Tuesday, April 25, 2006

20060425 April 1924 Fire at Congoleum in Finksburg (Asbestos)

April 1924 Fire at Congoleum in Finksburg (Asbestos)

Today in Carroll County History, as reported in the April 25^th, 1924 Democratic Advocate:

"FIRE IN 4000 TONS OF RAGS.

FLAMES RAGE IN RAG STORAGE HOUSE AT CONGOLEUM PLANT ASBESTOS, FOR HOURS-WESTMINSTER FIREMEN DO GOOD WORK-ORIGIN OF FIRE UNKNOWN-LOSS $2500.

Fire originated in the rag house at the Congoleum Company, at Asbestos about midnight Sunday and burned fiercely for about 5 hours before being brought under control.

At 2:30 the Westminster Fire Company was called out to combat the flames. The fire company with the assistance of the plant men fought hard until 6:30 when the fire was brought under control. Reisterstown Fire Company was called about 5 a. m. and arrived in a short time.

While the men at the plant pulled the sheathing from around the building the two fire companies with four streams of water completely extinguished the fire by 10 o'clock. Tons of water was poured in on the burning bails or rags.

The building is built of all steel and is about 200 feet in length and contained 4,000 tons of rags, estimated to be about 225 carloads. The fire trucks were placed on a bridge across the Falls with the suckers placed in about 5 feet of water.

The two machines were pumping 1200 gallons of water a minute. The Congoleum Company has fire plugs and a sprinkling system throughout the entire plant which was used.

The fire was discovered by the night watchman who gave the alarm and summoned the employees in this city and around Finksburg. The loss has not been estimated but it will run up into several thousands of dollars, which is partly covered by insurance."

####

Monday, April 24, 2006

20060421 Support Your Local Michelle Malkin

Support Your Local Michelle Malkin

April 24, 2006

For the Who, What, Why, When, Where and How on this image… start your reading with: 'A PERSONAL NOTE' from Michelle Malkin.

It appears that the image credit belongs to: Frank J. at IMAO in a post dated

April 18, 2006, at 09:58 AM, “Support Your Local Malkin!”

And for even more background, this is Ms. Malkin’s post on April 19, 2006:

“

I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU

By Michelle Malkin · April 19, 2006 08:53 PM

You know who you all are.

And if you think I'm going to stop blogging/writing/making a living because you've plastered my family's private home address, phone numbers, and photos and maps of my neighborhood all over the Internet to further your manufactured outrage and pathetic coddling of a bunch of lying, anti-troops punks at UC Santa Cruz...

...you better think again.

***

Oh, and here's just a reminder of the kind of poor, "peaceful," innocent "children" at Santa Cruz engaged in throwing rocks, slashing tires, and running military recruiters off their campus:

Click here.

And here.

That's what this is all about--not me. Them.

***

Previous:

The moonbats strike back
More thuggery at Santa Cruz
Cut off tax money for UC Santa Cruz!
Seditious Santa Cruz vs. America
UC Santa Cruz hates our troops

”

For some context and balance – this is what her critics are saying. Decide for yourselves…

Michelle Malkin knows better than publishing a private person's information

By King Bastard | 4/19/2006 3:06 PM | 37 words

“

Add Comment | 1 Comments | Trackback URI | 0 Trackbacks

She published the information of a deleted press release which contained private citizens' phone numbers.

Michelle Malkin's home address:

(Ok, maybe we're not that mean)

Click here for Her Bastard of the Blogs card.

Download "Bastard of the Blogs" cards: David Winer, Michelle Malkin, Wil Wheaton, Daily Kos, Robert Scoble | Who's Next?

1 Comments | Add Comment

”

Hypocrisy, publicly available information and Michelle Malkin

http://www.thosebastards.com/trackback/2312/

By King Bastard | 4/20/2006 7:09 AM | 341 words

Add Comment | 0 Comments | Trackback URI | 0 Trackbacks

“

For a short period last night, we had her personal address on this site. After a second thought, we took it down. I think it was up for about an hour, which with our site traffic roughly translates to about three readers, give or take 20 readers.

We were wrong in doing so.

However...

It's not like we had to search long on the web to find this publically available information -- it took a bit of searching, but it was easy to find. Most people's personal information is pretty easy to find on the web. This is page that is still up on the web.

So in justifying the post, we're going to use the same reason Michelle Malkin uses:

I linked to that still has the SAW contact information publicly available to anyone...

She's gone all moonbat, saying she's not going to be intimidated. Of course, when she posts other people's information, she calls it justified and feels good about herself. When we do, she thinks we're intimidating her.

(I'd tell you where the page is at, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of not calling it out).

There are hordes of information. We make a big stink about Google CEO Eric Schmidt objecting to his personal information showing up on the web, even though it was Google's own search engine that made it possible (and his company profits off of the indexing of such information).

Regarding how this all started, Michelle Malkin went to a cached page, took a screenshot, and posted the image on her site because didn't like the politics of the people. Michelle's it's not your place to justify the disclosing of this information because you deemed that they were terrorizing people. That's an issue for the Santa Cruz police department to deal with, not your own brand of vigilante justice.

How vindictive. How un-professional. How Malkinesque.

If you're so bent of out of shape over the posting of personal information, why did you post their information, Michelle? How do you sleep at night knowing you're such a hypocrite and terrible person?

Download "Bastard of the Blogs" cards: David Winer, Michelle Malkin, Wil Wheaton, Daily Kos, Robert Scoble | Who's Next?

”

20060423 Don’t compare police to other city employees

Frederick FOP Lodge 91 Letter to the Frederick News-Post editor

Don't compare police to other city employees when it comes to their salary, benefits

Published on April 23, 2006

I would like to respond to recent comments made by Frederick Mayor Jeff Holtzinger about bargaining with the Fraternal Order of Police. As the president of the FOP representing the Frederick Police Department, neither I nor our organization agrees with recent comments.

First and foremost I want to state that we are currently bargaining with the city for a new contract. The current contract does expire on June 30 of this year. We are not going to bargain a new contract in the press. Whatever is said in negotiations stays in the room where it was spoken.

In his budget presented recently to the Frederick Board of Alderman, Mayor Holtzinger stated he wanted to bring the rest of the city employees up to the same level as the police employees. Mayor Holtzinger further stated the police were taken care of over the past several years, and he wants to take care of the rest of the city employees.

This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The FOP in its negotiations with the city year in and year out had to make concessions to obtain better benefits. I don't want to take anything away from the city employees for whom the mayor speaks. Every single one of them provides a needed service to maintain this city and should get treated fairly.

Yes the police employees did receive a 2 percent pay increase and a 2.5 percent COLA over the past three years -- but no one states what was given up in order to obtain that increase.

The mayor wants to compare the city employees to the police employees. It was agreed upon many years ago the police don't compare to the rest of the city employees. Why do you think collective bargaining was developed with the police and not the rest of the city staff?

Who works the hours the police work? Who gives up family outings regularly because during a lot of holidays leave is restricted due to anticipated problems? Who leaves for work every day of their careers with the very strong possibility it's the last time they may see their loved ones?

We all read the headlines daily. We have a record number of police currently on limited duty status due to job-related injuries, and the list grows at an alarming rate.

I have stated recently and will continue to state that all I want is to attract good qualified individuals to apply to the Frederick Police Department, and maintain them to complete their entire 22-year career here. We have lost many good police officers to competing agencies in this area. Let's take measures to stop that. With the increasing violence against police, we need to give individuals reasons to apply here and not look elsewhere.

Compare the police to other police when looking at salaries and benefit packages. Compare DPW workers to other DPW workers when comparing salaries and their benefits. Compare sanitation workers to other sanitation workers when comparing salaries and benefit packages.

No city employee should be compared to all other city employees. We all perform different work. Compensate us according to others who compare.

William Forder is president of FOP Lodge 91.