The Smallest Minority |
|||
|
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. - MaxedOutMama I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. Kim du Toit
|
. . . and so are you Wahabism Delenda Est      Hey, FEC!  BITE ME! I'm a Member of the McCain-Feingold INSURRECTION!    "Jeez, Kevin... calling you an asshole would be a huge understatement, wouldn't it?" -Jack Cluth, The People's Republic of Seabrook (Coming from you, Jack, it's an honor.)  email: gunrightsAT comcastDOTnet INVITATION: If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of your position on the right to arms, and if you live near or visit the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, I invite you to go shooting for a day. I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets, safety equipment, range fees and instruction. All you have to do is show up. 6 Takers To Date DO YOU LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE and want to try shooting? Click HERE  Proud Gun-blogging member of the Pajamahadeen since May, 2003!
Debates: "The Commentary" A OLD discussion on gun control between me and an Irishman living in London Start here. UPDATED! Now with archive! Post #1 by Alex, a Guest A multi-post discussion hosted here at TSM My short exchange with Professor Saul Cornell of the Second Amendment Research Center Best Posts: The "Rights" Discussion: What is a "Right?" What is a "Right"? Revisited, Part I Part II Rights, Morality, Idealism & Pragmatism, Part I Part II Part III Part IV The United Federation of Planets Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? Part I & Part II 1975 in Washington, D.C. vs. 2004 in Canton, Ohio Go Ahead, Rely on the Government for Your Protection The Other Side Liberal vs. Conservative: Both are Necessary The Mystery of Government The Blog that Ate Poughkeepsie Updated and restated as: Of Laws and Sausages Militias A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once The George Orwell Daycare Center This is NOT What I Wanted to Read TRUST The Lying "News" Media, Pt. II Say WHAT? Bias? What Bias? Agenda? What Agenda? The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation Let's See if I Can "Germinate an Intelligent Thought" Here The ACLU Hasn't Changed its Tune They Never EVER Stop It is Not the Business of Government Five Reasons Why It ISN'T They Keep Making Better Fools Five Month Investigation, 10 Tracer Rounds, Two Felony Convictions That Sumbitch Ain't been BORN! On Guillotines and Gibbets England Slides Further Towards Bondage Pressing the "RESET" Button Freedom's Just Another Word for Nothin' Left To Lose A Terrible Resolve The Courts Will Not Save Us Trilogy: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions "Game Over, Man. Game Over." An Important Question And the denouement: Hudson Was Wrong The Dangerous Victims Trilogy: "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can" Violence and the Social Contract Governments, Criminals, and Dangerous Victims In the same vein: Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them The True Believers Trilogy: True Believers March of the Lemmings Reasonable People Also in the same vein: Tough History Coming The Culture Trilogy Culture Hubris Weltanschauung And its follow-on: In Re: Culture Technical Dissertations Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (And Won't) Work Spin, Spin, Spin Speaking of Teddy Kennedy... This is the Kind of Thing That REALLY IRRITATES ME Questions from the Audience?
BLOGROLL:
PROTESTWARRIOR Some people who are taking the fight to the Left. And some GREAT T-shirts, too. DAILY READS I need a longer day! Day by Day InstaPundit Lileks' The Bleat Mostly Cajun View from the Porch Of Arms and the Law TFS Magnum Ravenwood's Universe Irons in the Fire Say Uncle The Adventures of Roberta X TRUE EXCELLENCE American Digest The Belmont Club Boobs, Injuries, and Dr. Pepper The Volokh Conspiracy Michael Yon Varifrank Eject!Eject!Eject! Eternity Road Oleg Volk ON INDEFINITE HIATUS USS Clueless The Safety Valve Ipse Dixit The Lopsided Poopdeck Acidman (RIP) Skywritings Publicola D.C. Thorton Kim du Toit Personal Effects Smoke on the Water OTHER GUN/RIGHTS BLOGS Airborne Combat Engineer AlphaPatriot Alphecca American Dinosaur A Day in the Life of an Ambulance Driver The Anarchangel Mrs. Anarchangel The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Argghhh! The Bitch Girls Boots and Sabers The Breda Fallacy Gun Nuts Media Carnaby Fudge Clayton Cramer Cogito Ergo Geek Countertop Chronicles Cowboy Blob Critical Mastiff Cryptic Subterranean Found: One Troll FreedomSight From the Heartland Fun Turns to Tragedy!!! The Geek with a .45 Gunwatch Heartless Libertarian Hecate's Crossroad Hell in a Handbasket Individ Justin Buist's Blog The LawDog Files Lead and Gold Les Jones Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast Mad Ogre The Michael Bane Blog Moral Flexibility Mr. Completely Murdoc Online The Munchkin Wrangler Ninth Stage No Looking Backwards No Quarters Oscar Poppa Outrageous Malfunction Pass the ammo Posse Incitatus Random Nuclear Strikes Reasonablenut Resistance is Futile! Sandcastles and Cubicles SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse Snowflakes in Hell Surly Curmudgeon Texican Tattler The Ten Ring South Park Pundit Triggerfinger The View From North Central Idaho Vox The War on Guns Weck Up To Thees! Wince and Nod Xavier Thoughts .45 Caliber Justice BLOGGERS I'VE MET A Keyboard and a .45  
|
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 ANOTHER Hillary Joke Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore were in an airplane crash. They're up in heaven, and God's sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Al first. "Al, what do you believe in?" Al replies, "Well, I believe I won that election, but that it was your will that I did not serve. And I've come to understand that now." God thinks for a second and says "Okay, very good. Come and sit at my left." God then addresses Bill. "Bill, what do you believe in?" Bill replies, "I believe in forgiveness. I've sinned, but I've never held a grudge against my fellow man, and I hope no grudges are held against me." God thinks for a second and says "You are forgiven, my son. Come and sit at my right." God then addresses Hillary. "Hillary, what do you believe in?" "I believe you're in my chair," she says. | You Go Girl! (Is that sexist?) Beth Donovan (She Who Will Be Obeyed, wife of John of Argghhhh!) has an OUTSTANDING post up of her story of when she bitch-slapped (sexist?) an idiot Englishman. Too rich. | Hi There! or (Is My Tinfoil Hat on Straight?) I see that I've received another visit from the Department of Justice servers:
Anyway, welcome! And feel free to browse around. Hope you find it informative and fascinating! UPDATE, 1/20/04: Once again the Geek with a .45 comes up with an outstanding post on this topic. I get a lot of traffic from .mil, .gov, and .us too, not just usdoj. | Oh, and He Came in THIRD! This morning Drudge covers Dr. Dean's, um..., ah..., excessive reaction to his loss in the Iowa Caucus. My favorite political cartoonist Mike Ramirez of the LA Times commented on the candidate's anger last week though:
New Hampshire is next. Should be interesting. UPDATE: How appropriate! Michele of A Small Victory comments on Dean's decline, and uses lyrics of popular songs - one of which is a favorite of mine, Billy Joel's Angry Young Man: There's a place in the world for the angry young man With his working class ties and his radical plans He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl, He's always at home with his back to the wall. And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost, And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross- And he likes to be known as the angry young man. Ayup. | Monday, January 19, 2004 I. Will. Be. Damned. Via Instapundit (as if you don't read him, but you do read me): I NEVER thought I'd give Bill Clinton a standing ovation. But last week in Qatar I did just that.Read the whole thing. I wondered why we'd heard so very little out of him recently. He's apparently not toeing the "QUAGMIRE!" line. | Failure of the Feminists Apparently, this week is feminism week. (Last week was homosexualism week.) Who knew? Last Thursday the local lefty rag the Tucson Weekly hit the stands (it's free, and worth every penny). I read it occasionally to keep an eye on the I just got my first rejection letter *sob*. I have gotten three letters-to-the-editor published there before, but this one required a more thorough job. Right after I fired off my missive, I found this piece on the Curmudgeon's Corner, The Feminine Mistake, and thought "Great minds...." I then ran across another feminism post by some big-name blogger, but I've lost the link. Anyway, here's my (regrettably rejected) response to Ms. Tuttle's philippic: There are None so Blind…UPDATE, 1/20/04: See? I told you it was Feminist Week. Meryl Yourish responds to a Daniel Pipes piece on feminism and muslim headwear for women. It's good to be on the leading edge of a wave... UPDATE, 1/22/03: Another related link, this one from ifeminists.net contributor Carey Roberts, entitled: When Family Dissolution Becomes the Law of the Land. Money quote Fem-socialists, hell-bent on achieving a genderless society, are now scheming to repeat the same disastrous experiment in Western society. Naturally, they are hoping that you not hear the story of family destruction in Soviet Russia.My comment about identically-dressed drones working in collectives was right on the mark, it seems. (Via Ipse Dixit.) | Sunday, January 18, 2004 But You WILL See Things Like THIS in the National Media Four people, including toddler, fatally shot in Indiana homeYes, this was a horrible crime. Yes, it's most probably national news because of the age of the youngest victim. However, it illustrates something that the anti-gun forces never really seem to want to dwell on: the overwhelming majority of murderers aren't law-abiding citizens one minute, and slavering killers the next. And their victims often have long criminal records as well. Murder in this country is tremendously high, without question, but the "gun "But wait!" cry the anti's, "That means you don't need all those guns to protect yourself! So, HAH!" We're still the victims of burglary, robbery, carjackings, rape. Just because our risk is low, does not make it non-existent. Yet the efforts of the anti-gunners only work to disarm us. As England has proven, disarming the general populace has not stopped the criminally inclined from acquiring weapons up to and including machineguns and hand-grenades, and we've got a large population of the criminally inclined. Are incidents of armed self-defense rare? Statistical aberrations? John Lott says two million people a year use a firearm to defend themselves against a human or an animal attacker. You can take Mr. Lott's conclusions with a grain of salt (I do), but even at the rock-bottom absolute minimum estimate of 64,000 annual defensive gun uses, that's 175 a day - and that was only through 1990 - before Florida began the avalanche of states that have adopted "shall-issue" concealed carry. (Edit: Florida's shall-issue law passed in 1987. The next state to pass it was Virginia in 1988, but modifications of the law continued through 1992) And who would "gun control" disarm? The people who are willing to obey the law, even if it puts them at risk, like the eight victims of this New York City diner shooting, or the victim of this gang rape. I'm sorry these people died, especially the infant, but the gun was not the cause, and "gun control" would not have saved them. And we will continue to see incidents like this one in the national news while incidents like the one below will never get beyond the local fishwrap. UPDATE, 1/21/04: I looked for this map, but couldn't find it. Thanks to Ravenwood, here it is - the animated Right-to-Carry map, 1986-2004. | Quick! Before they Figure Out What Hit 'Em! Which, with Kucinich supporters might be next year, but Publicola has a highly amusing post with links to a clueless Kucinich supporter's web page. Go read, before they change the pictures. | Saturday, January 17, 2004 The Mechanisms of Oppression The Geek with a .45 has a must-read post up entitled The Surreality of It All.... A taste: We, who studied the shape and form of the machines of freedom and oppression, have looked around us, and are utterly dumbfounded by what we see.If you don't read anything else today, read this. And I just corrected a terrible oversight. The Geek is now on my blogroll. My abject apoligies for not doing this much, much sooner. | Friday, January 16, 2004 But This Never Happens, or News the Networks Never Report From Keepandbeararms.com, dateline McAlester Oklahoma (a shall-issue CCW state): Combs Gets His ManPriority #1 - PAY ATTENTION Already fed up after previous break-ins at the store, Combs swung his pickup behind the other driver. He tried to call 911, but wasn't sure if there was a link to Longtown so he wasn't surprised when that didn't work.He attempted to contact the police but was unsuccessful. HAD he contacted police, the response time would probably have been several minutes, as this was apparently a rural area. As the driver in front of him started to pick up speed, Combs threw the phone in his pickup seat, pulled into the passing lane and grabbed a pistol he carried with him.Note that Mr. Combs did not let the evil brain-melting rays from his handgun cause him to gun down the man, woman and boy. Nobody was shot. Nobody died. Mr. Combs performed his civilian duty to stop a crime in progress. The other driver tried to negotiate, according to Combs.Once again, Mr. Combs neither injured nor killed anyone. His handgun is obviously defective. Combs called the Pittsburg County Sheriff's Department. He said Deputy Dave Grider, who was in the area, made it to the scene in a few minutes.Good thing. Though I imagine that when you reach the police and tell them "I'm holding a guy at gunpoint!" they tend to move just a bit faster than if you tell them "He's driving away with my trailer!" Grider arrested the other driver, identified as Everett Whittaker, 33, of Pryor, who has been charged with grand larceny and second-degree burglary.1 Alert, prepared citizen + 1 handgun = 1 crime-in-progress stopped + 1 multiple offender captured + $75k in stolen property recovered. Good job, Mr. Combs. Combs and others are now thinking of beefing up a neighborhood watch program in Longtown.And, I'd imagine, more than a few of the members will have firearms. But, we're told, guns are useless in the hands of citizens. We should give them up and instead rely on the State for our protection. This kind of incident never happens, or we'd hear about it on the nightly news. | Thursday, January 15, 2004 SWEET FREAKIN' JEEBUS! Via Keepandbeararms.com comes this LA Times op-ed in approval of guns! (Registration required, use Newslinks for both user and password. And captialize the "N".) But I'm going to quote it and comment throughout: Skeptic Gives Guns a ShotYes, it does. And author Diane Wagman illustrates this beautifully. Continuing: Guns are bad. All my life, it's been that simple. At my son's preschool, if a child pointed a banana and said "bang," he was admonished to "use the banana in a happier way." As far as I was concerned, the 2nd Amendment gave us the right to protect ourselves against invading armies, not the right to buy a gun and keep it under our beds.Point 1: She bought the knuckle-dragging, single-digit IQ'd racist white male stereotype the anti-gun forces have been selling for decades, hook, line and sinker. The man behind the counter was as pleasant as a grandfather from Central Casting. "What would it take for me to buy a gun?" I asked him. He explained the California laws, some of the most stringent in the country. I would have to wait 10 days ? the "cooling off" period. There would be federal and local background checks. I'd have to take a safety class. I'd have to buy a childproof lock. I couldn't purchase an assault weapon. I couldn't buy more than one handgun per month. Of course, he said, if I didn't want to wait, I could drive 10 minutes and buy an Uzi illegally out of someone's car.Thank you, thank you, thank you sir. And thank you, Ms. Wagman, for repeating it. When my guide arrived, he gave me a choice of handguns. I went with the .357 magnum - I recognized the name - and a traditional target with a red bull's-eye. I couldn't imagine shooting at one shaped like a man.Point 2: The only experience most people - especially most anti-gun people - have with firearms is in the popular media. And they are horribly, horribly misinformed because that source never gets it right. I occasionally hit the target, but I also managed to obliterate the metal hanger that held it.Point 3: Shooting is fun, and anti-gun people always find this amazing. Or fear it as a corrupting influence on "right-thinking" people. Later, I was surprised to discover that some of my closest friends owned guns. People I never would have suspected confessed that their guns made them feel protected.Point 4: Many, many people own guns. Far more than anti-gunners want to admit to themselves. After all, if the UN estimate is correct, there's almost a 1:1 parity of firearms to population in this country, and that doesn't mean 10% of the population owns ten guns each. (The pikers.) Still, most of my friends thought handguns should be outlawed, completely, in every circumstance.Point 5: Yet we're told constantly by the organized anti-gun forces that they're not interested in banning guns, only in regulating them. They're only interested in gun safety. And they can't imagine why we're so paranoid as to think that the ultimate motive is the disarmament of the American public, "completely, in every circumstance." We have to be brainwashed by the extremist NRA. I no longer was so sure. I did some research - there are countless testimonials about guns saving someone's life. I looked into shooting as a sport. I spoke to a woman who had found a wounded deer and shot it, ending its agony. I changed my mind: Guns aren't bad.Point 6: If you actually look at the facts with a fair, open mind, this is the conclusion any reasonable person will come to. And I applaud Ms. Wagman for making the effort. Which leaves gun violence. At least in California, we don't need more laws - we just need to enforce the ones we have. What else?Here Ms. Wagman and I disagree - I don't think California needs most of the laws it already has, but she's new at this, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. The answer has to be education: teaching people to deal with anger, to solve problems, offering them brighter futures, but also Gun 101. Maybe if teenagers were given computer-generated pictures of their own bodies, post-gunshot wounds, it would help them understand the enormity of firing a weapon. Maybe if everyone spent an afternoon at the shooting range, forced to follow the rules, they would respect the power of a gun.Point 7: Except that the anti-gun forces have done everything they can to ensure that the only exposure most kids from the cradle have to firearms is through the media that never gets it right. (See the preschool banana incident above) Or unsupervised; in criminal activity or in "playing" with the guns that she didn't know that people like her friends owned. Yet these very same organizations are flying behind a banner of "gun safety." The media teaches that either you're shot dead, or "it's only a (painless) flesh wound." They're taught that guns have incredible, attractive, nearly magical powers - and that they're so evil they should never be touched. But they're never taught the reality. After all, if they're exposed to the truth they might become knuckle-dragging, single-digit IQ'd racists. You know: gun-nuts. The anti-gun forces aren't interested in "safety with guns" but "safety from guns." Now she sees, even if dimly, that down this path lies disaster. I confess, I don't know exactly how to solve the problem, but at least now I know I don't know. Firing guns as a sport is great fun. Having a gun because it makes you feel safer seems understandable. Changing the way people behave? If you thought gun control was a distant dream - it could take centuries.That's the first step - admitting ignorance. Changing the way people behave? It only took us a few decades to get to where we are now, but... Meanwhile, my 15-year-old has asked me to take him shooting. And I've agreed.Ms. Wagman's behavior has already changed, and for the better. One at a time... And a reminder: Don't forget my invitation over there on the left side of the page. | Well, if "Congress Shall Make No Law..." Doesn't Mean What it Says, Then yesterday's District Court Decison on DC's handgun ban is no surprise. (T)he Court notes that even if it could conclude that the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, plaintiff Hailes would nonetheless be unable to assert that she has a right to possess her firearm in her residence in the manner in which she desires (i.e., assembled and without a trigger lock) because she has failed to assert any form of association with a militia. See Silveira, 312 F.3d at 1060 (describing the school of thought that limits the right to bear arms as conditioned on membership in a militia as the “limited individual rights” model); Emerson, 270 F.3d at 219 (describing this school of thought as the “sophisticated collective rights” model).Again, 9th Circuit Judge Kozinski's words come immediately to mind: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet...and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths....When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.And the toboggan picks up just a bit more speed... And, of course, the Supreme Court will pass on this one as well. | Clayton Helriggle (deceased) Might Get His Day in Court I covered the case of Mr. Helriggle (briefly) back in November in a piece I titled The War on (some) Drugs™ Claims Another Victim. Unfortunately, the first of the earlier links is broken, but the second works. Well, it appears that his family hasn't given up, and the local prosecutor is considering convening a grand jury to review the case. Helriggle death may be revisitedUnderstand this: due to the War on (some) Drugs™ agents of the State can get a search warrant on the word of one known criminal, perform a no-knock raid on your house, shoot your pets, and kill an innocent family member. And suffer no penalty for it. It's "just doing their job." And people say the War on (some) Drugs™ is a good thing. Sorry. I don't agree. UPDATE, 1/21/04: More links to stories about the incident: Family, friends of man killed by police dispute authorities' account War on Drugs Can Claim a Deadly Victory (Not specifically related to this case:) EXPLOSIVE DYNAMIC ENTRY From this op-ed: The most telling aspect of Montgomery County Sheriff Dave Vore’s investigation into the Preble County sheriff’s now disbanded regional SWAT team was its members’ refusal to cooperate. All four of these links and many others can be found here. | What HE Said! Kim du Toit in his typical signature style, responds to this piece which is the very definition of a "striver". | Wednesday, January 14, 2004 If You Haven't Visited Flashbunny, You're Missing Out An original member of my blogroll, and a fellow poster at AR15.com, Flashbunny has put up some seriously good (and quite often hilariously pointed) stuff. For example, his Soldiers of Surrender magazine cover made the rounds of the internet a while back, and I've linked to his excellent Flash movie "The RKBA is Outdated" more than once. He's got a new one up. Congratulations, Chicago. | Bald, Boldfaced Moral Equivalence In a recent comment exchange at another blog, an (unsurprisingly anonymous) respondent said this, directed at me: Under Communism man exploits man. Under Capitalism its(sic) the other way around.There's a tremendous, horrifying moral equivalence to that first two-sentence quip. Certainly "man exploits man" in each system, but the underlying snarky implication is that both systems are equally flawed merely because "man exploits man." What unmitigated horseshit. What a puerile, half-witted thing to say, especially if one actually means it. I thought about firing off an irate response, but I figured A) it would have been useless because the poster probably was ignorant and didn't really understand the reality behind that first little agitprop quip, and B) it was better to make a point for anyone else reading who thought, "Yeah, Man! Tell it like it is!" or whatever the modern vernacular is. (I believe it condenses down now to the single syllable: "WORD!", but I could be mistaken. Modern vernacular changes so fast these days.) So I replied: Hmm..Under communism man slaughters man (to the tune of around 100,000,000 souls last century.) Under capitalism (in a democratic government), some people are poor but nobody starves to death. Particularly, nobody starves to death because somebody in the government thinks it's necessary that they do.The poster and I have mutually agreed to not clog another blogger's comments with our discussion, but as of yet I have received no response to my invitation to continue either here or in email. I am not surprised about that, either. | I STAND CORRECTED! And pleased about it! Esme of word gets around informs me in a comment that you can see individuals fighting crime in England. Homeless heroine foils robbersThere's more to the story, but that's the heart of it. There is, of course, the obligatory "citizens shouldn't do this" warning, but still. Ms. Kerry most probably need have no fear of a civil suit for use of excessive force. It's nice to know they've still got it in them. At least the ladies do. (They tend to be more pragmatic and less likely to put up with idiocy, I've found.) | More Guns, Less Crime In a bit of reciprocal linkage, I found this interesting post on Les Jones Blog concerning the number of guns in America. Seems according to the BATF's Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report for 2001 a bit over 3 million new guns entered the American market that year, and about one million were handguns. Note, please, that this is about average. Yet crime, including violent crime, has continued its decade-long drop. (Three million firearms per year over ten years is a net increase of 30 million firearms, ten million of which would be handguns.) Wheras last year, regardless of the UK's complete ban on handguns, violent crime continued to increase there, especially crimes committed with handguns. Draw your own conclusions. | Words of Wisdom In relation to the post immediately below, I want to quote my favorite philosopher, Robert Anson Heinlein on the topic of poverty and "bad luck." Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. | More on Mush-Filled Minds The discussion continues. Australian blogger Kent from Where do the buses sleep responds to my post below. Let me say up front that I'm no worshipper of Rush Limbaugh (whom neither Esme nor Kent would probably be familiar with, since one is in England and the other Australia), but in this case Rush's witticisms are quite accurate. The first post title was a take-off on his "young minds full of mush" comments, but Kent's response is stereotypical of Rush's "Affluenza" descriptive. Let me quote: I am indeed ashamed, and glad, that I have enough to eat, and own a computer. I have these things through luck, not hard work. And people in Ethiopia, or those living well under the poverty line in the US, Australia, or anywhere in the world, are lacking these things through bad luck.So, Kent equates having enough to eat to getting a brand-new Mercedes for one's sixteenth birthday. Oookay. Trust me, Kent, if the overwhelming majority of people quit working (or their parents quit working) their "luck" will come to an abrupt halt. But wait! There's more! This time in the mush-brain vein: (Y)es, investment into such research does bring benefits to the economy. But not to everyone. I live in Australia - the Mars mission has not done a single good thing for me, or my country's economy. If I was living under the poverty line (as plenty of people living a few kilometres from me do - not just Ethiopians), then I would feel aggrieved by the money spent on space exploration.Because you would feel that your society owed people a minimum standard of living, correct? The argument that the money is being spent on the future of the human race does nothing for them. The money spent on an astronauts shoe could literally give them good food, clothing, and shelter for years.(Emphasis mine.) Excuse me, but why should these people be given food, shelter, and clothing when the rest of us work for it? Think this through: In order for the "unlucky" to receive "food, shelter, and clothing" from the government, that government must first take the necessary money from those of us who work and earn it. And they do so at the threat of imprisonment or worse if we don't comply. That's an unassailable fact. This is the position of another person I responded to long ago who called such redistribution "obligatory charity." As I said back then, if it's obligatory, it's not charity. It's extortion at gunpoint. OK, the argument then is that the money is to be extorted from us anyway, only the distribution differs, but here's the actual difference: One is investment in the future of the entire human race. The other is the continuation of the welfare state. And it can reasonably be argued that the result (at least in the U.S.) of the "War on Poverty" has been nothing less than the expansion of the welfare class and the destruction of the group it was supposed to save. Kent argues: (Y)es, investment into such research does bring benefits to the economy. But not to everyone. I live in Australia - the Mars mission has not done a single good thing for me, or my country's economy.Possibly not. We spent about $800 million on that particular project, which is a drop in the bucket. We're probably still using radiotelescope stations in Australia, though, so his assertion isn't quite accurate, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, Australia does benefit from the American space program. He benefits from the spin-offs that have created new technologies, products and services. Others more involved in that aspect than I can certainly provide a long list of the world-wide benefits of our investment in space exploration, but I think the problem is that Kent's argument is more one of "what have you done for me lately?" Space exploration is something that capitalist systems have a hard time with. It's a long-term investment. Instead of concentrating on the next-quarter return, it's one that pays off slowly and long in the future. Francis Porretto wrote an interesting piece recently on just what kind of government would be best for a long-term space program. I highly recommend it. And he's right, our system of government is far from ideal for such a long-term project, but all it will require from us is will. So long as we really understand the worth, we will have the will. So I'm not optomistic. Kent concludes: It's an argument of empathy, of compassion, in the end. People are dying, or leading miserable lives, due to nothing but lack of money, which there is plenty of going around, and everybody seems to dodge arguments as to why we shouldn't help them. And these people aren't just starving in far-away, Communist-or-otherwise dictatorships. They're everywhere, tucked away in the anonymous suburbs of our Western democracies. They are not quite the beacons of equality and prosperity that we might like to believe.There is a major schism between Kent's worldview and my own. I recognize that there are some people who are poor, or dying, or "leading miserable lives" through no fault of their own. But I don't believe that government redistribution of money to "save" them will correct the problem. Governments are not empathic nor compassionate. They are bureacracies. Bureacracies are not interested in fixing problems. Bureacracies are not interested in helping people. Bureacracies are interested in getting bigger. In increasing budgets. In expanding influence. (See "War on Poverty" above.) People are empathic. People are compassionate. And people who look to government to handle the administration of "obligatory charity" have brains full of mush. | Here's Another! Irritatingly filed under the heading "Weird News": Boy, 12, bests burglarHere we go, "You're not qualified!" Coming home and encountering a burglar is more common than the public knows, said Wichita police Lt. Barry Von Fange, who supervises burglary investigations.Yes, it is. But if citizens are not willing to resist crime or, as in the UK, run the risk of prosecution for doing so, then the result is more crime. 'I'm right behind you'Problem is, he probably won't. Or at least not for long. Juan chased the darting, zigzagging burglar over fence after fence.I applaud those who said "good job." I truly believe that the majority of officers on the beat really believe that the citizenry is also responsible for their own protection. It's only the political appointees and careerists who see citizen involvement as dangerous to their budgets and aspirations. I'll say it too: To Juan and his dad, GOOD JOB! | Another Incident You Won't See in England A man attempted to rob a bank yesterday in Spokane, Washington. "Attempted" being the operative word. Instead of getting away with the cash, he was jumped by the customers in another "pack not a herd" action: Unsurprisingly, the robber had a long record - twelve previous convictions, and he was a registered sex offender. Would this be "Thirteenth strike, and you're OUT!"? (As an aside, this was the ONLY reference to this story found on Google. Guess the other media outlets are waiting for the Spokane Police Dept. spokesman to release a statement advising the Want to reduce crime? FIGHT BACK! | Tuesday, January 13, 2004 One More Before Bed This time the Geek With a .45 says what I wanted to. Excerpt: Papers, Comrade!Amen. Read the whole thing. <StephenBreyer>"Slope? What slope? I don't see any slope."</StephenBreyer> Fourth Amendment? You don't need no stinkin' 4th Amendment! | Quote of the Day AGAIN from Jonathan David Morris: If you want to end excessive immigration, end the arms-wide-open welfare state.RTWT. | I Love Numrich Gun Parts! Remember my 1917 Enfield? (Manufactured by Winchester in 1918!) Well, at the last AR15.com shoot in Casa Grande, it stopped ejecting reliably. Turns out, the ejector wasn't. It's supposed to be spring loaded, but it was obvious the spring was a goner, and as a result, the ejector wouldn't hold its position. Well, Numrich Gun Parts to the rescue! One ejector for the 1917 Enfield for $12.85 is on its way with just a few clicks of a mouse. Hopefully it will get here before next Sundays John C. Garand match at the Tucson Rifle Club. It would be tough to get off 10 rounds in 70 seconds if the rifle doesn't eject. Man, a part for an 86 year-old gun purchased in Arizona over the internet from a vendor in (spit!) New York, at 7:00 PM Mountain time. What a neat time to be living! | Two Very Interesting Links from Coyote at the Dog Show In the first, it appears that there will be some outstanding varmint shooting in the Boulder area if common sense finally overcomes the bunny-hugger mentality there and allows people to control prarie dogs on their own damned property. Seems that Boulder's rodent-friendly policy is creating prairie dog boomtowns. Money quotes: Heeding concerns of animal-rights activists, Boulder has been relocating prairie dogs to the greenbelt for years to protect them from extermination. Now the city that took the lead in controlling human population growth is bursting with prairie dogs.Yes, I know that nobody's going to allow shooting anywhere near occupied buildings, but this is the kind of idiocy that results when people go into full bunny-hug mode. The second link is about the Brady Center giving Wyoming an "F" grade in "gun safety." Read the whole thing, but the conclusion Swen draws is absolutely correct: This leads me to suspect that the Bradys are concerned with keeping us safe from guns, rather than safe with guns -- that 'gun safety', as they use the term, is just gun control by a different name.Yes, and I've said that before myself. I've gotta add Swen to the blogroll. (OK, that's done! - Egad! He had me blogrolled already!) | Hillary Joke Heard this morning on the local Clear Channel AM news/talk radio station: Hillary gets elected President. In her first night in the Whitehouse, she is visited by the ghost of George Washington.Probably an old, recycled joke, but a good one! | Monday, January 12, 2004 Last Michael Jackson Post, I SWEAR Know why no one's seen Michael Jackson for a while? Because he went to see his plastic surgeon. Seems he's worried about being in court with everyone staring at his (irrepairable) nose, so he went to the doctor to do something about it. "Doc," said Mike, "do something, ANYTHING to draw attention away from my nose!" This was the result. | Brains Full of Mush This week's New Blog Showcase from Truth Laid Bear includes this little piece from Esmeralda of "word gets around" who asks: I don't know exactly how much it costs to go to Mars, but I'm sure it's a lot. Is it right to spend so much money on going to space when it could be used elsewhere? Like in Ethiopia where they might be facing another famine. I know it's a simplistic question. For a start, money can do a lot, but it is not the solution to everything. Anyway, even if raising money is difficult, knowing who to give it to & how to spend it is just as complicated. That doesn't stop me wondering, why don't governments do more to help people who are in trouble (not just in Ethiopia) instead of going to Mars?Her commenters pile on: Couldn't agree more... apparently this Mars mission is costing something like US$800 million.Let's see, one commenter who is glad (and possibly ashamed) that (s)he has enough to eat and a computer while others do not. Ok. Another commenter hates the U.S. (and possibly the world, but I think more likely just the U.S.) and our "sick societies." A third bitches that our populace isn't "sane" or "empathic. Let me see if I can answer her questions. Why should we go to Mars? Because the future of mankind is not on this planet, it's out there. And the sooner we start, the better. The argument that we should spend our money saving Ethiopia and other nations with severe problems is the argument that the entire world should be made uniformly miserable - just so it's "fair." I'm sorry, but I'd rather we forged onward and dragged everybody along into prosperity after us. That method has worked far better than top-down imposition of "equality." Investment into directed scientific research to solve real, identifiable problems does wonderful things for our economy - particularly when the results of that research aren't stamped "secret" and hidden in vaults because the research was done to build a better weapon system. As to 'sort(ing) Earth out before going to other planets' - if that attitude was the historical one, the New World would never have been discovered by the Europeans. (Yes, yes, I know. That's the ideal alternate history of the Left.) But then there wouldn't have been a migration out of Africa into Europe, either. And we'd all be living in Ethiopia. All 5.5 million of us. | Quote of the Week Via Mad Ogre, off the CZ forums: “I'm a CaucasianAs Mad Ogre said, painfully true. | Doing "Good" vs. Doing RIGHT I found this link somewhere, and I apologize for not being able to credit the source, but here's an interesting article on the folly of recycling that I felt ought to be read more widely: Recycling Programs Cost Central Florida ResidentsNo, it isn't "like" throwing money away, it IS throwing money away. It's just about a daily ritual. You throw that plastic drink bottle in the recycle bin and you've done your civic duty of recycling. And after everything gets sorted out and shipped off, your city or county gets paid for each ton delivered. That adds up fast, right?Wow! What a wonderful idea! Lose over $2.9 million in a year! Isn't government efficient? And we want these people in charge of our healthcare? "We look at it more as it's something we're doing for our residents, and for the county," says Sponsler. "We don't do it to make money, we do try to cover our costs."Really? And a net expenditure of fifty-two times more than income qualifies as "try(ing) to cover" your costs? Yes, you are the government, where a budget in that has only a 6% increase rather than a 15% increase is said to have suffered an 8.5% cut. And that's where you come in, again. The county adds a fee to your garbage bill to cover those costs, almost $3 million worth.Surprise! It's not saving anybody a dime! In St. Cloud, city leaders were spending $220,000 a year on recycling, but getting back just $19,000.Hell, they're models of fiscal responsibility in St. Cloud. That's only a 10:1 ratio. "No, [we haven't made any money off recycling]. It's always been [a loss]. We've always been on the losing side," says Ray Tobey, Superintendent of Solid Waste.But will there be a reduction in the garbage bill? Didn't think so. And, when we checked with several cities in Central Florida, we learned many admitted to either losing money each year or barely breaking even.Get into an airplane. Fly at 20,000 feet in a circle of 25 miles radius from the center of any city, look down at the ground, and tell me that there are NO suitable places to put a landfill. But in the end, regardless of debate, recycling is about doing the right thing, proponents say. After all, almost one-third of what we dump in those bins is now getting re-used, and countless jobs have been created.Right. Jobs created by taxing people and redistributing their wealth through the wonderfully efficient hands of government, to process materials that are cheaper to manufacture new, and would produce jobs if "recycled material" wasn't MANDATED by the very governments that waste taxpayer money forcing people to recycle. It's not the "right" thing to do. It's environmental do-goodism. That is all. | This Guy Gets It Rich from Shots Across the Bow has an outstanding post up on "...(W)hy I've decided to arm myself after 40 years of going unarmed." Money quotes: Because until now, I've had very young children in the house, and the risk/reward calculation said it was better to rely on the law of averages than to a gun. Crime is fairly low and I live in a safe area. The chances of something happening where I might need a gun were very low, so the value of having guns around the house was also very low. At the same time, because I had small children in the house, there was also an appreeciable risk of a real tragedy. In my opinion, the reward (increased ability to defend myself and my family), was outweighed by the potential danger (a child getting ahold of a gun). Add to that reasoning the steps needed to make a gun at home safe from a child (unloaded, trigger-locked, and locked away) and the gun would be virtually useless in an emergency situation.Excellent logic. Last week, I started a discussion on my personal philosophy. In the process, I started thinking about the implications of some of my basic assumptions, particularly the first one, about maximizing freedom. Freedom carries a price along with it; responsibility. If I want a small, unobtrusive government, then I have to shoulder much of the burden of my own existence. I'm responsible for earning a living, paying my taxes, paying for my medical care, and so on.OUTSTANDING! Given all the pertinent information, he has made the right decision for him! Read the whole thing. | I LOVE a Good Fisk The Angry Clam does a very nice job disassembling an anti-gun op-ed from the Detroit News. Good stuff! | Sunday, January 11, 2004 As if You Needed it: One MORE Reason Not to Live in the UK Big Brother Britain, 2004No! Really? You mean the government oversteps its bounds? Whodathunkit? Civil liberties groups complain that the rules governing the use of the cameras in Britain are the most lax in the world. They say that, in contrast to other countries, members of the public are often unaware they are being filmed, and are usually ignorant of the relevant regulations.So, you're saying that the government is overstepping the bounds of regulations that are lax to start with? They also argue that there is little evidence to support the contention that CCTV cameras lead to a reduction in crime rates.Don't expect that to change anything. All the evidence says that the UK's gun control laws have resulted in absolutely no reduction in crime rates either. Barry Hugill, a spokesman for the human rights and civil liberties organisation Liberty, said: "This proliferation of cameras is simply astounding. The use of CCTV has just exploded in the last few years, and what is terrifying is that we are alone in the world for not even having a debate about what it means for our privacy."Of course there's no debate, Barry. The government has done a masterful job of turning its subjects into dependent children who rely on that government to provide them everything. They're not allowed to have opinions, the bastards. Professor Clive Norris, deputy director of the Centre for Criminological Research in Sheffield, presented the new research at an international conference on CCTV at Sheffield Universityon Saturday.Statism accelerating a bit fast for you, professor? There are no official government figures for the number of CCTV systems in Britain, but Professor Norris used a detailed study of surveillance cameras in London to calculate his figure.Um, that would be "control on the use of CCTV" not "control of the populace." "Other countries have been much more wary about CCTV, because of long-held concepts such as freedom of expression and assembly. These seem to be alien concepts in here."Actually, they're still held as RIGHTS here. Sort of. In some places. Until the Supreme Court decides they're not anymore. The use of cameras to film people in the street is banned in Germany, Canada and several other countries. But it is accepted practice in Britain, which is alone in not having a privacy law that protects people against constant surveillance. The Data Protection Act states that the public has to be informed that CCTV systems are in operation, and be told how they can exercise their legal right to see their own footage. But civil rights groups said many councils, shops and businesses were failing to provide this information, and they estimated that up to 70 per of CCTV camera operators were breaking the rules.Or follow around really attractive women for the chance to check out their legs or cleavage. Professor Norris warned: "The use of these practices represents a shift from formal and legally regulated measures of crime control towards private and unaccountable justice."Oh yeah, that's money well spent. It's like spending millions on a "ballistic database," or a billion (Canadian) on licensing and registration: It's pouring money down a rathole in the name of "public safety." Orwell just missed by a few decades. | 50,000! I'll be damned! The Smallest Minority has had its fifty-thousandth hit in only 35 weeks of existence! Thank you, visitor from Home.com, whoever you are. | Saturday, January 10, 2004 Once Again, Predictions of Gloom and Doom Don't they ever get tired of being wrong? According to this morning's Cleveland Morning Journal editorial (bitching about the passage of Ohio's CCW law): For once, we hope that gun advocates are right. They've been arguing that the result of concealed carry will be a decrease in crime, and that we'll see no increase in mayhem, intentional or accidental. We'll all find out soon enough.And this has happened....where? Nowhere in any of the states where CCW has passed previously. There's a marked mental difference between people who rob defenseless people, and people who commit murder in cold blood. But there was that spike in Florida of attacks against people driving rental cars because they were the only ones who could be counted on not to be armed. That was a real effect of Florida's CCW law. I don't think Ohio has much of a tourist business, though. Allowing concealed guns on Ohio's streets is a huge step downward in the quality of life for the people of Ohio.How, exactly? Please be specific, and use examples from other CCW states. I'm waiting. | A Captial Idea! Now that Ohio has "shall-issue" concealed carry (with some odious restrictions), there has been some backlash from the Anointed in the media. With his permission, I'm copying verbatim from Ravenwood: Naming NamesShall we spread this around? | Friday, January 09, 2004 New Member of the Blogroll I just added ProtestWarrior to my blogroll - at the top. These guys are taking the fight right into the protests and assemblies of the loony left, and confusing them with empirical reality. Somehow I've got to come up with some scratch for a few of their T-shirts, such as this one:
Go spend some time (and money) over there, and be sure to view some of their excellently produced videos. And wonder, as I do, how the morons they're exposing have acquired as much power as they have. | As Only Steven Den Beste Can... His latest essay on philosophy puts a brilliant light on the "S Factor" response of the Left. Read the whole thing, but in relation to the "the People are Idiots" meme, this was the pertinent part: They believe that they're producing material (or ideas) which is somehow inherently better, more refined, more sophisticated than the common fare, but the populist decision inherent in capitalism usually rewards what these intellectuals see as "trash".You bet they're pissed. Especially when people they consider morons get results in a few months that their ideas wouldn't generate in a century. | Another Friday Five What one thing are you most looking forward to . . . 1. ...today? Going home. 2. ...over the next week? Getting paid next Friday. 3. ...this year? Getting further out of debt. 4. ...over the next five years? Being happy. 5. ...for the rest of your life? Ditto. | Dang! Arizona Only Got a "D" I was hoping for an "F." Handgun Gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and Arizona has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines.Sure it could. Like the assault weapon "ban" has had any effect, even in California where the state restrictions are tighter than the Federal ones. Since the Brady Campaign began grading state gun laws seven years ago, the number of young people killed by guns nationwide has dropped from an average of 16 per day to eight (based on the most recent available data). During the same period, the Centers for Disease Control reported a 48% reduction in the firearms death rate per 100,000 children and teens.Implication? We're responsible for the drop. But you note they don't come right out and say it. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, 81 children and teenagers in Arizona died from gunfire, resulting in a youth firearm death rate approximately 48% higher than the national average.Really? According to the CDC's WISQARS tool, if you include "children and teens" up to the (legally adult) age of 19 (still teens, you understand), they are correct - there were 81 deaths. If you limit the range to 17, however, the number drops to 41. Nearly half that number is legal adults. Further, the number of accidental deaths was FOUR. The number of suicides was nine. The rest were homicides. If they were actually interested in "gun SAFETY" they'd report on the accidental deaths, don't you think? | Defend Yourself? How DARE You! I am not at all surprised to hear (via Spoons) that the Wilmette, IL man, Hale DeMar, who shot a home intruder has been charged for violating Wilmette's "no handgun" ordinance. Also, he let his "Firearm Owner's ID" expire, so now he faces the possibility of a year in jail and/or a $2500 fine for that violation. "I regret the intrusion on this family's privacy," (Police Chief John) Carpenter said of DeMar. "He strikes us as being a good man with a good heart who did something that apparently came naturally to him. That's why it's important the Wilmette police speak out now."Right. It's important to ensure that the rest of the proles understand that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. I'm with you, Spoons. This shit makes me tired. UPDATE: There's a much more detailed story here. (Via Say Uncle.) | Thursday, January 08, 2004 Let's Talk About Homosexuality Everybody else seems to be. (Trolling for traffic? Me?) I've done it once before myself, but it's apparently the topic of choice at the moment. For instance, Maureen Dowd has written a rambling, almost incomprehensible piece (I know, what's different?) that somehow morphed from Bush-bashing to lesbianism that showed up in today's NYT. In it, she refers to this Washington Post piece about teen girls being "partway gay." (That stirred up a pretty long thread over at AR15.com, too, as you might imagine.) On top of that we have, oh for example: Ellen, Will and Grace, Bravo's Boy Meets Boy and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, innumerable films, Madonna's lesbian kisses at the Grammys, the gay marriage controversy, the "Defense of Marriage" act, and - my personal favorite - South Park episode 708: South Park is Gay. (I DARE you to watch that episode and not laugh.) That's just a short list off the top of my head. Clayton Cramer is right about this: America, at least the popular culture portion of it, celebrates homosexuality rather than denigrates it. On my way home this evening I was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show, (yes, being an agnostic does not prevent me from listening to evangelical Christian radio talk shows - I'm quite secure in my lack of faith) and Hugh was discussing homosexuality and Howard Dean. At issue was Dean's assertion (also in the Washington Post) that: "The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it. From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."Uh, right Doc. Not that I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is in some part genetic. I actually think that's probably the case, but the bit about it not being sin because God was responsible for it I find... well "laughable" doesn't quite cover it. The Bible (you know, the revealed Word of God?) is pretty explicit on the topic: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". Leviticus 18:22(Both from the King James version.) Interestingly enough, there appears to be no similar prohibition (or penalty) for women "laying together." At any rate, it would appear that the Christian God has a bit of a problem with at least male homosexuality, and, as a result, so do His devoted followers - understandably so. As I mentioned before, Clayton Cramer seems to have a pretty serious problem with homosexuality across the board, as he seems to favor "denigrating" it. Nor do I think this religious aversion is limited to Christians. I believe both the other Abrahamic faiths have the same or similar prohibitions, and I'll admit ignorance when it comes to other faiths. But there's a major argument going on about just what constitutes homosexuality, and that argument isn't limited to the Christians and the doctors. Even the gay community has a bit of a split over it. The burning question is, of course, "Is homosexuality a choice?" I say no, but homosexual activity IS. Please, put down the torches! Let me explain. There is homosexuality, and then there is homosexual activity - and there's an important distinction between the two. Homosexuality is, as far as I am concerned, the mental disposition (ignoring whatever cause) that makes one exclusively physically attracted to the same sex, even if the person in question never engages in a homosexual act. Homosexual activity is sexual activity between two (or more) people of the same sex regardless of their physical attraction. Homosexual activity ranges from the physical act between a lifelong monogamous couple to homosexual gang-rape. (As Den Beste puts it, DON'T WRITE LETTERS - I'm not equating the two, I'm setting a definition. There is no assumed, implied, or stated value here.) It is my belief that homosexuality is a relatively rare thing, but that it is, in fact, "natural" since it has been mentioned in the historical record about as far back as our written history goes. Here's where it gets controversial, though: I think there's most probably more than one "cause" of homosexuality. I have absolutely no doubt that some homosexuals are "born that way." I'm a great believer in the bell curve, and find it improbable to the point of ridicule that this would not be the case. I also believe that homosexuality can be the result of or at least influenced by such environmental factors as child abuse and public acceptance of homosexual behavior. Homosexuality was, for decades, treated as a mental illness. Then, the American Psychiatric Association declared in 1973 that homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder." I think they're right, it doesn't, necessarily. There are people still today who work to "cure" homosexuals - with varying "success," but now people get treated for homophobia, too. Like I said, I'm a firm believer in the bell curve, and I think, therefore that there is a broad potential for sexual behavior in the human species. Let's face it, after self-preservation, reproduction is the most powerful urge in life. As Robert Heinlein put it, "A zygote is a gamete's way of making another gamete." Without assigning a moral value to it, homosexuality does nothing to accomplish that. Homosexuality would appear to be an evolutionary dead-end, but it keeps recurring in our species. Then again, so do other things detrimental to possible reproduction. This doesn't make homosexuality or any other reproduction-preventing condition "wrong" or "immoral." It's just another condition of humanity. But homosexual activity, I think, is far more common that the specific condition of homosexuality, and the amount of that activity is strongly affected by environment. Broadly: culture, but specifically the immediate environment of any population. Ancient Greece is held up as a society in which homosexual activity was not denigrated, (nor, so far as I can tell, celebrated) but accepted. As a result, homosexual activity was not uncommon. Then again, even in tightly controlled populations where it might result in severe punishment or even death, homosexual activity still occurs. My point is that people who engage in homosexual acts do so for a wide variety of reasons. There is no simple "nature or nurture" answer. Some people engage in homosexual acts due to mental aberration that ought to be treated (and for that matter, the same holds true for some people who engage in strictly heterosexual acts.) Some people may engage in homosexual acts because they find emotional comfort in someone who happens to be of the same sex. (Anne Heche comes immediately to mind.) But overall, I think that as we come out of the womb we have place in the bell curve of human sexuality, and where we end up is strongly affected by our immediate environment (family, friends) and more subtly by our society. I think the bell curve tends us strongly towards heterosexuality because that way lays reproduction, but the pleasure circuitry that goes along with our sexual urge affects us too. If homosexuality is not strongly denigrated by the society in which you live, then as more than one wag has put it, your chances of getting lucky might be doubled. Personally, I'm a product of the 70's and 80's. Male homosexuality was strongly denigrated during that period, but female homosexuality was not. That, I think, is responsible for what the Washington Post was reporting in female teen populations today - increasing social acceptance has lead to an increased incidence in the activity, even though there is probably no higher a percentage of women who identify themselves as homosexual than there was twenty years ago. Our society now largely accepts, even encourages, acts of female homosexuality (e.g.: Madonna, Britney, and Christina), and is grudgingly beginning to accept acts of male homosexuality. (You'll note, however, that in any episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy the most the audience is going to be exposed to is a hug. Well, maybe a kiss on the cheek, but absolutely no tongue.) Is this a sign of the moral collapse of America? Well, if you're an Evangelical Christian, I'd imagine you're wondering if you should drop your car insurance because Rapture must be right around the corner, but no, I don't really think so. On the other hand, the Mepham High School hazing incident(s) tell us that there are major problems to be found, and however much I disagree with Clayton Cramer on the overall topic of homosexuality, he does have a point that behavior that is acceptable in San Francisco would be considered pathology anywhere else. But I don't think it signals the end of America. We've got much bigger problems than that. | Our Collapsing Schools Dept. - This Will Make You Think... My response after reading this was "Uh...ummm....uh..." She makes a helluva point. They Pry Them from Our Cold Dead Fingers Go read. I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this one. | Something Else You Don't See in England Via Instapundit comes this story of <tongue-in-cheek>"vigilantism"</tongue-in-cheek>: Teenager's action wins praiseOutstanding. And there's more! (Maj. John DiPietro, deputy police chief of Miami Township) said he recognizes the action of the residents involved as a "result of the terrible tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.But... DiPietro said residents should never put themselves in danger.In other words, "Don't defend yourself or others. You're not qualified." It IS an individual choice, and putting one's self in danger to stop crime is one of those choices. Why do law enforcement representatives constantly tell us not to resist? Contrast this to the responses to this Joyce Lee Malcom article advising England that they need more guns. (Hat tip to the Geek with a .45) For example: I find this notion ludicrous. We do not need a nation of armed vigilantes (potential or otherwise) to ensure the peace, but rather active citizens who are willing to stand together against crime in their neighborhoods and cooperate with local authorities to apprehend criminals. This is the way to reduce crime. To draw a link between gun ownership and an overall drop in crime in the US is spurious and the article does not have enough evidence to point to a causative relationship between the two. - Sean AaronAnd why doesn't England have "active citizens who are willing to stand together against crime"? Because doing so runs the risk of prosecution for the use of excessive force, maybe? Because the Brits have been told for so long that they're not qualified or authorized to? Maj. DiPietro might be correct that 9/11 has inspired more people to actively resist crime, but this kind of thing wasn't unheard of even prior. And while Ms. Malcolm's prescription is not without serious side-effects, I think she's right when it comes to violent crime. And I think this guy has his head up his posterior: I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but lets face it, most people are not responsible enough to own and operate a gun in safety. Gun ownership is not necessary in a society that informs on criminals and helps the police to root out crime in the neighbourhoods. - Greg, CanadaReally, most people? One of the problems in England is that people who "inform on criminals" and "help the police root out crime" tend to be seriously victimized by said criminals, and the cops are pretty much powerless to stop it. On top of that, defending yourself from the thugs can get you in deep water there, as in the case of Martin James. If I recall correctly, Mr. James killed himself the day before he was to appear in court. Here, at least, we're still allowed to defend ourselves. | Wednesday, January 07, 2004 More on the Stupidity of Americans From Jonathan David Morris's latest: What McCain-Feingold does, exactly, is it limits the freedom of speech. There's no better way to explain it. Beyond its restriction on soft money, it prohibits the airing of issue ads -- such as those sponsored by the ACLU or NRA -- in the weeks before an election. So in other words, after hearing politicians tell us "the American people aren't stupid" all these years, it turns out we are. Indeed, having watched us fall victim to cigarette-smoking cartoon characters and Super Value meals, Washington has finally decided it's best if they simply protect us from the dissemination of ideas.Yup. The Anointed must protect us from ourselves. The money quote, though, is this one: We've come to a point in this country where bipartisanship is seen as some grand, noble thing. It's nothing of the sort. To suggest America's better off when Republicans and Democrats work together ignores the fact that we're better off when they don't. We're not talking about kids in a sandbox here. So what if they're playing nicely together? They're playing with our rights and our money.Amen!! Read the whole thing, and pay careful attention to the last paragraphs. | Note to Recipient: Consider Yourself Body-Slammed Via Kim du Toit comes this outstanding rebuttal of the "violence never solves anything" position brought to us through the kind auspices of Solomonia. Go read. | Looks Like Ohio Will Become the Next "Shall-Issue" CCW State According to Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Ohioans should stand by for a "certainty of more maiming and killing, accidentally or otherwise." Apparently Ohioans are somehow more accident-prone and bloodthirsty than residents of other states. In related good news, the New Mexico Supreme Court has denied cert. to a challenge to its recently passed CCW law. Surprisingly, the challengers of the law stated: (O)pponents of the law will begin to compile data on whether homicides and suicides increase because handguns are more accessible.Hasn't yet in any of the other states. UPDATE (1/8): Say Uncle reports that Kansas could be next. I love this quote in the story, though: (Rep. Candy) Ruff (D-Leavenworth) said she had no desire to carry a weapon and was not a member of the NRA. She said her support was based on what she said was the constitutional right to carry a gun and protect oneself.Right. What she said. | Tuesday, January 06, 2004 You Might be an Internet Gun Nut if: You have visited a gun forum 25 times since the last time you shot a gun. Not guiltyThat's six out of twelve. But I have a blog, so I guess that makes me an internet gun nut. | Remember the Police Drug Raid at Goose I originally covered it here. Well, according to this story, the school principal is "stepping down." Stratford High School principal George McCrackin is stepping down from his job. The principal, who came under fire after a November drug raid at the Goose Creek school, said pressure following the raid prompted his decision.I somehow doubt this means he's leaving the school system, rather they'll find some out of the way place to put him until the furor dies down. Besides, three lawsuits are pending. Wouldn't do to simply have him disappear. | Another Member of the Anointed Shows His "A" Factor (Via Andrew Sullivan) Remember back in October when the denizens of Democraticunderground.com were frothing at the mouth over the California recall election? One poster over there with the handle "janekat" wrote: What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformedYup, the Democrats believe that the majority is too stupid to be trusted with their own governance. But, you say, Democraticunderground.com represents the tattered fringe of the left, surely their opinions can be discounted as the ravings of barking moonbats? Possibly not. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has printed a guest editorial by one Neal Starkman, who echoes the same sentiment. The piece begins: It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.Actually, according to this site, his current approval rating is 60%, and has never dropped below 49%. But Mr. Starkman has an explanation for this, to him, astonishing fact: It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.That's right, folks. Half the population or more is simply too stupid to understand foreign policy, constitutional law, macroeconomics and environmentalism. They're too stupid to to even understand cause and effect! Obviously they're too stupid to be trusted with DEMOCRACY. During the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election I wrote a peice entitled An Uncomfortable Conclusion. In it I said: With the continuing legal maneuvers in the Florida election debacle, I have been forced to a conclusion that I may have been unconsciously fending off. The Democratic party thinks we're stupid. Not "amiable uncle Joe" stupid, but DANGEROUSLY stupid. Lead-by-the-hand-no-sharp-objects-don't-put-that-in-your-mouth stupid. And they don't think that just Republicans and independents are stupid, no no! They think ANYBODY not in the Democratic power elite is, by definition, a drooling idiot. A muttering moron. Pinheads barely capable of dressing ourselves.The difference between my position and Mr. Starkman's? I understand that the purpose of a Constitutional Republic is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That's why there's a Constitution that spells out what the government can and can't do. That's why there's an Electoral College. That's why there's a Bill of Rights. Mr. Starkman makes a strong point for the idea that the people cannot be trusted with their own governance. Bzzzzzt! Sorry, Mr. Starkman, wrong answer - because the only conclusion that can then be drawn is that, being too stupid to govern ourselves we must submit to our more intelligent betters. As 'janekat' put it, the 1% to 20% of the population who are our superiors "intelligence-wise." These are the people who understand cause and effect, who grasp foreign policy, constitutional law, macroeconomics and environmentalism. They are our rightful rulers, and we stupid people should just do what they tell us. Yesterday Andy Duncan of Samizdata posted a most appropriate quote from Ludwig von Mises' Bureaucracy: It [modern socialism] is totalitarian in the strict sense of the term. It holds the individual in tight rein from the womb to the tomb. At every instant of his life the 'comrade' is bound to obey implicitly the orders issued by the supreme authority. The State is both his guardian and his employer. The State determines his work, his diet, and his pleasures. The State tells him what to think and what to believe in.That's the alternative, if you accept Mr. Starkman's position that we can't govern ourselves, we're not qualified. That's what happens when you don't trust The People. (Edited to add:) Instapundit, however, links to this John Perry Barlow post where he discusses the disagreement between the pro- and anti-Bush sides. Money quote: Lately I have found myself too easily seduced into a belief that no one who is neither crazy nor dim-witted nor TV-psychotic nor pretending to be asleep could actually support the policies of the Bush Administration. But the Bush supporters who have arrived here are, with a few exceptions, intelligent, articulate, and more courteous in debate than many of my own cohort. This discussion is a great reminder - as if I should need one - that the other side deserves to be taken as seriously as I would have them take me.See? There is hope. UPDATE: Michele gave Mr. Starkman her "Bender Post of the Day" award. She also has some good things to say in a post on civility in political discourse. UPDATE: 1/7 - Chris Muir weighs in:
And AlphaPatriot responds in kind, writing about the "Fuzzy Factor." | Monday, January 05, 2004 TRUST The recent brouhaha over concealed-carry brought up a point that I wanted to expand upon: Trust. The objection of those opposed to concealed-carry is: "I don't TRUST you." And, they protest, the reason permit seekers want the ability to carry legally is that they don't trust anybody, either. OK, fair enough. It is, at first blush, a reasonable conclusion to draw. But there's a difference in the lack of trust in our two populations. My lack of trust is for the tiny percentage of the population that is willing to commit violent crime. I don't think the chance that I will be faced with violence is particularly high, but I understand that it isn't zero. Their lack of trust is in the ability of the average citizen to carry a weapon without doing something stupid or criminal. In short, they don't trust anyone (other than a government employee) to be a danger only to those who would commit crime, often even including themselves. Nor, in all honesty, is that an totally unfounded fear. As in this case, a shootout between a robber and a laundromat owner ended up in the death of a laundromat customer. The story doesn't come out and say it, but it is implicit that he was shot by the store owner accidentally. It's not worth it, opponents say. Then again, they seem willing to accept accidental shootings committed by government employees, like these two where teenagers were killed by police officers. It is worth it, I reply. Both for government employees and the average citizen. And it's worth it not only because concealed-carry allows people to exercise their right to self-defense, it's worth it because it forces the public - in some small way - to recognize the fact that protection of themselves and their families is their responsibility too. This is an important fact to recognize, because once recognized it become incumbent upon the individual to address (or ignore) that responsibility. Once recognized, it requires consideration of one's responsibilities to self and family, and to society. One can no longer claim ignorance or powerlessness. Which is why, I think, many make a point of not recognizing that fact. Although I brought up the concept of "cost-benefit analysis" in the comment thread at LeanLeft, I was in actuality baiting a hook - that wasn't taken. Tgirsch called it correctly - neither side really is interested in a true cost-benefit analysis (well, he and I are apparently, but the organizations engaged in this fight seem not.) I was baiting a hook originally set by University of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson in his 1989 Yale Law Journal piece The Embarrassing Second Amendment: There is one further problem of no small import: if one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights? As Ronald Dworkin has argued, what it means to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other part of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly costless to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs—criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on—helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments. Most often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or doctrinal argument that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any insistence that times might have changed and made too "expensive" the continued adherence to a given view. "Cost-benefit" analysis, rightly or wrongly, has come to be viewed as a "conservative" weapon to attack liberal rights. Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is "conservatives" who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and "liberals" who argue for a notion of the "living Constitution" and "changed circumstances" that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment.Professor Levinson's argument is well illustrated in Judge Alex Kozinski's eloquent dissent to the decision not to re-hear Silveira v. Lockyer: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths. When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.All in the name of "public safety." Gun control versus the right to arms isn't really about guns, and it isn't really about control as some have opined in bumper-stickers. At least those aren't the underlying forces behind the battle. It's about philosophy. It's about morality. It's about what it means to be a human being, and moreover, a citizen. Eric Raymond quoted historian J.G.A. Pocock in his excellent essay Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: "The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."This was Pocock's description of the formative belief of the Founders in relation to the Second Amendment. Raymond says later: The Founders had been successful armed revolutionaries. Every one of them had had repeated confrontation with life-or-death choices, in grave knowledge of the consequences of failure. They desired that the people of their infant nation should always cultivate that kind of ethical maturity, the keen sense of individual moral responsibility that they had personally learned from using lethal force in defense of their liberty.There it is: The question of TRUST. "I don't trust you," said Barry, speaking not just for himself but for all those opposed to "liberalized" concealed-carry and the right to arms in general. Yet, as Jefferson asked, if you cannot trust us with the government of ourselves how can you trust us with the government of others? I'll be more explicit: If you don't trust your fellow citizens, how can you trust those few who have power over you? In short, what is it about drawing a government paycheck that engenders the unthinking, unconscious trust of the populace? Bill Whittle in his essay FREEDOM wrote (more eloquently than I ever will): This, to my mind, is the fundamental difference between the Europeans and the U.S.: We trust the people. We fought wars and lost untold husbands and brothers and sons because of this single most basic belief: Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves. To the degree that government can help, great - but TRUST THE PEOPLE.Yet, those who oppose the right to carry, and those who oppose the right to arms in general don't trust the people. They trust the government. They trust that the government will never become vicious and oppressive. And many of these same people protest that Bushitler and Ashkkkroft are the new Fourth Reich. Schizophrenia. Whittle continues: We can ban and confiscate and regulate to our hearts content, and we will undoubtedly save many, many innocent lives by doing so. All for the price of a little freedom.Or, as one commenter accurately pointed out: CHILDREN. I said in an earlier essay: Why don't we get rid of our guns? Because we're not subjects, we're citizens. The majority of Americans - still, somewhere deep inside, perhaps dimly - understand that we are sovereigns, that we are responsible, not government. Our collapsing schools have not yet broken us of this belief, though I don't think it exists in many of our children anymore. For the majority of us who bother to vote, however, being told that we are not responsible enough, grates. We are not willing to yeild, yet, our right to self defense, and eventually self determination. Somehow, the majority of voters sense a threat to their sovereignty.When polled, a majority of people say they want more effective gun control laws, but when the question come up on a ballot, the overwhelming response of those who vote is usually "Not THAT!" We are not children. Our government was founded on the concept of TRUST THE PEOPLE - with the full understanding that some small percentage wasn't worthy of that trust. I am heartened by the expanding number of states that have passed "lax" concealed-carry legislation as evidence that we have not yet taken Alexander Tytler's next step from dependency into bondage, and with great hope that we have not proceeded too far from apathy into dependency. I still trust We the People. | More Political Cartoons
And the pièce de résistance, Mike Ramirez - the only good thing about the LA Times:
| Thursday, January 01, 2004 Bullet Hoses, Eh? According to the Violence Policy Center: All assault weapons—military and civilian alike—incorporate specific features that were designed to provide a specific military combat function. That military function is laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting firearms.Got that? So, why are all these law enforcement officers carrying these deadly "bullet hoses" around public places on New Year's eve? So they can "spray fire" the crowds? (Note that many also have the evil baby-killing LE Only collapsable stocks and bayonet lugs. - Do they issue police bayonets these days?)
Labels: gun control | Ignore them, They're Only Peons Via Instapundit comes this heartwarming tale of what at least one of England's "betters" actually thinks of the peons he supposedly serves when they make their wishes known. Seems the BBC ran a poll of its viewers with the promise that the law most desired by the viewership would be put forth in Parliament by the Right Honourable Mr. Pound, member of Parliament. So what won? Garnering 37% of the vote, the right to defend one's home and property by any means without fear of prosecution for "excessive force." Mr. Pound's response to this hubris? "The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."Yes, folks, he said that live on the air. Continuing, the story says: Having recovered his composure, Mr Pound told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"Why not? It works in South Carolina pretty well. Texas, too. Another paper expands on the story a bit, with the inevitable mention of Tony Martin, the farmer who shot two burglars, killing one, and subsequently went to jail for it. Says Tony: "This is wrong, heinously wrong, that you should actually live in fear in your home that if somebody breaks in that, basically, you are going to have the law jump down on you. It is just not right."Mr. Martin's representative in Parliament agrees: "I think the law at the moment is totally confused. The current test of reasonable force is discredited ... there appears to be a presumption of guilt against the householder, and I think what we need is a presumption of innocence in favour of the householder."However there's always the "government knows best" voice, in this case a criminal lawyer (who probably doesn't want to see his clientele either dead or taking up another line of work): "The law as it stands at the moment, despite its critics, is functioning. If you are in your house and you are attacked by someone or threatened by someone, you can use proportionate force. We do not live in the wild west. This legislation that is proposed effectively may well turn us into that."Ah, yes. The inevitable comparison to the wild West (that never was, by the way). The problem is, in the middle of a home invasion or assault, how do you determine what is "proportionate force"? How do you know the home invader doesn't intend to bludgeon you to death with a crowbar? Or shoot you with an illegal handgun? You don't. You must assume that if someone is willing to invade your occupied home with the intent to take your possessions, then he is willing to do whatever is necessary to do so successfully, up to and including killing you. Relying on a "proportionate response" gives the attacker the upper hand. Overwhelming force is the only appropriate response. The home invader is the one making his life equal in worth to your DVD player or TV, because the presumption must be that it's worth your life to him to get it. Killing him is not an inappropriate response. And it will absolutely prevent recidivism on his part. And after a few burglars die at the hands of homeowners, a lot of burglars will decide they need to find a different line of work. | Quote of the New Year: I'm not a big fan of Ann "Frothing at the Mouth" Coulter, but she does, quite often, have some seriously biting wit. And she also hits upon solid truths from time to time. Like this one: What passes for "constitutional law" can be fairly summarized as: Heads we win, tails you lose. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court.When I read this, I kept thinking: "reset button." Labels: Reset Button | I'd Like to Thank Everyone Who has Visited According to Sitemeter, since I started this blog in mid-May, The Smallest Minority has averaged about 6500 visits a month:
| Monday, December 29, 2003 Why I Hate the Accumulation of Power by our Ostensible "Authorities" Try out this story of overreaction on the part of our "protectors," the TSA. As I read it, I could not help but hear Cartman shouting "Respect my authoritah!" | Sunday, December 28, 2003 I'm Still Around, and Still on Vacation And enjoying the time off. I've got the beginnings of an essay running 'round my brain, and pretty soon I'm going to have to let it out. Thanks for dropping by! | Thursday, December 25, 2003 Merry Christmas, Everybody! Or whatever holiday this time represents to you. Best wishes to you and yours. | Wednesday, December 24, 2003 Quote of the Week Again from Jonathan David Morris: If Disney's Bad Santa warrants asking if anything's sacred anymore, then Yuletide Coke commercials condemned us all to Hell years ago. | The Exchange Continues Barry, of Inn of the Last Home, is still defending himself against the reactions other people had to his comments about concealed carry. The LeanLeft post on the topic has developed a comment thread 96 posts long. (And I mean long.) So yesterday, Barry left this comment on my post below: Nice, going around and assuming people who don't agree with you have a mental defect. Nice.That drew a response from me, followed by an email from Barry, and a return response from me. Here is that exchange for your edification: Barry, I'll e-mail you a copy of this response, too, but you're the one who said that carrying a gun would affect your mental balance.To this I will add only one thing: I was probably in error in accusing Barry of being a hoplophobe. He may not be afraid of firearms per se. What he seems to be afraid of is people who are capable of violence. To Barry, apparently, the only people who can use violence legitimately are government employees. Barry illustrates the idea behind this quotation: To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated. - Trefor Thomas | Tuesday, December 23, 2003 More Definitive Laboratory Experiments Upcoming We already have the example of England, now we will get to see what gun bans do for the crime rates of Brazil and Thailand. (Via multiple sources.) My prediction? Crime will go up. More innocents will be victims. Homicides will increase. And the market for illicit firearms will explode. | The ENTIRE Bill of Rights Not "selected readings from," goddammit! Via Keepandbeararms.com comes this heartwarming story from Chapel Hill, N.C.: Assembly honors Bill of RightsBet your ass Ms. Misch was one who didn't want to read the Second Amendment. Once again, I'm reminded of Judge Kozinski's dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer: It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.The same holds true for all those who ostensibly support the Bill of Rights. Support it all, or risk losing it all piecemeal. | Sunday, December 21, 2003 Tipping and NATO Go read Francis Porretto's most recent piece, Tipping Points. And pass the link around. And read When it Counts, Where is It? while you're at it. And prepare for the next Boston Tea Party. | | |
