the3rdrock.com

A radio sta­tion was forced to issue an apo­logy today after listen­ers com­plained of hear­ing ‘sex noises’ live on air.

Jazz FM’s pre-recorded Fun­cky Sen­sa­tion show was inter­rup­ted for around five minutes on Sat­urday night.

Stunned listen­ers took to Twit­ter to say they had heard ‘sex noises’ from an adult film being played.

Iwan Wil­li­ams tweeted: “The **** just happened on jazz fm?! Soun­ded like sex noises… This is turn­ing into an awk­ward dinner.”

JazzFM.com issued a state­ment today, say­ing: “Unfor­tu­nately we had an unau­thor­ised access to the live feed this even­ing which res­ul­ted in a highly regret­table incid­ent. Please accept our pro­found and sin­cere apo­lo­gies for any offence that may have been caused.”

Mike Vitti, sta­tion pro­gramme dir­ector, told RadioToday.co.uk: “There was unau­thor­ised activ­ity and beha­viour in the stu­dio which we take very ser­i­ously and we will be tak­ing the appro­pri­ate dis­cip­lin­ary action against the indi­vidual concerned.

“In addi­tion I will apo­lo­gise to the Jazz FM audi­ence at the begin­ning of next weeks programme.”

.mp3 clip

Source: Mirror.co.uk

The U. S. State of Geor­gia has a new Bill on the table, the “Right to Travel Act”.

Here’s a quick sum­mary for you…

From the Geor­gia Gen­eral Assembly website.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Right to Travel Act.”

SECTION 2.
The Gen­eral Assembly finds that:

(1)
Free people have a com­mon law and con­sti­tu­tional right to travel on the roads and high­ways that are provided by their gov­ern­ment for that pur­pose. Licens­ing of drivers can­not be required of free people because tak­ing on the restric­tions of a license requires the sur­render of an inali­en­able right;

(2)
In Eng­land in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Art­icle 42 of Magna Carta:
It shall be law­ful to any per­son, for the future, to go out of our king­dom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, sav­ing his alle­gi­ance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the com­mon good of the king­dom: except­ing pris­on­ers and out­laws, accord­ing to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Mer­chants who shall be treated as it is said above.

(3)
Where rights secured by the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States and the State of Geor­gia are involved, there can be no rule mak­ing or legis­la­tion that would abrog­ate these rights. The claim and exer­cise of a con­sti­tu­tional right can­not be con­ver­ted into a crime. There can be no sanc­tion or pen­alty imposed upon an indi­vidual because of this exer­cise of con­sti­tu­tional rights;

(4) Amer­ican cit­izens have the inali­en­able right to use the roads and high­ways unres­tric­ted in any man­ner so long as they are not dam­aging or viol­at­ing prop­erty or rights of oth­ers. The gov­ern­ment, by requir­ing the people to obtain drivers’ licenses, is restrict­ing, and there­fore viol­at­ing, the people’s com­mon law and con­sti­tu­tional right to travel;

(5)
In Sha­piro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Pot­ter Stew­art noted in a con­cur­ring opin­ion that the right to travel “is a right broadly assert­able against private inter­fer­ence as well as gov­ern­mental action. Like the right of association…it is a vir­tu­ally uncon­di­tional per­sonal right, guar­an­teed by the Con­sti­tu­tion to us all.” The Art­icles of Con­fed­er­a­tion had an expli­cit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fun­da­mental that the Framers thought it was unne­ces­sary to include it in the Con­sti­tu­tion or the Bill of Rights;

(6) The right to travel upon the pub­lic high­ways is not a mere priv­ilege which may be per­mit­ted or pro­hib­ited at will but the com­mon right which every cit­izen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pur­suit of hap­pi­ness. Under this con­sti­tu­tional guar­an­tee one may, there­fore, under nor­mal con­di­tions, travel at his or her inclin­a­tion along the pub­lic high­ways or in pub­lic places while con­duct­ing him­self or her­self in an orderly and decent man­ner; and

(7) Thus, the legis­lature does not have the power to abrog­ate the cit­izens’ right to travel upon the pub­lic roads by passing legis­la­tion for­cing the cit­izen to waive the right and con­vert that right into a privilege.

Con­tinue

Essen­tially what they’re say­ing, is that the act of driv­ing is a Right, not a privilege.

Being a “Bible Belt” State, I won­der if this is, some­how, a bib­lical statement?

In a coun­try in which some States allow driv­ing from as young as 15 (Geor­gia is 18), these being the States you want to avoid on a roadtrip, do you really want to take your chances with someone driv­ing with skills essen­tially untested bey­ond those of a 14(-17) yr-old?

Let’s not for­get, we’re deal­ing with automatic-biased, straight-road-driving, tanks here, com­manded by school-led instruct­ors without so much as a thought as to advanced driv­ing skills.

If you are not required to be licensed, there is surely no legally-enforceable way to ensure that you receive adequate train­ing (not cer­ti­fic­a­tion) of your abil­ity to handle a machine eas­ily cap­able of caus­ing untold amounts of dam­age and of killing scores of people and animals.

How­ever, with some thought, fur­ther ques­tions arise, accom­pan­ied by an array of pros and cons.

If driv­ing is a Right, thereby doing away with the licens­ing of drivers, is the licens­ing of vehicles (and that deriv­at­ive income) thus defunct?

Where will the money to main­tain the road infra­struc­ture come from?

Will vehicles still be required to be registered? This requires a ‘licens­ing’ authority.

How will offend­ers by caught; and pro­sec­uted, if there are no rules to be abided by, agreed to by the hold­ing of a driver’s license.

Will ‘Learners’ still exist?

If your health reaches a level unsuit­able for driv­ing, such as gradual-onset blind­ness, how will you be forced off of the road by authorities?

If driv­ing is a right, will cars be tested for road­wor­thi­ness, con­sid­er­ing that they are a requis­ite tool for the act of driving?

In addi­tion, we must surely pre­pared to cel­eb­rate the forth­com­ing and inev­it­able clean­ing of our oh-so-polluted genepool.

Lastly, and this is a per­sonal favour­ite, will the age-old argu­ment of roads for cars come to an end? “We pay license, so we can drive here!” is a favour­ite chant of the driver when faced with cyc­lists on the road. If this is what it takes to shut you up, I applaud this oth­er­wise ludicrous sentiment.

…and the hits keeeep on comin’!

Toyota RunX Rsi Lotus edi­tion R220 000, thats Two hun­dred and twenty thou­sand rand.Not Neg.Also will­ing to swap for C63 AMG with reas­on­able mileage.Car was fully impor­ted from Australia.Engine ser­viced by Boencha.Contucci suspension.Micro par­tice fil­tra­tion fuel injection.Ettonoich steer­ing control.Contronaught under­car drag reduction.True 157kw, 0–100 in 6,8 second dead.Tops out at end of clock.Car stock stand­ard from Lotus fact­ory. Looks liek stand­ard Rsi, but will give M3 a hel­lava fright.Very hard to part with,no joy riders or people that have no know­ledge on this edi­tion please. Rather research before you call.Only ser­i­ous EMAILS will be given fur­ther details.

Cap­tain, we’ve detec­ted large amounts of fail in this sector.

I don’t know, I’m rather intim­id­ated by this rare beast. How about you?

106 Kws of pure kit­chen appli­ance POWAH!

This thing must be SUPER rare! To ensure it doesn’t attract the ‘wrong’ type of atten­tion, he’s pur­pose­fully only shown us the really crappy-quality pho­tos of it, and no shots of the mega-exclusive Lotus badges.

Thanks to the “Con­tranaught” drag thinyma­jig, I bet that things pulls smoother than Ol’ Blue Eyes on an ice-rink wear­ing a satin mankini.

I was a bit wor­ried about my neigh­bour beat­ing me, but his ricer M-fwee does 0–100 km/h in 6.832, not “dead”, so you know I can whip him some and have plenty left over to charf the dol­lies with.

We can even be kewl like Ice, sport­ing big flames ‘n wild zorst-muzak right at the end of the clock. Chicks dig that.

With all of those lek­ker good­ies under there, Pimped ain’t gonna know what to do when I send the pho­tos in to ‘em.

I “liek” it a lot, but I can’t find nuffin on da Google about this dope ride, yo!

Be kewl man, be kewl, I’m just gath­er­ing up my “Two hun­dred and twenty thou­sand rand.”

I’m all out of C63 AMGs.

BARGAIN!

In line with the ‘Pack­aging’ post, here is another wonder…

NB! To sim­plify find­ing sim­ilar posts, I have begun tag­ging all posts relat­ing to dodgy ads with ‘Bad Ads’.

This chap is on the lookout for an external HDD, but not an empty one. It must come loaded with, pre­sum­ably pir­ated, music OR movies.

Cheeky, rebel­li­ous and greedy, all in one.

His mother must be so proud.

…I’d sug­gest he con­tact the seller of this HDD, but that appears to be one of those clunky rel­ics that still uses elec­tri­city. Poor soul.

If you’re try­ing to play coy and sly with your antique-selling by mar­ket­ing an item as never hav­ing been removed from its ori­ginal pack­aging, dis­turb­ing the ori­ginal pack­aging to remove it for a photo is pretty much put­ting that claim to bed, wouldn’t you say?

Look here! The Vir­gin Mary is on offer today, untouched, pure and chaste. Let me hold open these here flaps in order to show you.

In this overly-sensitive age we unfor­tu­nately found ourselves exist­ing in, the bane of Polit­ical Cor­rect­ness is right up there with Fem­in­ism for the title of Non­sense Ideas That Don’t Work.

Nobody wants to be around a bunch of hairy-legged extrem­ist women claim­ing that “Pussy Power” ‘won the West’, eschew­ing the bene­fits of ‘period poten­tial’ and con­fus­ing the hell out of all men as to whether we should or should not hold doors open for you. We like women.

My gripe today is with the eggshell-walking politically-observant pun­dits who choose to change the names of everything because per­son X in group Y, related to spe­cies Z *may* find it offens­ive as a res­ult of someone call­ing him or her, prob­ably quite rightly so at the time, an Idiot.

The world has changed races, entirely, without any­one even noti­cing it. Now that’s a remark­able feat, if ever.

Where once exis­ted “Whites”, “Blacks”, “Asi­ans”, “Col­oureds” and count­less oth­ers, we now have “Caucasi­ans”, or “Europeans”, “African-Americans”, “Smart People”, “Mixed-Race” and count­less others.

For one, we are prob­ably all a huge mix to begin with. It’s 2012; we’re animals…get the picture.

For two, there are more slurs per race than we could prob­ably get through, together, in a week. At one stage or another, I hated you, you hated me, we hated them, they hated us, every­body hated every­body. If you’ve never been the tar­get of a slur, you’re either blind and not in the vicin­ity of the slur­rer, mute or dis­trac­ted. Some­body some­where hates you. Get over it.

As gen­eric as the old titles were, the new ones are equally stu­pid, so put on your boots and crush a few ‘shells. I am not from Europe (I wish I was, but I’m not), so I’m not really a “European”, am I? My gov­ern­ment would like me to think so, but then, they’re also happy to take my taxes.

If I am to be con­sidered a “caucasian”, where does the Asian factor into it? There’s no record of an Euro-Asian romp any­where in my fam­ily tree.

Are you see­ing the stu­pid­ity here?

In my opin­ion, the “Black” com­munity, who some­times prefer to be referred to as “Black” and at oth­ers as “African-American” are the most daintly handled. If I look more like the back­ground of this ‘site and they look more like the col­our of the font you’re read­ing, surely it is reas­on­able to call each of us “White” or “Black”?

Just as I can­not really claim to be European, how can >Amer­ican< “Blacks” claim to be “African-American”?

For the record, kiss­ing the ter­minal floor when you land in African for the first time makes you look really, really stu­pid. We all laugh at you.

Some­times “polit­ical cor­rect­ness” back­fires, in a big, big way…

Case in point:

The Omaha sus­pen­sion of a white high-school stu­dent ori­gin­ally from South Africa is send­ing shock waves across Amer­ica as debate rages over who can claim rights to the term “African-American.”

South African nat­ive Tre­vor Richards sus­pen­ded over African-American campaign

The case cen­ters on Tre­vor Richards, a junior at West­side High School, who moved from Johan­nes­burg to Neb­raska six years ago.

Richards and his class­mates, 16-year-old twins Paul and Scott Rambo, were booted from classes last week after dis­trib­ut­ing posters tout­ing Tre­vor as a can­did­ate for West­side High’s “Dis­tin­guished African-American Stu­dent” award on Mar­tin Luther King Jr. Day.

“The posters were inten­ded to be satire on the term African-American,” Scott Rambo told the Omaha World-Herald.

Prin­cipal John Crook says the posters were disruptive.

“It was offens­ive to the indi­vidual being honored, to people who work here and to some stu­dents,” Crook told the paper. “My role is to make sure we have a safe envir­on­ment, phys­ic­ally and psy­cho­lo­gic­ally. We can’t allow that kind of thing to be hung up on our walls.”

Records from 2002–2003 indic­ate only 56 of Westside’s 1,632 stu­dents were black, and some in this year’s stu­dent body were reportedly upset by Richards’ poster.

Iron­ic­ally, the first two recip­i­ents of the stu­dent award were white.

“It was not inten­ded at the begin­ning to be one race only,” Clidie Cook, who helps organ­ize the annual event, told the World-Herald.

But West­side offi­cials pushed to change that, feel­ing the spirit of the honor meant giv­ing it to a black stu­dent, and by 2001, the min­is­terial alli­ance in charge spe­cified it was for blacks only.

Since the sus­pen­sions last week, the issue has been picked up by the Asso­ci­ated Press wire ser­vice, and has become a hot topic for colum­nists, talk radio and Inter­net messageboards.

“There is no room at the inn for the view­points of con­ser­vat­ives, liber­tari­ans, Chris­ti­ans, or con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists in the pub­lic indoc­trin­a­tion sys­tem,” says David Hunt­work, a con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ist in Fort Collins, Colo., who cri­ti­cized the squash­ing of “this gal­lant expres­sion of grass-roots activism.”

The ABC tele­vi­sion affil­i­ate in Omaha, KETV, has been swamped with com­ments on its Inter­net mes­sage­board.

Among the postings:

• I attend West­side and I am in sup­port for Tre­vor. Tre­vor is one of only maybe one or two other people that are actu­ally from Africa. Tre­vor is more of an African-American than any other “African-American” at West­side. It is also wrong that there is an award for only black stu­dents when every other award at West­side is for every­one and every­one has an equal chance to receive those awards if they try.
• If you mean black award, say black award. If you must be racist, that is.
• Why are white Amer­ic­ans con­stantly houn­ded, ridiculed and stripped of any racial iden­tity? Why is it OK for every­oneto be racist, except white Amer­ic­ans? … Can you ima­gine black stu­dents get­ting sus­pen­ded for join­ing the “black stu­dent union” or any other black group on any cam­pus, or work­place in Amer­ica? This racism against white Amer­ic­ans must stop.
• I think the admin­is­trat­ors should be fired. This is going too far. Let’s get a grip people! God this makes me sick. Fire those people!
• As a Cana­dian white male, I have worked with and befriended a few black people. I never once heard them refer them­selves as African-Canadians.
• [T]echnically, Tre­vor is most likely Afrikaans-African-American or Dutch-African-American con­sid­er­ing the white des­cend­ants of South Africa are from those European des­cents. So if you want to talk tech­nic­ally, he still is not eli­gible for this award. The truth is that every­one who is writ­ing these absurd com­ments knows what African-American means. It is a black per­son. The term given to this eth­nic group has changed over the dec­ades from Negroes to colored people to black and finally African-American. It is a descriptor.

The label “African-American” is not uni­ver­sally used by blacks today, as evinced by com­pan­ies and groups such as Black Enter­tain­ment Tele­vi­sion, the Con­gres­sional Black Caucus, and the National Asso­ci­ation for the Advance­ment of Colored People, bet­ter known as the NAACP.

A search of more than 200 U.S. news­pa­pers geared pre­dom­in­antly toward blacks finds at least 16 have the word “black” in the title, while only five have “African-American.”

As World­Net­Daily repor­ted last sum­mer, a mem­ber of Con­gress, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, ignited national con­tro­versy when she reportedly sought an affirmative-action plan of sorts for hur­ricane names.

“All racial groups should be rep­res­en­ted,” Lee said, accord­ing to the Hill. She hoped fed­eral weather offi­cials “would try to be inclus­ive of African-American names.”

By the defin­i­tion, young Tre­vor is indeed “African-American”, moreso than prob­ably all of those claim­ing to be at his school.

As if hav­ing an award to mel­low the tur­bu­lent spir­its of the artificially-aggrovated non-native minor­ity wasn’t enough, now there’s a fight over who’s pig­men­ted enough? Really?!

What a crock of shit.

Source: wnd.com