We are reeling from the horrific shooting in Newtown, CT, on the heels of the shooting in Aurora, CO. Both appear to have been committed by lunatics using firearms. The blood of the victims and heroes who defended them is still on the ground and the clamor has begun again to use these horrible tragedies as a pretense toward outlawing weapons. The press has led the way, as usual, in obscuring the questions and the solutions to benefit their political persuasions. If I could go back in time, my greatest wish would be to put good guys with guns in both of those locations to stop the bad guys with guns.
Though these acts are heart-rending in the loss of innocent lives and hero lives, I ask to be permitted to talk about the politics affected as both incidents have opened the question for a solution. Both locations were perfect gun control studies. In both locations, the school and the theater, no firearms were permitted. Sadly, it stopped the good guys, who locked their guns carefully in their cars or left them at home. The bad guys ignored the rules and carried in guns anyway. To pre-empt an obvious retort, I will add the lunatic who killed over 150 children and adults in Oklahoma in 1995 did not use a gun, though he might have. No, he took out more victims than both aforementioned incidents together. He used ammonia and fertilizer. A lunatic bent on killing will find a way to kill, even if we could somehow keep a choice weapon out of his hands. The sad truth is that we cannot dictate that everyone act human. We can only play by the realities of the world. If bad guys have any method of harm, then the good guys need to have a response. Taking away their firearms does not do that.
More to the point, giving in on our values as a nation to stop violence has never been an option for America.
In fact, many countries have laws against using incitement language. The people gather in the streets to protest the government policy, and they anger others and foment violent riots. They cause their like-minded partners to publish hateful stories in the newspapers that anger the population and incite them to violence. The press publishes slanted accounts of the facts, again inciting violence. Due to the particularly strong emotions that religion invokes, they often ordain through government an official religion, relegating all others to secondary status and outlawing others. Should we adopt their laws and methods?
We couldn't even if we wanted to. In our country, the first amendment to the constitution protects speech, protects the press, protects the right of petition and assembly, and of course, it protects the free practice of religion. But providing these rights has caused death, violence, and chaos, at various times in history. Nonetheless, the politicians in all parties have never seriously considered altering this amendment. Perhaps it is time to revisit it. Perhaps, we can no longer afford free speech, free religion, and free press. Perhaps we need to call constitutional conventions to begin the process of rewording the amendment to work for everyone, to stop the blood and the violence. Unthinkable, you say? Perhaps we should allow the government to quarter officials in the home of anyone suspicious by force, search anyone's home or property because we know they are hiding contraband. That would certainly make us safer. Perhaps we should allow the government to take people who people who are known to be bad and dangerous and throw them in jail without further ado. Why waste money and time with trials and lawyers?
And if you think that is all ridiculous, to revisit amendments 1.3.4 and 5, why is amendment 2 any different? All rights in a free society are risks that we take to live free of government intrusion and protect us from overly powerful government. There will always be bad people who want to hurt the innocent, and they will not abide by our laws. They may demonstrate against a video in Egypt and insist that we deny the right of free speech. They may insist that we jail Salman Rushdie without cause. They may even threaten us. Our government is sworn to protect the constitution and the people of our country from all enemies, external and internal. That goes for all constitutional rights, not just the ones that the party in power likes.
The best way to protect ourselves is to arm the good guys, and I hope these horrible acts by madmen inspire more people to train in the proper use of weapons, to arm themselves responsibly, to train thoroughly (a well regulated militia), and to make that statement that there will always be more good guys than bad guys, and that you cannot expect to take a firearm and do harm to the good guys with impunity. We need to end this threat. Taking away guns only increases it.
Thank you for indulging me in this political discussion. Perhaps it is my way of healing and dealing for myself. I wish I could express solidarity with the victims' families in a real, meaningful way, a wish for healing their hearts and minds, and there is no way to do so adequately. To all of you, I wish you any measure of comfort you can find in this unthinkable dark time.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Saudi King: There oughta be a Law!
Saudi king urges UN action against religious insults
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, seen here in August 2012,
demanded a UN resolution condemning insults on monotheistic religions
after a low-budget film produced in the US sparked deadly protests last
month.
"I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets," he said during a meeting at his palace with religious figures and heads of hajj delegations in the Mina valley where pilgrims were performing final rituals of hajj.
"It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets."
http://www.france24.com/en/20121027-saudi-king-urges-un-action-against-religious-insults
REALLY?
The UN should resolve to condemn ANY COUNTRY OR GROUP? Those who officially promote Holocaust denial? Those who promote "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Those who bash Jews and the existence of Jewish Israel as official policy? Those whose school textbooks officially promote anti-Semitism? Those who do not allow a person to enter the country based solely on the fact that the person is Jewish? The UN should be a whole lot lighter and have a whole lot fewer anti-Israel resolutions and votes without Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, (oh yeah, and) SAUDI ARABIA, the Emirates, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia etc. x 75. And now the NGO's. How about the entire Human Rights Council and every NGO involved in the UN sanctioned Durban Conference?
Is this the new world tactic? Whine about religious insults when you, yourself are among its biggest offenders? What is Arabic for Chutzpah????
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
President gets kerplunked
The last of the three debates is on foreign policy. I would start here because no one with any sort of sense would believe that the community rabble-rouser and academic would know more about improving the economy than the CEO of a business management corporation. But foreign policy is another matter.
First there was the President's concept that if we treated our enemies more nicely, then they would be nice in reciprocal fashion. Gee, why didn't the police try this with gangs? Then, there was the uber offensive statement that "the future must not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam." Not that it is bad in itself. It would be nice everyone were nice. But they are not. In fact, the future of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Tunisia, and every other country in the Arab Spring parade publishes official, government sponsored tirades against Jews and Israel that we are supposed to just accept. Heck, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other allied places, Jews are not even allowed to set foot in the country. That is their LAW! But the future not only belongs to them, but Jews must fund their hatred as well. I find that incredibly offensive.
Now we have the idiotic tag team comment in the second debate. It is not idiotic in the Biden "you voted for the Afghan and Iraq wars and I didn't" way, where it was absurdly easy to check and see that Biden did indeed vote for the wars. This was the President's contention that he indeed called the Benghazi attack a terrorist act, because he used the word "terrorism" (referring to 9/11) in speech that day. When he was kerplunked in the debate by his opponent, the moderator BACKED UP THE FALSE CLAIM, using her former credibility as a journalist. Doesn't anyone listen to Susan Rice, or the aptly named Jim Carney (as in carnival huckster)? Doesn't anyone watch President BHO on The View? Doesn't anyone listen to the Sec of State. All of them, within the first 9 days, referred to the spontaneous riots sparked by the video, not to terrorism as the cause. And yet, President Obama had the nerve to get up there and say that he had contended that all along. The President needs to hang his head in shame and apologize. If his foreign policy creds are as credible as that comment, if that is all he has to defend his policy, i.e. a bald-faced LIE, then he should not even show up next week.
First there was the President's concept that if we treated our enemies more nicely, then they would be nice in reciprocal fashion. Gee, why didn't the police try this with gangs? Then, there was the uber offensive statement that "the future must not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam." Not that it is bad in itself. It would be nice everyone were nice. But they are not. In fact, the future of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Tunisia, and every other country in the Arab Spring parade publishes official, government sponsored tirades against Jews and Israel that we are supposed to just accept. Heck, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other allied places, Jews are not even allowed to set foot in the country. That is their LAW! But the future not only belongs to them, but Jews must fund their hatred as well. I find that incredibly offensive.
Now we have the idiotic tag team comment in the second debate. It is not idiotic in the Biden "you voted for the Afghan and Iraq wars and I didn't" way, where it was absurdly easy to check and see that Biden did indeed vote for the wars. This was the President's contention that he indeed called the Benghazi attack a terrorist act, because he used the word "terrorism" (referring to 9/11) in speech that day. When he was kerplunked in the debate by his opponent, the moderator BACKED UP THE FALSE CLAIM, using her former credibility as a journalist. Doesn't anyone listen to Susan Rice, or the aptly named Jim Carney (as in carnival huckster)? Doesn't anyone watch President BHO on The View? Doesn't anyone listen to the Sec of State. All of them, within the first 9 days, referred to the spontaneous riots sparked by the video, not to terrorism as the cause. And yet, President Obama had the nerve to get up there and say that he had contended that all along. The President needs to hang his head in shame and apologize. If his foreign policy creds are as credible as that comment, if that is all he has to defend his policy, i.e. a bald-faced LIE, then he should not even show up next week.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Rebuttal to the SOU
The hapless Republicans, via Mitch Daniels, will give a rebuttal. The hapless Occupy-istas will give a rebuttal. Even Herman Cain will try. So, I will only hit a few highlights, bu the president seems ever his own greatest fan.
"The economy produced 3 million jobs this year."
Unemployment and inflation, the misery index, is sky high. Even if true, which it is not, it would be a blip on the ever downward spiral. Unemployment, never a real issue under four previous presidents, has never cracked 8 percent, has mostly hovered between 9 and 10. Why 8 percent? Because that is the number that the president himself set as the limit if we were to give him a stimulus package to spend as he pleased in 2009. This is not entirely the president's fault. But his response is. He has consistently been absent with ideas to recover the economy. His stimulus package did nothing. His best attempt was more of same, a jobs bill that amounted to the same solution that did not work in 2009. You remember, when he had his own flavor in both houses of congress, and could do as he pleased. His solution was to blame the other party for defeating a trimmed down version of the plan that he had already passed, and that had already failed. His justification? It would have been worse without the stimulus. That is a bit like saying that the parachute never opened, but it would have been worse without the parachute. Skydiving without a parachute was never an option. Doing nothing about the economy was never an option. Chutzpah, 99.44% pure.
He has never submitted his own budget. He never offered a comprehensive plan during the debt crisis. He merely blamed his opponents and ridiculed and vetoed their plan. He never said what he would accept. He merely threw out broad vague requirements, like not accepting any plan that did not raise taxes. Compare his response to his predecessors. They all submitted budgets. They all submitted positions for congress to debate. This president merely stayed out of it and yelled that somebody better do something.
Inflation, gone for the last 20 years, has arrived with a vengeance. The dollar is trashed. Gold and silver, hedges against a falling dollar, are at record highs, 300% plus, just as they were when Carter trashed our currency.
"Osama is no longer a threat. The Iraq war is over. Taliban is on the run. Etc."
Do you mean to "flaunt" your foreign policy achievements? Do you remember how you were going to win back allies in the Middle East through friendship? Do you remember how you were going to win over Iran by offering friendship, instead of "belligerence", to keep Iran from threatening us and the world. Under your careful leadership, we have gained a total of zero allies in the Middle east. We have however lost or severely degraded relationships with Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates. Our untrustworthy posture directly fed Turkey's decision in 2009 to attempt to join Iran by concocting the ruse of baiting the Israeli blockade of Gaza. We did little or nothing to stop them or even rebuke them. We actually supported the removal of an American ally, albeit a ruthless dictator, and replaced him with the Muslim brotherhood. They have sworn to undo the 1979 treaty and we have done zero to stop them. We helped them into power. We allowed them to break down the border with Gaza and open it to smuggling. We did nothing to stop the Iranians crossing the Suez canal. We also supported the overthrow of a contained dictator in Libya, and replaced him with anti US Muslim zealots. We allowed Lebanon to be inundated by Hizbollah and Syrian forces.
Under our careful containment, Iraq is in near anarchy. But the crown achievement, Iran is technically prepared and political driven to produce its own nuclear weapons. Its latest brazen threat is to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic, holding the world hostage. The US has made little convincing move toward defending the shipping. We have not made any clear statement to convince them that it would fail, nor have we built a large international alliance to keep the Strait open militarily. The Iranians are convinced they can beat us, because we have no resolve to defend our interests.
Israel has stuck with this administration to the end, only to finally lose faith as we are twiddling our thumbs while Iran grows strong. They and the Saudis have both explored "going it alone in Iran" if the US will not move on Iran. North Korea is unknown. We have made no effort to contain the new leader before or after the death of Kim Jung Il.
Your domestic policy, whether stewarded by Democrats in Congress or opposed by Republicans in congress, has been a disaster. Oil prices are sky high, almost double what they were in January of 2009. Prices are up more quickly and unemployment is the highest it has been since the Carter years. Your rudderless foreign policy has lost us allies, replacing them with Muslim extremists, won us no other allies, allowed Iran to become nuclear, led our desperate remaining allies to near panic, and allowed a brazen Iran to guide the world to the brink of war without fear.
If this were a report card, there is only one reason he would get an F. Because there is no G.
"The economy produced 3 million jobs this year."
Unemployment and inflation, the misery index, is sky high. Even if true, which it is not, it would be a blip on the ever downward spiral. Unemployment, never a real issue under four previous presidents, has never cracked 8 percent, has mostly hovered between 9 and 10. Why 8 percent? Because that is the number that the president himself set as the limit if we were to give him a stimulus package to spend as he pleased in 2009. This is not entirely the president's fault. But his response is. He has consistently been absent with ideas to recover the economy. His stimulus package did nothing. His best attempt was more of same, a jobs bill that amounted to the same solution that did not work in 2009. You remember, when he had his own flavor in both houses of congress, and could do as he pleased. His solution was to blame the other party for defeating a trimmed down version of the plan that he had already passed, and that had already failed. His justification? It would have been worse without the stimulus. That is a bit like saying that the parachute never opened, but it would have been worse without the parachute. Skydiving without a parachute was never an option. Doing nothing about the economy was never an option. Chutzpah, 99.44% pure.
He has never submitted his own budget. He never offered a comprehensive plan during the debt crisis. He merely blamed his opponents and ridiculed and vetoed their plan. He never said what he would accept. He merely threw out broad vague requirements, like not accepting any plan that did not raise taxes. Compare his response to his predecessors. They all submitted budgets. They all submitted positions for congress to debate. This president merely stayed out of it and yelled that somebody better do something.
Inflation, gone for the last 20 years, has arrived with a vengeance. The dollar is trashed. Gold and silver, hedges against a falling dollar, are at record highs, 300% plus, just as they were when Carter trashed our currency.
"Osama is no longer a threat. The Iraq war is over. Taliban is on the run. Etc."
Do you mean to "flaunt" your foreign policy achievements? Do you remember how you were going to win back allies in the Middle East through friendship? Do you remember how you were going to win over Iran by offering friendship, instead of "belligerence", to keep Iran from threatening us and the world. Under your careful leadership, we have gained a total of zero allies in the Middle east. We have however lost or severely degraded relationships with Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates. Our untrustworthy posture directly fed Turkey's decision in 2009 to attempt to join Iran by concocting the ruse of baiting the Israeli blockade of Gaza. We did little or nothing to stop them or even rebuke them. We actually supported the removal of an American ally, albeit a ruthless dictator, and replaced him with the Muslim brotherhood. They have sworn to undo the 1979 treaty and we have done zero to stop them. We helped them into power. We allowed them to break down the border with Gaza and open it to smuggling. We did nothing to stop the Iranians crossing the Suez canal. We also supported the overthrow of a contained dictator in Libya, and replaced him with anti US Muslim zealots. We allowed Lebanon to be inundated by Hizbollah and Syrian forces.
Under our careful containment, Iraq is in near anarchy. But the crown achievement, Iran is technically prepared and political driven to produce its own nuclear weapons. Its latest brazen threat is to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic, holding the world hostage. The US has made little convincing move toward defending the shipping. We have not made any clear statement to convince them that it would fail, nor have we built a large international alliance to keep the Strait open militarily. The Iranians are convinced they can beat us, because we have no resolve to defend our interests.
Israel has stuck with this administration to the end, only to finally lose faith as we are twiddling our thumbs while Iran grows strong. They and the Saudis have both explored "going it alone in Iran" if the US will not move on Iran. North Korea is unknown. We have made no effort to contain the new leader before or after the death of Kim Jung Il.
Your domestic policy, whether stewarded by Democrats in Congress or opposed by Republicans in congress, has been a disaster. Oil prices are sky high, almost double what they were in January of 2009. Prices are up more quickly and unemployment is the highest it has been since the Carter years. Your rudderless foreign policy has lost us allies, replacing them with Muslim extremists, won us no other allies, allowed Iran to become nuclear, led our desperate remaining allies to near panic, and allowed a brazen Iran to guide the world to the brink of war without fear.
If this were a report card, there is only one reason he would get an F. Because there is no G.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Sun says so, it must be true
This from a James Hirsen editorial, illustrating Obama's growing star power. It looks like Farrakhan attended the inauguration after all.
Quoth Hirsen:
"The celebrity mystique has even affected those who watch the skies for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. In a piece aptly titled “The Empire Strikes Barack,” the U.K. Sun reports that aliens in UFOs may have attended the Obama inauguration ceremony. Reportedly, a shadowy object streaked across the sky in CNN footage taken immediately before Obama’s inauguration speech. The object flew behind the Washington Monument and vanished into the clouds.
UFO expert Nick Pope said, “We know it is not an aircraft because a strict no-fly zone was imposed over the area. It seems to have been going a little bit too fast for any type of bird.”
Quoth Hirsen:
"The celebrity mystique has even affected those who watch the skies for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. In a piece aptly titled “The Empire Strikes Barack,” the U.K. Sun reports that aliens in UFOs may have attended the Obama inauguration ceremony. Reportedly, a shadowy object streaked across the sky in CNN footage taken immediately before Obama’s inauguration speech. The object flew behind the Washington Monument and vanished into the clouds.
UFO expert Nick Pope said, “We know it is not an aircraft because a strict no-fly zone was imposed over the area. It seems to have been going a little bit too fast for any type of bird.”
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Global Hysteria and Responsibility
The best argument that I have seen against radical "global warming" policy changes, is the positive argument proposed by Dr. Michael Crichten of Andromeda Strain fame.
Let's concede for argument's sake that man-made causes are aggravating global warming to a potentially dangerous level and that the world will undergo detrimental effects in several decades. Is there anyone who cannot imagine that we will live in a different world with different rules and priorities by then. does anyone imagine that technology will not progress sufficiently to make the unknowable and undoable of today cheap, easy or not worth doing in the future. Let's look back a few decades and see what has happened. Epidemic diseases polio and smallpox are now gone, non-issues. Airplanes make travel across the US and across the world fairly inexpensive and easy. People regularly live 20-30 years longer and they are healthier throughout. Smoking has been found to be dangerous and has reduced greatly as a common habit. Infections can now be treated. The human genome has been mapped. Space is reachable. Communication around the world is affordable and easy. Television, movies, image manipulation are at levels unimaginable in the 20s and 30's. E.g. in 1939, color was first introduced in the movies, and television made its first appearance at the world's fair exhibition in those years. This list could be very long.
In fact, is there anyone who would like to buy a computer now for a birthday present to give someone three years from now. What would cost thousands of dollars today will be inexpensive in 3 years and things that do not exist now will be available.
Is there anything in the realm of science and technology that Teddy Roosevelt could have done to help us with a problem that he had foreseen affecting our generation? How about Coolidge? Hoover? FDR? Billions to manage the polio and flu epidemics in the future? The answer is, not really. I imagine that in several decades the problem will be quantified and detected precisely, not just with innuendo, the main culprits being blamed today will no longer be in use in the same way, ways of dealing with the problem will develop using technology that we may not even know about yet. Certainly, anything that we can do today for billions of dollars that it would cost will be much less expensive and much more easily achievable. So, should we be irresponsible and leave this problem to our grandchildren? Or should we be responsible and and buy them a computer now for their needs in 80 years? It would seem that being irresponsible is the only responsible thing to do.
Let's concede for argument's sake that man-made causes are aggravating global warming to a potentially dangerous level and that the world will undergo detrimental effects in several decades. Is there anyone who cannot imagine that we will live in a different world with different rules and priorities by then. does anyone imagine that technology will not progress sufficiently to make the unknowable and undoable of today cheap, easy or not worth doing in the future. Let's look back a few decades and see what has happened. Epidemic diseases polio and smallpox are now gone, non-issues. Airplanes make travel across the US and across the world fairly inexpensive and easy. People regularly live 20-30 years longer and they are healthier throughout. Smoking has been found to be dangerous and has reduced greatly as a common habit. Infections can now be treated. The human genome has been mapped. Space is reachable. Communication around the world is affordable and easy. Television, movies, image manipulation are at levels unimaginable in the 20s and 30's. E.g. in 1939, color was first introduced in the movies, and television made its first appearance at the world's fair exhibition in those years. This list could be very long.
In fact, is there anyone who would like to buy a computer now for a birthday present to give someone three years from now. What would cost thousands of dollars today will be inexpensive in 3 years and things that do not exist now will be available.
Is there anything in the realm of science and technology that Teddy Roosevelt could have done to help us with a problem that he had foreseen affecting our generation? How about Coolidge? Hoover? FDR? Billions to manage the polio and flu epidemics in the future? The answer is, not really. I imagine that in several decades the problem will be quantified and detected precisely, not just with innuendo, the main culprits being blamed today will no longer be in use in the same way, ways of dealing with the problem will develop using technology that we may not even know about yet. Certainly, anything that we can do today for billions of dollars that it would cost will be much less expensive and much more easily achievable. So, should we be irresponsible and leave this problem to our grandchildren? Or should we be responsible and and buy them a computer now for their needs in 80 years? It would seem that being irresponsible is the only responsible thing to do.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Business as usual
Well, BBC displays, complete with videos, articles about how the poor Palestinians are rebuilding their tunnels and getting back to the important work of arms smuggling. Meanwhile, the UN feels it must investigate the Israeli attacks to find "war crimes". Never mind videos showing Hamas using children as human shields. We must find why children were killed. Never mind the missile trail shown coming from a UN building. We must find why the bulidng was bombed. And when smugglers go right past baby blue troops ... Israel, why on earth do you still belong to the UN?
Update: On and on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_children_of_war
About how Gaza's children have been scarred by "Israel's war"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
About Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes for unintentional civilian deaths. I assume that Hamas leaders will also be accused of war crimes for intentionally using children as human shields (caught on video), targeting civilians (by their own proud rhetoric) and firing from dense civilian areas (also caught on video) and "non-combatant (read: UN)" buildings. I'll hold my breath ... Hurry up guys, I'm turning blue ... Crickets.
Update: On and on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_children_of_war
About how Gaza's children have been scarred by "Israel's war"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
About Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes for unintentional civilian deaths. I assume that Hamas leaders will also be accused of war crimes for intentionally using children as human shields (caught on video), targeting civilians (by their own proud rhetoric) and firing from dense civilian areas (also caught on video) and "non-combatant (read: UN)" buildings. I'll hold my breath ... Hurry up guys, I'm turning blue ... Crickets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)