. But she believes there is still a lot of underlying racism. "A Caucasian person just doesn't get it."

Robin McNair, a teacher at Dupont Park Adventist School in D.C., says she and fellow teachers brought 50 students to the indoor Tracking. "We want them to experience history and be a part of it. Fifty years from now, they will be able to look back and remember this day and say they were there."

Alonza Lawrence, 57, a pastor at the Moore Street Missionary Baptist Church in Richmond, Va., said he drove to Washington Wednesday morning with his sister, Roberta Walker, from Richmond. "I was 7 at the time of the original march. I wanted to be part of the celebration this time. There are so many issues to protest: voting rights, racism, ageism, sexism - many of the 'isms.' The goal of this country is to become a place where all people are treated equally and have a fair chance. We have made strides, but have a long way to go. It's definitely not a level playing field."

James Carter, 62, a retired educator from Hershey, Pa., said he left home at 3:30 a.m. Wednesday with a friend and his local pastor. "I wanted to be part of the march this time. I was too young - 12 - to go in '63."

Carter said the dream of equal rights "has been realized for some, but there appears to be a concerted effort to diminish the dream. It's important to let them know that we won't stand for it. Dr. King wanted a complete America and we don't have that now."

He's concerned about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating a key part of the Voting Rights Act, passed a year after the original march. "The court took away clauses that allowed the (Justice Department) to address injustice," he says. "Look at North Carolina and Texas, which passed repressive laws (soon after) the Supreme Court decision. To say that everything is OK now is far from the truth."

Wednesday's commemoration culminates a week's worth of events marking the 1963 march, which was organized by civil rights and labor groups. Wednesday's event will feature afternoon speeches by President Obama and former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Farmer was there because jailers in nearby Iberville Parish had run out of space. About 500 people had rallied in Plaquemine for access to the ballot, and about half that number had been arrested, including the national director of CORE himself.

"The tear gas and the electric cattle prods of Plaquemine, Louisiana, like the fire hoses and dogs of Birmingham, are giving to the world a tired and ugly message of terror and brutality and hate," Farmer wrote from Donaldsonville. "Theirs is a message of pitiful hopelessness from little and unimaginative men to a world that fears for its life. It is not they to whom the world is listening today. It is to America's Negroes."

Lolis Edward Elie, an attorney who represented CORE in its Louisiana protests, said the struggle in Plaquemine was real and that the racist oppression in the town and surrounding parish was immense. Even so, Elie said, Farmer's arrest was part of CORE's strategy, meant not only to highlight how different CORE was from its enemies, but also how different CORE was from its allies.

But sacrificing oneself and one's own personal freedom for the larger good was CORE's modus operandi. Farmer says in his jailhouse letter that he couldn't walk around free while others who had protested in Plaquemine were confined.

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was a gathering of hundreds of thousands of individuals, but more significantly, the march was a gathering of six important civil rights groups, three predominantly white religious organizations and organized labor. The civil rights groups had similar goals but different methods and often attracted different pools of people for its members.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation's premier civil rights organization, was arguably the most conservative, eschewing direct confrontation in favor of dispassionate courtroom battles. The National Urban League was similar in style with a greater emphasis on increasing black employment. The Negro American Labor Council shared the emphasis on employment. Its leader, A. Philip Randolph - who put together the 1963 event with deputy director Bayard Rustin - had been wanting to march on Washington for more than twenty years. But the 1941 march Randolph planned to press for anti-lynching legislation and desegregation of the military never got off the ground.

Read the full products at www.ecived.com/en/!