Two excellent points were made this morning on Bill Bennett’s radio show. I am paraphrasing.
One year ago the Supreme Court confirmed what should have been obvious: the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that actually means something. We still have a long way to go in rolling back the many unconstitutional restrictions on our gun rights and Heller will be an important piece of that. Keep fighting.
After a month and a half offline while recovering from surgery I am finally back. There is plenty to say about the state of the world and I certainly plan to speak up.
On a side note, the site appears to have been mercilessly spammed in my absence. I’ll need to remedy that.
The oh-so ethical and transparent Obama administration is refusing to release the photos from the recent Air Force One fly-by of Manhattan. Funny, the White House has no problems releasing photos of flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq. It also has no problems locating and releasing years-old photos of prisoner “abuse”.
The spokesman Robert Gibbs even had the gall to say “he didn’t know where to locate the photos taken from inside the plane”. Now that’s just plain insulting.
While I’m on the topic of newspapers and columnists, I’d like to propose an overdue change to the newspaper industry: let’s make them use citations. The status quo gives newspaper authors a fair amount of leeway in playing fast and loose with the facts or, probably more commonly, using dubious sources. Here’s an example from Paul Krugman:
Even with stringent limits, says the [previously named] M.I.T. group, Americans would consume only 2 percent less in 2050 than they would have in the absence of emission limits.
The phrase “would consume only 2 percent less in 2050″ is really odd. Given the notorious slipperiness of Krugman’s columns it’s a red flag. It could be right or it may be nutty.
The problem is we have no way of evaluating it because newspapers don’t print citations. The historical reason for that is both obvious and understandable: printed newspapers have limited space and printing citations for every article or commentary would cost them a lot of money. But there is no such limitation for the web-based versions of pieces.
One of the ways academics police themselves is by demanding proper citations. There is considerable doubt about the news industry’s ability to police itself and I think the lack of open, transparent citations is a contributor. The media likes to demand transparency from government. Well I think we should demand transparency from the media. Think of it as a Freedom of Information Ethic for the news business. And to be clear, I am not advocating that they identify confidential sources. I only have in mind the use of published, open materials.
There are times when news articles just leave me scratching my head. It’s not that I don’t understand what they say. It’s that I wonder sometimes whether columnists think through fully what they are writing. Paul Krugman provided my most recent cranial massage. He wrote:
But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment — investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.
Is he seriously saying that forcing companies to build big new, expensive industrial facilities will have no effect on prices? How many power companies would need to build just one to meet the emissions standards? You’d probably be looking at replacing or significantly remediating a large percentage of most power companies’ generating facilities. That’s before you even get into the reality of how long it takes to build just one of these because no one wants to live anywhere near them. They’d be lucky to have the first online in 10 years.
Then again the left has been telling us spending trillions of dollars on their pet projects won’t impact taxes. So in a sick way maybe he’s being consistent.
In addition to being a Civil War general, a U.S. president and someone in my family tree, Ulysses Grant was apparently a president of the National Rifle Association. I knew I liked him.
I try to limit my criticisms of the left to the issues. I don’t like to make personal attacks on them, even though they do not return the courtesy (who knew, for example, that Pat Toomey and John Boehner are troglodytes). Despite my general rule there are times when I have to wonder about the capabilities or motivations of the left. Here is an example from a recent Wall Street Journal piece.
[Rahm Emanuel] proceeded patiently, to explain. By revealing the memos, with their detailed information on those interrogation techniques (now banned), we had elevated our moral status in the eyes of the world. More important, we had improved our standing in the eyes of potential terrorists. This would undermine al Qaeda, Mr. Emanuel explained, because those interrogations of ours helped to enlist terrorists to their cause. All of which was why the publication of the memos — news of which would presumably touch the hearts of militants around the world — would make America safer.
I can think of only three possible descriptions for this statement: naive, dumb or ideologically anti-American. I think we can all agree Rahm Emanuel is not unintelligent.
So that leaves naive and ideologically anti-American as options. Most likely, the majority leftwing American cosmopolitans (to use Samuel Huntington’s term) don’t believe themselves to be anti-American. Presumably Rahm Emanuel thinks he’s acting in the best interests on the country. So I’ll scratch off ideological anti-Americanism from the list.
That leaves hapless naivety as the explanation for a statement like that. I simply see no evidence supporting Emanuel’s underlying assumptions about the world and our enemies’ motivations. For example, 9/11, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and much more happened before the enhanced interrogations, the War on Terror and President Bush. That just is not what motivates Islamist terrorists.
What happens if it turns out that the real motivating purpose behind Islamic terrorism is, as the terrorists themselves say, a fundamental attack on western civilization? If that’s the case, will putting down our spear be viewed as honor or weakness? Will it lead to world peace or chaos as every hostile group and regime moves to fight us because we appear weak and unwilling to fight them?
Unfortunately, I fear we’re going to find out the hard way as the newly empowered left bets our lives that “the world” thinks the way the left does.
Wayne LaPierre and Ed Rendell locked horns this weekend over reinstating the assault weapons ban. Rendell is a good debater but this one was no contest - LaPierre won easily. The facts are not with Fast Eddie on this one.
One thing that stuck out was the issue of “high capacity” magazines. LaPierre pointed out that there’s no difference between two 10 round magazines and three of any other. Rendell responded there was a big difference because a shooter would have to change magazines.
Yes, a shooter would have to change magazines. However (news flash for the gov!) - they are designed to be changed quickly. That’s the whole point of them. So unless you are prepared to argue against detachable magazines altogether, the argument doesn’t make sense.
But there’s another point to be made here as well. If you count your shots you can actually “combat swap” your magazines without any disruption at all. When the last round from the magazine has been chambered but before your fire again, you simply drop the magazine and slap a new one in. You can then fire without any disruption at all. The failure for Rendell’s argument is that it’s a lot easier to keep track of 10 rounds than 15 or 20 or 30. In other words, a 10 round magazine limit could actually help a shooter reload faster.
Here’s a great overview from Dave Hardy of key data that’s been assembled on post-Columbine mass shootings.
All of these underscore the fact that people who are armed and able to defend themselves are in an excellent position to stop these murderers in their tracks.
The EU is beginning to log essentially all electronic communications, including all email, web traffic and VOIP phone calls. I see nothing in the article that discusses safeguards for the information.
Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.
I’d really like to know about foreign communications or web visitors. If someone in the EU emails me or I visit an EU-based website, does pretty much anyone remotely associated any local, regional or national government anywhere in the EU have access to a log of it?
Will it cause anyone in our lapdog media a moment’s hesitation when praising Europe for its awesomeness? That’s asking too much. I’d settle for having them at least report it.
A depression is just a recession that the government tried to fix.
Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform
This is what multiculturalist asshats like Rowan Williams what to make cultural room for. That would be a young woman being held down and flogged in the streets of Pakistan in case you don’t have the stomach to watch.
And this and this and this are also Sharia, in case anyone thinks it can’t happen here.
Spend it in vegas or die paying taxes…[The estate tax gives us] a 0% tax on carousing, but 55% on thrift.
That’s Arthur Laffer in today’s Wall Street Journal. Well put.
Obama is trying to offer “honorable reconciliation” to the Taliban. The Taliban think that’s a pretty goofy idea. I hate to say it but I agree with the Taliban. The problem is that our current president, and too many of his fellow travelers on the left, simply misunderstand the world.
They seem to think we have no mortal enemies. All we have, according to their view, are adversarial relationships caused by a variety of geopolitical circumstances. They think with the right tweaks to the circumstances we could all be great pals.
That strikes me as a very dangerous bet. After all, with the right tweaks to the geopolitical situation our “adversaries” may turn out to indeed have been mortal enemies who are now empowered to hasten our demise.
Here’s a simple suggestion for our great thinkers on the left: if some says to you “I hate you and I’m going to kill you” it’s a good idea to take it seriously.
There were two pieces in the NY Times recently on completely unrelated topics that I think have a surprising connection. The first was by Nicholas Kristof and could have been titled “The Tyranny of Experts”. The key take-aways are that in general experts are not more successful in predicting outcomes than non-experts and the experts with the best track record tend to be the most centrist and least doctrinaire.
The other piece was on the legendary physicist Freeman Dyson. He is a global warming skeptic and that has, to say the least, not gone over well with many people who used to admire him. It is a remarkable fascinating story.
It further bolstered my believe that Global Warming and Environmentalism is a religion with a rather medieval theology. Those who deny The Truth are heretics who must be destroyed. Dyson, however, is a mild mannered elderly man whose place in academia and scientific history is assured. Thus Global Warming High Priest Jim Hansen is reduced to sputtering that Dyson
doesn’t know what he’s talking about
and
if he is going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework — which he obviously has not done on global warming.
It was at this point in the article that I thought back to the Kristof piece. We have the extreme expert, Jim Hansen, attacking the moderate expert Freeman Dyson. Jim Hansen strikes me as a NY Times reader. I wonder if he realized Kristof’s story could have been about him.
This gem was tucked away deep within the bowels of the Inquirer today. To summarize, the U.N. Human Rights Council has passed a resolution calling for countries around the world to prohibit criticism of religion, particularly Islam. This is a direct, frontal assault on human rights, modernity and western civilization. When will our so-called great thinkers and elites wake up from their intellectual malaise? Will it be too late when they do?
Vote on religion passed in U.N.
GENEVA, Switzerland - The United Nations’ top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslim nations yesterday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism.
The proposal put forward by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted for the resolution. The United States did not vote because it is not a member of the council.
Muslim nations argue that religions, particularly Islam, must be shielded from criticism in public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.
A quasi governmental group called the Missouri Information Analysis Center has published a list of warning signs that someone may be part of a militia.
Here are some highlights:
People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul…[and] Bob Barr.
Uh-oh.
Would this be an inopportune moment to admit I was a Paulestinian who eventually voted Libertarian?
Other potential signals of militia involvement, according to the report, are possession of the Gagsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag
Uh-oh.
or the widely available anti-income tax film “America: Freedom to Fascism”
Uh-oh.
Well, I guess it’s official: I’m a scary rightwing, tax hating, government fearing, revolutionary freak who’s just a bomb waiting to happen. The government said so, so it must be true right?
We often here anti-gun activists argue that should depend on the police to keep us safe. They also say if we have a specific security concern we should get a restraining order.
So how, then, do they respond to incidents like this? A woman was murdered by her estranged husband despite the fact that she had a restraining order. He later killed himself, of course.
The antis need to explain why they believe that someone willing to murder another person and commit suicide would be deterred by a piece of paper? Isn’t a law against murder, in essence, a restraining order issued by the legislative branch rather than the judiciary?
I had National People’s Radio on in the car (CO2 emitting SUV, actually) and my jaw dropped when I heard Dianne Feinstein say this in defense of earmarks (audio).
Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can’t help your state.
If that doesn’t condense so much of what just about everyone, regardless of party affiliation, despises about Washington politics, I don’t know what does.