Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Siezing Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

I'm not liking any choices in the GOP today. Not that there is any in the Democrats party. 

Newt is doing his best to bring in controversy he doesn't need at the last minute. I've heard conjecture that he's trying to keep his name in the news with his courts argument, but I think more likely he's tossing grenades into kindergartens without thinking as is his normal method of politics. He has some real points if he'd just calm down. Andrew McCarthy points out where he's right. You should take a second to read that. Newt is getting bad press on this and he deserves it, but the issue really is that he's fouling the water on an issue that is fixable and which needs redress.
Steyn discusses him as well. I have to say that his statement on the joke that is the NH primary is spot on.
Instead, what’s left of Romney’s softening lead in the Granite State will vanish as legions of nominal “independents” flood the Republican primary to vote for the candidate they figure will be easiest to beat in the general — as happened in 1996, when more than a few of my liberal neighbors figured why waste your vote renominating Clinton when you can cross over, boost Pat Buchanan, and sabotage Bob Dole.
I used to support the NH first primary spot, but at this point the rules of the race have more "independents" disguising Democrats who are just salting the political grounds when they are allowed as an independent to change their affiliation at the polls and vote republican. (and yes I'm well aware that the independents who are republicans are doing the same thing.) The combination of the ability to change and the first primary make the NH voting pretty much a complete waste of time. (I live in NH and this pisses me off to no end.)

Cain melted down, Bachmann has crashed with her nutcase views on Gardisil and the like. Ron Paul has some good stances on the libertarian front, but his Blame America First and the rest of his foreign policy stances are just loony. I can't see Perry getting anywhere and if he does Obama will slaughter him in any debate they have. Whose left, oh Santorum and Huntsman. Yeah there's a pair of non-starters. I won't even discuss Mitt "miracle of Massachusetts" Romney.

What a chance the GOP had to actually win easily with a decent candidate and this pile of dung we're offered is just pathetic.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens RIP

Wasn't expecting this. Really sad. I didn't agree with a lot that Hitchens had to say, but he was completely honest in his assessments of many topics which made him refreshing in the world of opinion.

UPDATE: Hitchen's memorialized at Hot Air.

Hitchens being Hitchens, I wonder which he anticipated more eagerly — the end of the pain or finally knowing if he was right about you know what. I suspect he was right. I hope we’re both wrong.

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

LEO Tank Division

Why does this strike me as a particularly BAD idea?

Through its little-known “1033 program,” the Department of Defense gave away nearly $500 million worth of leftover military gear to law enforcement in fiscal year 2011 — a new record for the program and a dramatic rise over past years’ totals, including the $212 million in equipment distributed in 2010.

The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles and armored vehicles.
“The trend toward militarization was well under way before 9/11, but it’s the federal policy of making surplus military equipment available almost for free that has poured fuel on this fire,” Tim Lynch, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s project on criminal justice, told The Daily.

Thanks to it, cops in Cobb County, Ga. — one of the wealthiest and most educated counties in the U.S. — now have an amphibious tank. The sheriff of Richland County, S.C., proudly acquired a machine-gun-equipped armored personnel carrier that he nicknamed “The Peacemaker.”
 Military provisioning does NOT aid in protecting the public. It may aid in protecting the police in extremely rare instances and more often giving police the tools to violate citizen's safety and rights.

I'm just trying to imagine officer 5-cupsofCoffee driving that amphibious tank in to serve a warrant on some poor sucker who happens to own a couple of guns. No doubt the internal affairs will continue to find that amount force justified irrespective of how badly misused these armaments may be.

I would think this would require local government to stop this. Here in New England I'd think you'd be best served by requiring any military grade acquisitions be approved by a vote at a public meeting. Only level of control when the police single you out for offending their authority.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

EU Insanity

I don't get this.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.

“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.

I just can't see how they came to the conclusion that drinking doesn't help control dehydration. Just more stupidity brought to you by your local bureaucrat. And we want to move toward this why?

Sunday, September 11, 2011

9-11 and How We Have Gone Soft

Mark Steyn:

Waiting to be interviewed on the radio the other day, I found myself on hold listening to a public-service message exhorting listeners to go to and tell their fellow citizens how they would be observing the tenth anniversary of the, ah, “tragic events.” There followed a sound bite of a lady explaining that she would be paying tribute by going and cleaning up an area of the beach.

Great! Who could object to that? Anything else? Well, another lady pledged that she “will continue to discuss anti-bullying tactics with my grandson.”

Marvelous. Because studies show that many middle-school bullies graduate to hijacking passenger jets and flying them into tall buildings?

Go read the rest. The Sheep can wait.

Walid Phares describing what we've failed to do:

Here are some realities:

Afghanistan: Bringing down the Taliban regime was a smashing victory for the U.S., NATO and the Afghan people particularly for women and minorities.

Defending the country against the return of the jihadi militias and containing their incursions from inside Pakistan’s enclaves were the right strategic choices. But the U.S. and NATO failed to engage civil society groups, women, and secular wings to help launch a democratic revolution in the country instead of spending billions on asphalt, construction, and futile unproductive projects.

Al-Qaida: The long relentless campaign against the top entity of the jihadists bore results over 10 years. They lost the sole regime that backed them openly in Kabul, retreated to Pakistan, lost more of their commanders by the years, and eventually lost their leader Osama in 2011. But multiple other tentacles of the organization have grown bigger and longer in reach.

Still operating and killing in AFPAK, franchises opened in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, North Africa, and their cells hit in India, Russia, and Europe. Al-Qaida today is 10 times larger in global reach than the old one headed by bin Laden.

Al-Qaida: The long relentless campaign against the top entity of the jihadists bore results over 10 years. They lost the sole regime that backed them openly in Kabul, retreated to Pakistan, lost more of their commanders by the years, and eventually lost their leader Osama in 2011. But multiple other tentacles of the organization have grown bigger and longer in reach.

Still operating and killing in AFPAK, franchises opened in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, North Africa, and their cells hit in India, Russia, and Europe. Al-Qaida today is 10 times larger in global reach than the old one headed by bin Laden.

Homeland security: The terrorists who brought down the twin towers were foreign-born aliens who penetrated America’s defenses killing thousands. However their ideology penetrated America, producing homegrown cells. Moreover, a more lethal type is expanding within our borders: the jihadi lone wolves. No spectacular acts since 2001 but an army is brewing inside the country.

The U.S. is losing on all these fronts, and so are democracies and free people around the world. The real debate should be about what is being missed. We must focus on the enemy’s ideology.

Unfortunately over the past 10 years, Washington and its companions in Europe have lost the mother of all wars: the war of ideas. If American leadership persists in dodging the ideological battle with the jihadists, by 2020 not only we would have missed a precious opportunity with the Arab Spring but most likely lost a vital shot at bolstering national security.

This strikes me as accurate, but maybe a touch too pessimistic. Al Qaeda is very likely larger now. But I'd note that it is probably more nebulous with less high level knowledge or organizational abilities available. The Iraq and Afghan wars have definitely pulled some of the most effective teeth. No doubt there are more, but I find it likely the damage to their infrastructure, as nebulous as it was, was probably profound.

The Arab spring is also likely draining resources from Al Qaeda as groups in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood try to seize power. Should they succeed we will likely see an escalation of issues, though not through Al Qaeda. The more subtle attacks on our society by the likes of CAIR and the Islamic lobbyist structures will likely start causing damage beyond what they already have. The fact that the PC BS that the government has been playing with in the LEO is a telling sign that should really concern us all. TipToe around the Islamists while vilifying the citizenry is continuing.

In some ways, such as the Dept. of Homeland (in)Security and the TSA are erosion of freedom that are partial wins for the terrorists. The impact on the public is far from minor, and with the TSA trying to set themselves up for roaming scans of people in public places I see them becoming an extension of the problem as any government agency is. Is this a win for the Jihadi's? I'd say yes.

Don't forget those "National Security Letters" as well. No probable cause, no judicial oversight? What ever happened to the 4th amendment? From reports they sound as though they were highly abused for quite a few years and are finally tapering to a lower level of use. With no oversight and no review from a publicly available committee, it will be impossible to know if these were ever of any value or just how extensive the abuses were. Is this a win for the Jihadi's? I'd say yes.

Are we safer? I'd say yes. Have we lost something? Definitely.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Post Office Follies

The postal unions have layoff protections. WTF!? How in the hell do you run a business....Oh yeah.

Of course the unions are all against losing their collective bargaining benefit (not a right). And they seem to be upset that the postal service wants to be actually solvent. No surprises there.

I'd say the should cut back to 3 delivery days a week with weekend service centers. They can spread the delivery personnel to multiple routes spread to different days and keep them full time while reducing overall personnel required. Processing facilities would still require a higher level of manning, but that would even see reductions.

Insurance cuts/realignments would be wise, especially if they believe they can do it. Retirement funds would be the same, though you can't get around funding retirements in real time. No ponzi schemes with someone's benefits.

A little message to the unions, Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

Doctors, Guns, and Laws

Pretty moronic law, and an even more stupid response from the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Calling the law "an unprecedented intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," the authors write in the Journal of the American Medical Association that Florida set a dangerous precedent.
First, the law is a reaction to doctors making an unnecessary intrusion into patients lives. From personal experience a majority of doctors don't have a clue about firearms usage or the statistical risks associated with ownership. If they are querying about risky behavior, why don't they ask if you own a pool or a bath tub or ride motorcycles or sports cars? Behavior with risks come in multiple forms and asking just about firearm ownership is of no value unless you are asking about all risky behavior. Statistically gun ownership isn't nearly as hazardous as most of those things listed.

Of course, if you are a gun owner you should already know not to tell a doctor anything about your ownership and you should have made it clear to family that this is not a discussion to have with anyone beyond the immediate family.

Personally I've never been asked. But I do know that I will probably lie if I am asked and will probably cop an attitude if that is all they ask about.

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Where is the Special Proscutor?

Just saying this smells vile. You can't honestly say that this doesn't sound like a major work of CYA by these political appointees.

Thursday, June 09, 2011


I recently joined Facebook, and now I'm wondering if my original resistance wasn't justified. I originally didn't participate due to privacy issues, but the title article link has some better reasons overall.

That said, there is new concerns with "features" that Facebook is adding or has added. Like this:
After testing on a select group of US accounts (privacy laws aren’t so strict here), Facebook is officially rolling out a new feature that recognizes people’s faces and offers to tag them automatically in photos uploaded to the social network.

So, besides the fact that Google abandoned similar technology due to privacy concerns, why is this bad?

Well, let’s say your friend Becky adds a few photos to her “Druunnkkk!!1!” album and you’re seen making an ass of yourself in several of them. All Becky has to do is click “yes” – which is great for her since she doesn’t have to tag each individual picture of you – and every shot you’re in will be marked accordingly.

Also, and I’m not trying to get all “Big Brother” here, but Facebook is host to over 90 billion images with 200 million being uploaded every day! That’s one hell of a database. How soon until someone can just snap a picture on the street and suddenly know everything about you?

Lovely thought there. I'm thinking the idea that privacy is a dead issue is probably being brought to fruition by the likes of these guys, and the useful idiots that throw money at them.

Saturday, June 04, 2011



'That incident happened in the middle of my tour and after that I thought nobody can kill us now - when we met the enemy I wasn't scared.

'I thought the Taliban did not have the capacity to fight with us.'

Cpl Pun, an acting sergeant during his Afghan deployment, was on sentry duty at the time of the attack when he heard a clinking noise outside the small base.

At first he thought it might be a donkey or a cow, but when he went to investigate he found two insurgents digging a trench to lay an improvised explosive device (IED) at the checkpoint's front gate.

He realised that he was completely surrounded and that the Taliban were about to launch a well-planned attempt to overrun the compound.

The enemy opened fire from all sides, destroying the sentry position where the soldier had been on duty minutes before.

Defending the base from the roof, the Gurkha remained under continuous attack from rocket-propelled grenades and AK47s for more than a quarter of an hour.

Most of the militants were about 50ft away from him, but at one point he turned around to see a 'huge' Taliban fighter looming over him.

The soldier picked up his machine gun and fired a long burst at the man until he fell off the roof.

When another insurgent tried to climb up to his position, the Gurkha attempted to shoot him with his SA80 rifle. But it did not work, either because it had jammed or because the magazine was empty.

He first grabbed a sandbag but it had not been tied up and the contents fell to the floor.

Then he seized the metal tripod of his machine gun and threw it at the approaching Taliban militant, shouting in Nepali 'Marchu talai' ('I will kill you') and knocking him down.

Two insurgents were still attacking by the time the heroic Gurkha had used up all his ammunition, but he set off a Claymore mine to repel them.

At this point his company commander, Major Shaun Chandler, arrived at the checkpoint, slapped him on the back and asked if he was OK.

In total he fired off 250 general purpose machine gun rounds, 180 SA80 rounds, six phosphorous grenades, six normal grenades, five underslung grenade launcher rounds and one Claymore mine.

The only weapon he did not use was the traditional Kukri knife carried by Gurkhas because he did not have his with him at the time.

These guys always amaze me.

Friday, April 29, 2011

The Race

Krauthammer's odds. I came up with something pretty similar lately in an email conversation. I didn't put numbers though. Best part:
Donald Trump: He’s not a candidate, he’s a spectacle. He’s also not a conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton. The Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl.
Trump is a liability to the small government movements. I understand that he's liked for his willingness to confront Obama, but that isn't what we need for president. We need someone whose less self serving. I just don't trust Trump (Kelo is a litmus test he failed appallingly) and I don't expect he'll be much more than a metrocon at best.

Trump is calling him names, but that just validates Krauthammer in my view.

I like Pawlenty for what I have found, but Ryan would be my perfect candidate at this point.

Ron Paul? Not a chance. We don't need more of the Ross Perot nutcases running.

Palin is damaged goods and will never get fair press from the lame stream media.

Gingrich is smart, but I don't think he can play the political game at that level. We need leadership, not fights. Bolton falls in this category as well.

Romney is too liberal for my tastes and the fact that he approved RomneyCare in Massachusetts, not mention just having been governor of Massachusetts, is a finisher.

Cain? Yeah, I like what I've heard him say in just about every venue. From the Islamist issues to smaller government. I'd like to hear more though just so I know where he really is. I know he'd have the race card played against him, but that would just be the norm from the left.

Anyhow, read Krauthammer. He's looking at the smaller field, but he looks to be spot on.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Egypt Heading the Way of Iran?

I certainly hope Egypt doesn't turn into Obama's Iran, but as Barry Rubin discusses, he isn't doing much differently from what the Carter Administration did.
But Obama’s rhetoric – the exact opposite of what it was during the upheavals in Iran which he should have supported – seems dangerously reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 regarding Iran.

He has made it sound – by wording and nuance, if not by intention – that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government.
I really hope that doesn't become the case. Egypt does have a similar Islamist overtones in the Muslim Brotherhood. Andrew McCarthy discusses them here.

From what I'm seeing, there may not be a good path out of the problems that the US has supported for too long.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Imam Caught Entering from Mexico

Interesting. Especially since it doesn't seem to be getting much press time.

From the Daily Mail:

U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada - curled up in the boot.

Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.

Now why would you think he'd be coming into the country illegally? No doubt it is all an innocent error. Can't wait to see where this leads.

New Black Panther Party and the DOJ - Now the Facts

Jennifer Rubin goes into the details of the final report.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration's political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission's work.

That's just wonderful. Hope the GOP gets on this quickly. Maybe they can pound the MSM into actually reporting accurately on this. Well we can hope.

A lot more details at the title link.

While you're at WaPo read Krauthammer's latest.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

NH NEA - Educated Imbeciles

Fools in the Teachers union continue to miss the little fact that a criminal wouldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to the statehouse when legal carry was disallowed. Now they think it's a shooting gallery.
A New Hampshire teachers' union is defending its cancellation of a traditional Dr. Seuss reading at the State House, saying the recent removal of a ban on guns there raises safety concerns for participating fourth-graders.

The decision involves the Read Across America program that the National Education Association-NH has held with state senators for 12 years. It's a one-day event, unrelated to the several thousands of school children who visit the State House every year.

"We lock down schools if there is a gun within the neighborhood," NEA-NH President Rhonda Wesolowski said. "But to send them to a place where they specifically are allowed is a bit of a different story. We keep children, our most precious resource, safe in the school system. Why would we take them to a place where they say it's OK to have guns.

Wesolowski called it "ridiculous" that allowing guns in the State House is a potential learning opportunity.

"We understand what is out there in the real world," she said. "I'm sure the parents of Christina Taylor Green didn't think for a moment their child was in any danger when she went to see the congresswoman in Tucson."

Emphasis mine. Of course that's not true about the lock down. There is no such thing as a gun free school zone. I still find it fascinating that people like this choose a party line rather doing any investigation, or simple use of logic, to understand that laws don't stop criminals. They only stop law-abiding citizens.

Children live in a world where their parents and neighbors own guns. That doesn't make the non-school world a constant war zone. I love them dancing in the blood of the Tuscon shooting. Because god only knows that the NH statehouse is exactly the same as a safeway parking lot.

Not that they are playing political games:
"I am disappointed that the NEA is using New Hampshire fourth-graders as political pawns," he said. "I have participated in Read Across America for a number years when there was no gun ban in effect and they never raised the issue. This is clearly a political move."

Bragdon said there has been no change of rules regarding deadly weapons in the Senate Chamber. Unlike the House, which specified where and how weapons can be carried around Representatives Hall, the Senate does not address the issue in any way, he said.

The joint House-Senate Legislative Facilities Committee voted this month to repeal a year-long ban on weapons in buildings at the State House complex. The new policy leaves it to Senate and House sergeants-at-arms to enforce rules in their respective chamber. New House rules allow members and citizens to carry weapons anywhere in the State House. Except for law enforcement officers, weapons cannot be displayed in areas immediately adjacent to Representatives Hall. Senate rules are silent on the issue.

Interesting. Why are they protesting now if the ban was only in place a year and pretty much didn't change anything? Oh, because they are trying to enforce their distrust of responsible citizens who choose to protect themselves.

Personally, I say to hell with the reading program. If they want to hold it hostage to petty stupidities that have no relevance to an identical reality from only two years ago, so be it. But don't blame the legislature, the cause is their own.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Transparency - And a Tracking List

This is an interesting story from the AssPress. Interesting that it ever saw the light of day as far as I'm concerned. I'll give them the credit of putting it out there though. This should be noted as the action of the administration that was supposed to be the "most transparent evah!" From the looks of the report they are behaving as all the other administrations. Maybe worse, but that's hard to tell.

The Associated Press reported in July that for at least a year, Homeland Security had sidetracked hundreds of requests for federal records to top political advisers to the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano. The political appointees wanted information about those requesting the materials, and in some cases the release of documents considered politically sensitive was delayed, according to numerous e-mails that were obtained by the AP.

The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to ensure the quick public release of requested government documents without political consideration. Obama has said his administration would emphasize openness in providing requested federal records.

According to Issa's letter, Homeland Security's chief privacy officer and FOIA official told committee staff in September that political appointees were simply made aware of "significant and potentially controversial requests."

So what are the political advisers doing with all those names? And when the list is done, what is being done with it?

Guess I'm glad they are having congressional oversight on this. At least it will get some airing and the public will get to see more details of how Obama is running his administration. Not that I expect more from the MSM, but you can always hope.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Rep. Peter King - Stupid Legislation

I find this proposal bafflingly stupid. I'm still wondering who the security experts are that he spoke with. Do they honestly believe a 1000 ft. zone would stop anyone intent on murder? Or will this further exacerbate the harassment of lawfully acting citizens in public places? This is security theater at it's most pathetic.

I have to say I'm glad NRO did this article. It really leaves you wondering why they can't realize that making a law that will be difficult to enforce and difficult to interpret is worth the effort.

Here's a great start:
King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledges that his legislation, if it had been on the books, might not have prevented the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) and others. “Maybe not in this case, but in others it could be prevention,” he argues
Prevention? I find that highly unlikely. I can't see someone just randomly deciding to off a congresscritter because they just happen to be walking by with a gun. If there are such people I'm betting they are very rare. My bet is on the perp generally planning out the whole thing and knowingly ignoring all the laws against murder before they even think about any law about carrying a gun within 1000 ft of a politician.
What about a situation where a gun is fully concealed and law-enforcement officials are unable to spot anything suspicious? “In that case, then this wouldn’t work, but there can be cases where it will. Would it work in five percent of cases? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? I don’t know, but I do believe it would certainly work in some instances. I don’t see the downside.”
He doesn't see the downside. Obviously because he isn't thinking. How much will cops be forced on trying to detect concealed weapons rather than actually watching for odd behavior. Or, how many cops will be looking for the concealed carrier? What about events with no LEO involvement? What about the person who didn't know that a political master was in the area and came out of a shop with a gun, would they be breaking the law? Do concealed carry permit holders have to run searches to find where the politicos are and map ways around them to ensure they don't break the law? The point is this legislation would make criminals out of most law abiding citizens for just living normally.

This bit is the saddest:

In Tucson, onlooker Joe Zamudio was armed when he witnessed the developing scene in the parking lot. Zamudio, within seconds, had his hand on his gun, ready to shoot, in case Loughner was not subdued. Does King think citizens have the right to be armed, and respond, during unexpected violent outbursts in public?

“It’s more helpful if you had security in the area,” King replies. “If something did start, and police were firing, I would not want a civilian firing at the same time. When we balance the equities, I’m saying there is a greater good to be obtained by keeping weapons out of that thousand-foot zone.”

Ok, what if there aren't any police in the area? Not to mention I can't recall an instance where a CCW holder got into the fight when the police were involved. And I'm betting when it has occurred it has been extremely rare.

Then there is the enforcement angle.

Enforcement, King admits, would be tricky, so “reasonable exceptions” will be detailed in the legislative language. “I don’t think the federal government has the right to keep someone from bringing a gun to a state or local event,” he says. “We will have to make exceptions, for example, for storeowners who have guns in their store for protection; it’s their right to have them there.”

Another exception may be making the so-called ‘bubble’ around public officials only applicable at public events — enabling neighbors of public officials who may own firearms to not be bothered. “It would be primarily about public events,” King says. “Again, laws should be interpreted reasonably and we will write it to allow reasonable exceptions.”

You have to love that part. How complicated will the law be when you add all exceptions? What if you miss something reasonable? This bill will quickly turn into the law that forgot that people lead varied lives and just because a politico couldn't think of all exceptions that are reasonable for everyone's life doesn't mean that the law abiding citizen should now be the criminal.

Just a very clueless politician.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Guns in the MSM

Very funny piece trying to let the MSM talk intelligently about guns even when they are obviously wrong on the topic.
As a gun owner and hunter, and as someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking and writing about the legal and empirical debates that surround guns, I’m here to help. Here are some quick and easy tips for anti-gun columnists — if you follow them, you’ll still be wrong, but at least you won’t sound so ridiculous.
Read it. it's worth a laugh.

Revelations from Tuscon

Have to say that the killings themselves taught us that there needs to be change with how we deal with the mentally ill. Not sure myself what the solution is.

The reactions to the event taught us that the left is willing to go to total war to continue their power.

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.


The divide between this strain of the American left and its conservative opponents is about more than politics and policy. It goes back a long way, it is deep, and it will never be bridged. It is cultural, and it explains more than anything the "intensity" that exists now between these two competing camps. (The independent laments: "Can't we all just get along?" Answer: No.)

The Rosetta Stone that explains this tribal divide is Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter's classic 1964 essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Hofstadter's piece for Harper's may be unfamiliar to many now, but each writer at the opening of this column knows by rote what Hofstadter's essay taught generations of young, left-wing intellectuals about conservatism and the right.

After Hofstadter, the American right wasn't just wrong on policy. Its people were psychologically dangerous and undeserving of holding authority for any public purpose. By this mental geography, the John Birch Society and the tea party are cut from the same backwoods cloth.

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote. "In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority."

I think the left has missed the point for all their denigration of the tea parties. Calling them names and insulting them doesn't get you more votes, it gets you less. I doubt they will learn anything from the elections of 2010 and no doubt will not learn anything from their reactions to the events in Tuscon.