Skip to main content

A call for help

I'd like to take a poll. There's a few people who come here and look and even if you never comment anywhere, please just answer this question for me real quick.

How many of you believed, before reading this news report, that when you dialed 911 that the police would come, even if you said nothing? You choke on a chicken bone, and as you turn blue you grab the phone, dial 911 and pass out with the reciever in your hand, and the police are going to show up. Right?

And if you don't speak English, you call 911, and the police come. Right?

And if your kid calls 911 the police are going to show up and as soon as they leave your kid is going to get the whuppin' of his or her life for calling 911 when it's not an emergency. Right?

And if a kid calls 911 and says that their mom passed out, send someone, the dispatcher is going to count it as a crank call because demands to get an adult on the phone aren't complied with. Right? Because the kid is mumbling. Right? And isn't hysterical. Right?

Reports are that the dispatcher won't loose her job because she's a good dispatcher and has been for years and years. She's NOT a good dispatcher. Because it's not her job to decide who really needs help and who doesn't. From the sounds of it, the poor boy's mother may have already been dead. We can hope so, or the dispatcher is going to have to live with knowing that she killed a lady. The boy did exactly what we teach our children to do.

I think I'm going to teach my children to scream like they're getting a limb torn off... just to be safe.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Probably a good precaution - the screaming like they're having a limb torn off thing, I mean. I didn't think about silence cueing 911 not to bother either. Good to know.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...