Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Found at Blackfive via Instapundit:


You just have to love that.

What HE Said!

What HE Said!

Thanksgiving dinner was a success. The two-hour 20 lb. turkey was perfect, and the rest of the meal was pretty damned good, if I do say so myself. My lovely bride took over the cleaning chores after the fact, since I'd cooked (and cleaned) all day. Hell, I may do this again at Christmas.

Did a little postprandial web-surfing, and found this: Free in Idaho's "It is NOT My Fault." An excerpt:

The Republican Party has presided over the largest growth of government, the most reckless spending, and some of the most blatant abuses of the Constitution this country has had to endure in many years. Led by George W Bush it has walked further and further away from conservative ideals. Don't tell me Bush just wasn't a good communicator, or that he just didn't articulate the conservative message well. He DOESN'T BELIEVE those things, so how can he communicate them? And when faced with the obviously most Leftist opponents the Dems have ever run, and in spite of the evidence of the surprising support that someone as "not ready to be President" as Ron Paul generated on his message alone, the GOP runs a guy who threatened to jump parties a few years back and as lately as last summer pushed for something not even a majority of "moderates" wanted . . . I'm sorry, blaming conservatives for not joining the team and thus costing them the win is more stupid fingerpointing. Give me one good reason to support the very things we don't believe in. And "at least he isn't a Democrat" is NOT the right answer.

There's a lot more where that came from, and I agree with damned near every word, and I'm not really a conservative. (Oh, I put an "X" next to McCain's name, and I'd have preferred him to the Dali-Bama, but I never liked McCain as a candidate, and the only reason I voted for him was because it was him or HillBama. As the bumper sticker said, McCain was the least repulsive Democrat on the ticket.)

I'm not a true conservative, but I concur with BillH's post-election day statement, (minus the bible reference, of course):

Individual liberty.
Personal responsibility.
Honesty.
Free society.
Private property.
Small government.
Strong defense.
Capitalism.
Stewardship.
Charity.
The Constitution for what it says.
The Bible for what it says.

My list looks the same this morning. How about yours?

Oh, and the first excerpt in this post is Friday's Quote of the Day. Tomorrow is dedicated to reloading, reading, and writing, but not necessarily hitting the "Publish Post" button.

Enjoy your weekend!

The Original Thanksgiving

The Original Thanksgiving

For your holiday reading pleasure I recommend Vin Suprynowicz's For What Do We Give Thanks?, which he first posted in 1999 and has traditionally repeated each year since. Don't worry, it's nice and short.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

From a comment left last night by the GeekWithA.45:

The key cognitive sabotage is to present a method of evaluating information that passes as "rigorous" to an uninformed mind.

Such a substitute cannot, by definition stand against a genuinely rigorous evaluation process, but it doesn't need to, as far as the host is concerned. The mental niche is filled, evaluating the genuinely rigorous process as false, and thus the root of the tree of knowledge is poisoned.

If you look inside the head of such, you'll find Gramsci laughing his ass off, saying "im in ur base, killing ur d00ds."

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I'll be cooking pretty much all day.

An Example of "Grass-Eating"

An Example of "Grass-Eating"

From the piece linked in the previous post:

Grass-eaters are deathly afraid of anything resembling personal responsibility. They are prohibited from assigning blame to any human being — such an act, after all, would imply that they themselves might someday be blamed for some transgression! Therefore, grass-eaters blame just about anything that isn’t animate for society’s ills — weapons, rap music, video games, black trenchcoats, money, red meat, or the hormone testosterone.

Or, in this wonderful example of "journalism" (wherein someone wrote it, and someone - supposedly - reviewed it before approving it for publication):

SUV hits kids outside suburban Los Angeles school

DIAMOND BAR, Calif. — A sport utility vehicle has struck and injured several people — including at least two children — outside a suburban Los Angeles elementary school. One is listed as critically injured.

Los Angeles County fire Inspector Sam Padilla (puh-DEE'-uh) says firefighters have been called to Maple Hill Elementary School in the town of Diamond Bar, east of Los Angeles.

He says it appears a car struck three people outside the school Wednesday. Two were moderately injured, and the other is listed as critical.

Televised news reports showed an adult and two children being treated. One child was to be airlifted to a hospital.

A black sport utility vehicle was up an embankment near a sidewalk.

(My emphasis.)

Is it racist to note the color of the SUV? And was it trying to flee the scene?

No mention of a driver, is there? No, apparently the SUV is at fault!

And to top it all off, for some reason Comcast seems to believe this should be National News!

Sheesh!

Oh, THIS Gets a Link!

Oh, THIS Gets a Link!

Via LabRat at Atomic Nerds, the phrase of the 21^st Century: "Grass-eater."

Go. Read.

Quote of the Day

From the Yuri Bezmenov interview which has been painstakingly transcribed (trust me, I've done transcription) by Useless Dissident:

(Ideological subversion is) a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one being demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs, or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

--

The demoralization process in [the] United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years...(this interview occurred in 1985) actually, it's over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to [a] lack of moral standards.

As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his... then he will understand. But not before that. That's the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.

So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless... even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of American[s], it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.

Instead of 15-20 years, we've been at it since at least the 1950's. But, as noted, the products are now the ones sitting in the places where the decisions about education get made, so changing the path we're on would require tearing it all down and starting over from scratch.

Read the whole thing, or watch the segment I have posted. As I said, it fits all the available evidence.

Good job, UD. Thanks for all that hard work.

Kwoat of teh Dey - Edumakashun Edishun

Victor Davis Hanson from Ten Random, Politically Incorrect Thoughts:

After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies—indeed, anything “studies”— were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.

...

The K-12 public education system is essentially wrecked. No longer can any professor expect an incoming college freshman to know what Okinawa, John Quincy Adams, Shiloh, the Parthenon, the Reformation, John Locke, the Second Amendment, or the Pythagorean Theorem is. An entire American culture, the West itself, its ideas and experiences, have simply vanished on the altar of therapy. This upcoming generation knows instead not to judge anyone by absolute standards (but not why so); to remember to say that its own Western culture is no different from, or indeed far worse than, the alternatives; that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort; that AIDs is no more a homosexual- than a heterosexual-prone disease; and that the following things and people for some reason must be bad, or at least must in public company be said to be bad (in no particular order): Wal-Mart, cowboys, the Vietnam War, oil companies, coal plants, nuclear power, George Bush, chemicals, leather, guns, states like Utah and Kansas, Sarah Palin, vans and SUVs.

And yet we're to believe that this is not indoctrination, but education in the skills of critical thought. Oh, and Dr. Hanson is what's known as a primary source on this topic!

(h/t to Unix-Jedi from a comment yesterday.)

UPDATE:  Thanks to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage." - As quoted at Politico

The next paragraphs are interesting, too:

Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her." The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

But Halperin's comments met with some disagreement from his colleagues:

New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

"We love things that are smart."

No, you have an administrative control bias, and you prefer when that administration is Leftist in orientation, because then it behaves like you think it ought to - and is therefore "smart."

Status of the Next Überpost

Status of the Next Überpost

It's . . . morphed. It started out as one thing, and has become something else. Still really long, though.

I don't seem to have any control over it.

I have to go back to Bagdad, AZ Monday and Tuesday, but I do have the long Thanksgiving weekend coming up. Maybe by next Sunday I'll have it hammered out and polished up, just in time for the tryptophan from your turkey sandwich to lull you to complacency. (Yes, I know tryptophan and sleepiness is an urban legend, but I like it!)

Except That Future Might be Dystopian

I saw today in a waiting room while I was having some work done to my truck, a "motivational poster." (No, not one of these, one of the "real" ones.) This one was a beautiful image of natural stone arches against a gorgeous blue sky, with the appellation "Destiny." The quote was from Eleanor Roosevelt:


The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
Judging from the result of the last election, Eleanor might well be right, and the future does belong to those people. But I cannot forget this poster on the same topic:



It's a beautiful dream, one people just keep believing in. But it leads to dystopia. I've quoted James Lileks before:

Personally, I'm interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process.

This, to me, seems the only prudent course, but we're surrounded by people for whom the philosophy cannot be wrong! And they must Do it again, only HARDER!

But the dream is so beautiful . . .

I Can Live With That

I Can Live With That

So I stumbled across this quiz at Atomic Nerds and had to take it:



And it's Über Cool Nerd King (don't forget the umlaut.)

And Now for Your Viewing Pleasure . . .

Waiting for me when I got home was an envelope from ParaUSA, with a nice letter from Kerby Smith, a 2009 calendar, and a DVD. On that DVD is the entire six-part Down Range TV series on the Gunblogger's weekend at Blackwater, and in a separate clip, my first run through the shoothouse.

So here, for your viewing pleasure, is my elephantine ass negotiating the shoothouse, with soundtrack and everything:



I obviously need to work on my reload speed.

UPDATE: The original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here, thanks to reader John Hardin.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Seen on the giant LED marquee of the Flying J truck stop in Eloy, Arizona yesterday while I was driving home from Wickenburg:

#2 DIESEL
.
.
.
$2.25⁹
.
.
.
REGULAR UNL.
.
.
.
$1.95⁹
.
.
.
SERIOUSLY

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Where I live, owning a gun is sufficient to deny hiring. People would try to deny housing. The HOA here would love to kick me out. The goblins would try to rob my house. I have a family to think of Bill. I think you are trying to step on my first amendment and natural rights to say what I want. Are you sure you support individual rights? - Ride Fast & Shoot Straight, Why They Call You a Traitor, Bill Schneider

Gee, you'd think that gun owners there are treated as badly as blacks and gays used to be. More fodder for Joe Huffman's anti-bigotry campaign.

Absolutely

Michael Ramirez says in a picture what I've been saying:


But no one seems to mind a bit that Ayers' job is to teach future teachers.

UPDATE:  Thanks to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here.

Give 'Em Hell!

Give 'Em Hell!

Ride Fast and Shoot Straight does a damned fine job fisking the clueless Bill Schneider's latest column in New West, What I've Learned from Gun Nuts. He's obviously learned the wrong damned lesson, and Ride Fast schools him.

An excerpt:

I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments. So, they mock us, calling us Elmer Fudds. But the hunter’s revenge is the Pitman-Robinson Act, which mandates excise taxes historically paid mostly by hunters, but now mostly paid by gun owners who never hunt or even loathe hunters as turncoats. Back at you, buddy.

Some, a small minority, may have jokingly called you Fudds, or maybe mocked you. Your guy, Zumbo, called me a terrorist. Who's the nasty bastard now? Bill, the point is we should be on the same side. Hunters fully supporting mere gun owners, shooters supporting hunters, sheep dogs supporting collectors. It's really is all about the guns.

As someone once said to me: You beat that man like a rented mule! Bravo!

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Another 12-hour day. I see my readers have been having fun in the comments! Here's a golden oldie from Rev. Donald Sensing via a new blog, Occupied Nashville:

I think that others, mostly the various gun-control groups, really just can't stand freedom exercised by others. They want to live their lives a certain way and make sure that everyone else does, too. They seek a highly ordered, regimented society made up of people just like them. This desire to control others is pernicious and dangerous. They are "invincibly ignorant" in their campaigns because the actual facts about guns in America mean nothing to them. They simply do not want you or me to own a gun, period, no matter for what reason. They do not want us to be free and sovereign. - Rev. Sensing, Heller and the right to bear arms

RTWT, as usual. Sensing's worth it.

When You Can't Have a Gun . . .

When You Can't Have a Gun . . .

. . . it must be nice that you can afford a bodyguard.

Players taking security measures after murders

MIAMI — Frightened NFL players are carrying guns and hiring bodyguards as they seek to avoid becoming victims of violent crime which has already claimed the lives of two players.

Seven players told the latest edition of ESPN The Magazine, to be published on Friday, that the murders last year of Washington Redskins Sean Taylor safety and Denver Broncos' defensive back Darrent Williams, had raised the alarm among some of the country's toughest sportsmen.

"We are targets, we need to be aware of that everywhere we go," said Tampa Bay Buccaneers corner Ronde Barber.

Taylor was shot during a botched robbery at his home in South Florida while Williams was shot and killed outside a nightclub in Denver on New Years Eve, 2007.

This year, Oakland receiver Jevon Walker was robbed and beaten unconscious in Las Vegas and Jacksonville Jaguars lineman Richard Collier had to have his leg amputated after being shot and left paralyzed below the waist.

The response has been an escalation in security for the players and NFL Players' Association president Kevin Mawae, of the Tennessee Titans, estimates half his team mates carry guns.

"If I had to guess about our locker room, I'd say it's 50-50 when it comes to gun ownership," he told the magazine.

50% is supposedly significantly higher than the national average. But then the national average is based on a survey, and Mr. Mawae actually works with the people he's talking about.

"I don't own a handgun. I have a hunting rifle. My job is to protect my family. If someone comes into my house? Game's on," he said.

Fred Taylor, a Jaguars team mate of Collier, said that not being able to carry guns at the team's facility makes him feel vulnerable.

ARMED ROBBERY

"I have all the security measures at my house -- systems, cameras, I can watch everything from my computer but I still don't think I have enough. Who knows what is enough?

"League officials tell us we need to take measures to protect ourselves. But the NFL says we can't have guns in the facility even in the parking lot. Crooks know this. They can just sit back and wait for us to drive off, knowing we won't have anything in our vehicle from point A to point B," says(sic)

Same for all of us working stiffs who work for companies with similar policies. Like Wal*Mart, for instance. Of course, many would argue that a Wal*Mart employee isn't as likely to be targeted as a healthy, hulking NFL player in the 99th percentile of human size and strength. Just ask Joyce Cordova or the two other employees shot while collecting carts in the other story at that link. Or Megan Leann Holden.

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger told the magazine that he now has a bodyguard with him at all times.

"The one time I was scared the most, I didn't have anybody with me. I don't want to relive all the details, but this guy brandished a weapon in my face. I kept my cool and talked my way out of it. People showed up and helped get rid of the guy. That's when I decided to have someone with me all the time," he said.

Why carry a gun? An entire cop is too heavy. And for most of us, an entire bodyguard is too expensive.

Houston Texans cornerback Dunta Robinson suffered an armed robbery at his home, having a gun pointed in his face and being tied up, and says that was proof that even stay-at-home players, not just those who enjoy nightlife, can be at risk.

"It was the scariest moment of my life. You hear lots of stories of guys getting robbed and you say 'Man, what were they doing, how did they get into that situation? Flashy guys. Rude Guys, Guys who act like they're better than everyone. I don't roll like that and it still happened to me," he said.

Big salaries and high profiles, along with easily available travel schedules, make the players, easy targets but Dave Abrams, appointed as head of Denver's security following the murder of Williams, worries their families may soon be prayed upon.

"What's the next layer? Wives and children: a kid kidnapped for ransom, or some other kind of craziness. I'm scared to death that's where criminals perceive the next vulnerability is for our players: their families."

More people waking up.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Gun sales in Wisconsin up 82%:

Katherine Boldt of Mukwonago said she and her husband started researching handguns the day after the election, visited a couple of stores and purchased one Thursday night.

"We are not hunters, and this is our first gun purchase. We do not fear for our safety but rather wanted to make sure we took advantage of our right to bear arms, before the possibility of that right being taken away from us," she said in an e-mail.

Somebody else wakes up.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The BATFEIEIO is a regulatory bureaucracy that has managed to make gun ownership as easy and enjoyable as the FAA has made piloting, the NHTSA has made driving, and OSHA has made running a small business. - Tam, in a comment at Carnaby Fudge.

Not to mention how truly wonderful the TSA has made commercial air travel.

Yup. "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Post Delayed

Post Delayed

This is getting to be something of a habit. I've started working on my next überpost, and it's taking on a life of its own. I'll be spending the next week in Wickenburg/Bagdad again, so I'll have to work on it in the evenings. My brother's birthday was yesterday, so I'm stopping by in Phoenix on my way up to take him and his wife out to dinner, so I can't work on the piece tonight.

This is to say that I don't know when it'll post. But it should be long!

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I'm beginning to think that one of the ways one can judge the degree to which a society has progressed towards a government-controlled police state is to look at the reaction of the police to encroachment on "their turf." In a free society where the police are truly viewed as the servants and protectors of the citizens, the cops respect the rights of the citizens and see them as partners in the battle against crime. In a place like New York or San Francisco where the government is pressing towards complete control of the citizens, the cops bitterly resent any interference with their monopoly on the use of force and treat all citizens as simply potential criminals. - Toren Smith of the late, lamented Safety Valve from a July 21, 2003 comment at the Samizdata post, Tony Martin: Political Prisoner

Movie Review - Changeling

Movie Review - Changeling

My wife and I just got back from seeing Changeling. I have to agree with Roger Ebert:

Jolie plays Christine Collins without unnecessary angles or quirks. She is a supervisor at the telephone company, she loves her son, they live in a nice bungalow, all is well. She reacts to her son's disappearance as any mother would. But as weeks turn into months, and after the phony "son" is produced, her anger and resolution swells up until it brings the whole LAPD fabrication crashing down. Malkovich as the minister is refreshing: He's not a sanctimonious grandstander who gets instructions directly from God, but a crusading activist.

--

Eastwood's telling of this story isn't structured as a thriller, but as an uncoiling of outrage. It is clear that the leaders of the LAPD serve and protect one thing: its own tarnished reputation. Collins joins many other female prisoners whose only crime was to annoy a cop. The institution drugs them, performs shock treatment, punishes any protest. Mental illness is treated as a crime. This is all, as the film observes, based on a true story.

Eastwood is one of the finest directors now at work. I often say I'm mad at Fassbinder for dying at 38 and denying us decades of his films. In a way, I'm also mad at Eastwood for not directing his first film until he was 41. We could not do without his work as an actor. But most of his greatest films as a director have come after "retirement age." Some directors start young and get tired. Eastwood is only gathering steam.

It's a damned good film.

I saw it because A) it's directed by Eastwood, and B) it was written by J. Michael Straczynski - the guy who conceived, wrote and brought to life Babylon 5. What an interesting partnership that had to be. I was not disappointed.

This is not an edge-of-your-seat thriller, but - if for no other reason - I recommend it to readers of my blog because you need to see what unfettered police power, Cartman's "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!" can really, has really produced here in America's history.

It can happen here. It has happened here.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

A long one, this time:

Seriously, folks, it's already evident from his first week in office (since presidential power is primarily persuasive, the "-elect" doesn't mean much) that President Obama is exactly what I guessed: nothing. A Gatsby, a Zelig, a warm breeze in a suit. A bright, but completely characterless and forgettable young man, with an unusual but hardly unique talent for reading speeches on TV. In short, America's new anchorman.

Once again, America has re-elected her permanent government. Of course that was the only option on the ballot - as it has been since Wendell Willkie. There's no need to worry at all. Nothing significant in Washington has changed, will change, or can possibly change.

For the next four years, public policy will flow smoothly from America's universities to her agencies, unimpeded by Neanderthal populism or corporate corruption. Oh, no. All the populism will be of the fashionable, happy-clappy, Starbucks Unitarian flavor. The corruption will be communist - with a small 'c,' of course. - Unqualified Reservations: Barack Obama for the Last Time

Via Van Der Leun.

In the Mean Time . . .

In the Mean Time . . .

. . . the election-day song-lyric post was popular, so I thought I'd put up another one.

The more things change, as they say. From 1972, Elton John and Bernie Taupin's Texan Love Song:

I heard from a friend you'd been messing around
With a cute little thing I'd been dating uptown
Well I don't know if I like that idea much
Well you'd better stay clear, I might start acting rough

You out of town guys sure think you're real keen
Think all of us boys here are homespun and green
But that's wrong my friend so get this through your head
We're tough and we're Texan with necks good and red

So it's Ki yi yippie yi yi
You long hairs are sure gonna die
Our American home was clean till you came
And kids still respected the president's name

And the eagle still flew in the sky
Hearts filled with national pride
Then you came along with your drug-crazy songs
Goddamit you're all gonna die

How dare you sit there and drink all our beer
Oh it's made for us workers who sweat spit and swear
The minds of our daughters are poisoned by you
With your communistic politics and them negro blues

Well I'm gonna quit talking and take action now
Run all of you fairies clean out of this town
Oh I'm dog tired of watching you mess up our lives
Spending the summertime naturally high

So it's Ki yi yippie yi yi
You long hairs are sure gonna die
Our American home was clean till you came
And kids still respected the president's name

And the eagle still flew in the sky
Hearts filled with national pride
Then you came along with your drug-crazy songs
Goddamit you're all gonna die

Goddamit you're all gonna die
Oh Lord, Goddamit you're all gonna die
Listen now

I've Got Some Time Off . . .

I've Got Some Time Off . . .

. . . before I have to drive back up to Wickenburg on Sunday. I got some of the honeydo's taken care of today, and I have a pistol match tomorrow morning. It's been far too long since I sat down and wrote an actual essay.

Expect to see something longish posted on or before Sunday night.

Don't expect "cheerful."

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

We don't have a Justice System, we have a Legal System, the purpose of which is to (supposedly) apply the law fairly to all in a predictable manner.

But even that's gone by the wayside. The fact of the matter is that it appears that those in the system are interested in getting convictions, not in serving justice.

Found via David Codrea, here's today's QotD:

I have long been troubled by the uneven rules among circuits governing the use of unpublished decisions. It made a very irregular and unjust usage. Depending on where you lived, the precedent applicable would vary. Even worse, many courts in circuits which had rules prohibiting citation of unpublished decisions regularly used them for precedent in their own decisions. It made the principles underlying stare decisis unworkable. You should be able to know ahead of time what law will apply to the case you are researching. Use of unpublished opinions in some decisions and not in others, also raised the decision-making of courts to a level of secrecy and unpredictability that may have abridged constitutionality. - Out of the Jungle: "Done" Scotus: On using unpublished opinions

(Bold emphasis mine. Italics in original.) RTWT.

First Runner-Up for QotD

First Runner-Up for QotD

From Mostly Cajun:

We signed out from under that “ruler” thing in 1776. I don’t mind being led, but I am an American and a combat veteran. I don’t do “ruled”.

Can I get an "amen"?

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I've been busy, so I didn't notice that Mike Vanderboegh had published another excerpt from Absolved on Monday until Wednesday night. Here's today's QotD excerpted from that piece, and if you haven't read the novel up to this point, I suggest that you read this part and then start at the beginning and read the whole thing:

You've got us surrounded, you poor bastards.

Remember that we consider our rights merely codified by the Constitution. They are, we sincerely believe, God-given and inalienable. Remember too that we are willing to die for our liberties rather than surrender them up meekly. Remember as well that men and women who are willing to die for their principles are most often willing to kill for them too.

Hey, Nicholson Baker can write Checkpoint, Vanderboegh can write Absolved.

Think of it as the "fairness doctrine" in action.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I don't know how I missed this one:

So, when is Bush supposed to declare himself Emperor-for-Life and declare martial law? I'm sure I read somewhere that was his real plan all along. - "alath" in a comment at Tam's

I Have a Couple of Questions . . .

I Have a Couple of Questions . . .

. . . for the President-elect:

1) Will the fixing of our souls be part of the single-payer medical plan after it passes, or will it simply begin on inauguration day? (Or will it require an Executive Order?)

2) Same question about healing the planet. I assume the rising of the seas will slow immediately? Or did that begin already?

You have to stay on top of those campaign promises!

Gun Sales & Me

A lot of pixels have been spilled concerning the quantity of firearms, ammunition and accessories being purchased in the wake of The Obamessiah's ascension. Here's my story:

You probably already know about the M14, but here it is again. Since I sold my Mustang, I have a pretty nice chunk of change, and I decided I wanted a really first-rate M1A/M14. My previous experience with Fulton Armory was good, and they offer their Peerless M14 at a pricey, but not overwhelming price.

One problem - 12-14 month delivery.

Kind readers pointed me to Ted Brown, who has an outstanding reputation and offers rifles built on the forged LRB M25 receiver. VERY pricey, but just DAMN. That should be a piece of art when it's done. I sent him my order last week with a deposit. The wait is 7-10 months. But I'll be receiving the stripped receiver for transfer as soon as it comes in, just in case Obama wants to add the M1A/M14 to the banned list. I want to own the "rifle" as soon as possible. I've already purchased eleven 20-round magazines.

I currently own one AR15 lower and two uppers. The lower was custom built by Fulton Armory on a Bushmaster stripped receiver with all FN parts except for a Jewell 2-stage target trigger and a Ergo grip. One upper is a Fulton custom with a 16.25" Douglas air-gauged 1:9 twist bull barrel, a GG&G extended picatinny rail, a free-floated quad-rail forend and a Harris bipod. Mounted on top is a Leupold target scope. It's a tack-driving SOB shooting 75 grain Hornady BTHP handloads.

The other upper is a Stag M4gery with an EOTech and backup irons that co-witness.

I wanted a second lower with a VLTOR carbine stock for the M4gery.

On Saturday two weeks before the election I went in to my favorite gun shop, Murphys Guns & Gunsmithing, and asked them if they could get me an assembled Bushmaster lower without a buttstock (it's a catalog item for Bushmaster). During that trip I bought a T/C Encore frame from them. Later in the week they got back to me: Yes, they're available, "plenty in stock" at the vendor. I went in the next Saturday (the one before the election last Tuesday) and placed my order, paying in full up front.

I went in last Saturday to see if they'd received it.

They'd forgotten to order it.

They're no longer in stock. Nobody really knows when they'll be able to get one.

My VLTOR buttstock came in from Brownell's last week. I think it's going to be lonely for a while.

At the last Gunblogger's Rendezvous, I shot Dave's .308 T/C Encore, whacking the steel plate at 400 yards with relative ease. Today I placed an order for a .260 Remington barrel, stainless, with a muzzle brake, scope base and a forearm from Bullberry's.

Delivery is running three (3) months on those.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts. - Peter Hitchens, The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth

Hitchens will now be ridiculed as a racist. You heard it here first.

Obama Plans to Hit the Ground Running, It Seems

Obama Plans to Hit the Ground Running, It Seems

From Investor's Business Daily:

Marching Orders

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Transition: President-elect Obama isn't planning to wait for Congress to pass his agenda. On Day One, he plans to rescind Bush executive orders on everything from embryonic stem cell research to offshore drilling.

When minority Republicans seemed to force congressional Democrats to abandon efforts to extend the legislative ban on offshore drilling that expired on Oct. 1, it was considered a pro-drilling victory. In July, President Bush had lifted an 18-year presidential ban on offshore oil drilling. Soon, it was hoped, it would be drill, baby, drill.

The Democrats knew otherwise. They'd run out the clock knowing that a President Obama and a re-elected Democratic Congress would undo this right-wing mischief. As Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., noted at a Sept. 18 press conference: "Nobody's going to be drilling offshore in the next three months."

Judging by statements made by John Podesta, nobody's going to be drilling anywhere domestically for a very long time. On "Fox News Sunday," Obama's transition chief called the federal Bureau of Land Management's plan to open about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling "a mistake."

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. Expect Obama to rescind that action and reissue the executive order banning offshore drilling in protected waters.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama transition team has a list of 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders scheduled to be undone with a stroke of Obama's pen on alleged climate change, embryonic stem cell research and other issues.

Who was it that said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool, huh?" Oh, right Paul Begala during Clinton's administration.

Read the whole thing.

All those people who keep saying that Obama will have to move to the middle in order to get anything done want to reconsider?

Ramirez Weighs in on the Palin Question

Ramirez Weighs in on the Palin Question


The man is a national treasure. (Mike Ramirez, not McCain.)

More Right-Wing Hatemongering

Unix-Jedi emailed me this morning with a very interesting link. It seems that the very same people who apologized to the world for Bush getting re-elected are now advising us that we all just need to get along.

Jim Treacher had something to say about that. Specifically:

There's nothing easier than telling the guy you just beat that he should forget the depths you plumbed to do so.

So did Victor Davis Hanson:

When I hear a partisan insider like Paul Begala urging at the 11th hour that we now rally around lame-duck Bush in his last few days, I detect a sense of apprehension that no Democrats would wish conservatives to treat Obama as they did Bush for eight years.

Which was picked up by Tim Blair. But what U-J sent me was a link to a specific comment at Tim Blair's Daily Telegraph post. This one:

That website made me want to puke. Those head-tilts are now not of compassion but condescension. As if the left has anything to teach anyone about graciousness or moderation in attitude or behaviour.

Of course conservatives will "get along" and make nice - it's why they knew they could get away with all the atrocious things they've said and done the past 8 years. Did anyone hear GWB whining about all the stuff that's been said and written about him? Has he blackballed a network for asking "tough" questions? Has he querulously queried a news anchor about being a shill for the opposing side?

Do you know why conservatives generally have the capacity for graciousness in victory and defeat? Because, as a rule, conservatives are happy with who they are. There's no cognitive dissonance going on, because we live what we believe - we like free markets, so we consume; we actually care for our less fortunate neighbours, so we give generously (of our OWN money that we earn) and we buy their stuff so they can gain wealth; we don’t believe the economy works by taking from one and giving to the other (as though a dollar for you means a dollar less for me), so we work hard, pay our taxes grudgingly and rejoice at the success of others while working to secure our own; we don't believe in AGW, so we don't agonise over the recycling or flying or driving anywhere. It's bliss.

If you're a lefty in a western capitalist democracy, this is impossible because you are living off the wealth created by a system you think you despise. You are inherently angry and bitter all the time, because your life can't measure up to your impossible ideals, and you are naturally self-absorbed and self-centered because of this anger and bitterness. It's all consuming.

Of course, I'm generalising. I'm sure some of the head-tilties pictured were appalled at the treatment of the conservatives at the hands of the minority (but vocal) radicalised elements of their pseudo-religion, and in the last 8 years raised their voices again and again in protest at such unprovoked and vicious assaults on the character and person of their political opponents, all the while gently counselling their wayward brethren to focus on critiquing ideas, and having genuine debates rather than resorting to name-calling.

And I know, some conservative once called you a name so we are just as bad. Boo hoo. Go cry in your victory herbal tea, winner, and try to figure out just how to run something and lead something for once, instead of making dopey-hopey-changey noises and singing "How many times must a man blah blah" while wearing your "Abort Sarah Palin" button on your "Sarah Palin is a C***" t-shirt while waving your "GWB is not my President" banner and throwing a molotov cocktail at the McDonald’s on the corner. Oh, and did I forget to mention the "No War for Oil" hat on your head?

This makes me sound unhappy doesn't it? But the above is what the left actually DID. It's so bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged that merely stating the fact makes me sound bitter, angry, twisted and unhinged. So sad. (head tilt) But I weally, weally wuv you guys and want to make it work so your heads don’t explode. M'kay?(/head tilt)
JanineV of Perth

You go girl!

But my favorite comment was this one by "Diggs":

In my lifetime I've seen two Democrat Congresses clamor to allow the military to lose a war; one successfully (Viet Nam), one unsuccessfully (OIF). I've seen two Democrat Presidential candidates demand that they be voted in as Commander in Chief so that they can so order the US military to lose said war; one unsuccessful (McGovern), and one successful (Obama). I've watched Democrat Senators and Congressmen defame the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who daily risk their lives so that these retards can do that defaming at no risk to themselves. And I've just retired after 22 years as a commissioned officer in the US Army, so I can now freely criticize the US President.

No, I'm not going to hold back just because I'm "above all that". I'm going to be just as brutal to Obama as any Lefty was to George Bush because it matters. It matters that we didn't fight back against the slime merchants at their level, and now they’ve won. And now my fellow soldiers, my brothers-in-arms, the folks who had my back in harm's way, have to serve once again under someone who not only doesn't understand them, but loathes them and their honor. Now I have their back.

Obama isn't worthy to lick the Iraqi dirt off the bottom of the lowest ranking Army Private's boots. And I'm not going to let him and his ilk slime the military any more just because it's not proper.

No damn way.

First runner-up is this:

Tim, I am a psychiatrist.

This apparent desire to 'get along together' of '52 to 48' is actually a classic symptom of group psychopathology.

According to Object relations Theory, the Obama supporters are identifying with the object (Republicans) into which they have projected annihilation fantasies for the past 8 years. This is then followed by 'reparation', which is what we are seeing now.

It's all very infantile.

Deep Freud of Melbourne

Isn't it, though? See today's QotD. Specifically, Ragin' Dave's comment to it.

Five Years? Toshiba Has Them NOW!

Five Years? Toshiba Has Them NOW!

Instapundit links to this story from the Guardian:

Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

£13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. "Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world," said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. "They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home."

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. "It's leapfrog technology," he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. "We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor."

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. "They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas."

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

"You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts," said Deal. "You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands."

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

I (and Instapundit) mentioned the Toshiba units back last December. Still nothing about how the thermal power of the reactor is converted into electrical power. Micro steam turbines? Thermoelectric conversion? What? Still, I like the idea of neighborhood power generation. Makes me wish I were Bill Gates so I could afford one of my very own.

Still, I'm glad to know that the .gov has seen fit to license the technology for production. It's about damned time.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

5) The frothing stomach-churning buzzkill sweeping Woodstock Nation as more and more Obamacons realize that the 56 million Americans who voted against Obama are not going to be easily persuaded to join the Borg. Plus, they vote. Double-plus, they're re-organizing. Triple-plus, they're armed and sending Mission Packs of ammo to each other for the holidays. - Van der Leun - Internet Mosh Pits I Am Ignoring for the Moment

Here's that Brokaw & Rose Exchange

Here's that Brokaw & Rose Exchange


It was mentioned in the post below, That's What I've Been Saying for over Five Years. Good commentary by whoever did the YouTube video.

UPDATE: Commenter Mark (no, not that Mark) gave a link to the full interview and said "I'm seeing reports of quotes out of context." I watched the whole thing. Here's my transcription of part of it:

Brokaw: There are conservative commentators who say there's a lot about him we don't know, because we haven't asked enough tough questions; the Bill Ayers relationship, even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was, . . .

Rose: Even though Senator McCain had a chance to do that very thing, and ask him about it in one of the debates

Brokaw: And did not, chose not to go there.

--

Rose: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

Brokaw: Well, he uh, Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He's got a picture of him in his office.

Rose: Is that because of his central role in arguing Brown v. Board of Education?

Brokaw: Well, I think, remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, taught at the University of Chicago. And there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or even signs that America was changing than Thurgood Marshall, so that makes perfect sense. Um, you know it's an interesting question. I don't know what books he's read. I know that he's uh, he's got a great curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He's always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter who's a first rate writer . .

Rose: Is his old best friend.

Brokaw: Right. They're trading book ideas constantly.

--

Rose: Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?

Browkaw: No. We've not had. There are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy - putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer wrote that that was, he couldn't say and I can as Charles put it, that was designed to kill the United Nations which is a good idea. We didn't examine that very carefully. We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.

Rose: At all.

Brokaw: Which is astonishing.

Rose: But do we know about what they think? It is more likely that we'll know about John McCain because he's been speaking about foreign policy over a longer period of time.

Brokaw: Right.

Rose: But I don't really know, and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean in terms of whether - Susan Rice and where they are. And do we know who might populate these governments.

Brokaw: Tony Lake who worked in the Clinton Administration. Dick Holbrook obviously is eager to be involved in the briefings. There are some kind of neutral foreign policy specialists in the academies and the Council of Foreign Relations that Barack Obama has been reaching out to. John McCain has been reaching out to those think-tanks and institutes

Rose: AEI and others.

Brokaw: Right of center. Sure. We do know, who, do we know is going to be secretary of state? No.

--

Rose: I think it was you, and maybe not and you'll correct me, but after we began to understand the implications of terrorism and someone asked you whether there was subjects that you thought journalism hadn't done its job, media hadn't done its job, you suggested understanding what was brewing out there.

Brokaw: That was me, and I talked about all the incidents that were building up, the Cole, the attack on the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and we would report them but we didn't connect the dots. And I went to see Louis Freeh about something else one time - we were talking about computer crimes - and he said "You should look into terrorism." And I walked out thinking "We should look at terrorism," and didn't.

--

Rose: There are so many things I don't know in terms of the makeup of. . . we've gone through this long campaign. I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie. But there are questions you don't know in terms of. . . I don't know know what Barack Obama's world view is. I really don't know.

Brokaw: No, no, I don't either.

Rose: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go, and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.

Brokaw: Well, one of the . . .

Rose: Or John McCain either.

Brokaw: Yeah, one of the things I tried to get out of the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which I think is an important question: what is the Obama Doctrine and the McCain Doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis? We're going through one this week in the Congo. Again, I raised the Congo as an example of that. And the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in kind of the broadest possible terms, "Well we should go help out." but you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.

Rose: If you look at Rwanda, and where you've been, and the Secretary - former Secretary of the United Nations has said "We made mistakes." The President of the United States has said "We've made mistakes." Where would they be if they faced the same choices with respect to that kind of genocide?

Brokaw: And that's what we should know.

Rose: And we don't know.

Out of context? Somewhat. But I think this comment left at Charlie Rose's site pretty much sums it up:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who's only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama's run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

Or this one:

This interview does nothing to disabuse my view that the Media is populated by self-serving, egoistical, pandering Maggots; fly larvae who's only job is to destroy and corrupt healthy systems and drag them into the muck and mire of their own decadent slime. The editorial offices and J-Schools need to be flushed after disinfection with a flame-thrower. The casting of blame onto McCain, for not bringing forth at the debates those questions the Media should have been asking at the start of Obama's run for the Oval Office, and their willful blindness at the corrupt machinations of the convention denying Hillary a fair vote, is purely despicable.

And, finally, this one:

The apparent lack of any knowledge of who Barack H. Obama is, what he stands for, who his heros are by you and Mr. Brokaw and the misnamed MSM is absolute proof of the pro-Obama, anti-McCain journalists failure to report any of the negative information that is available on all of details in BHO's past. His friends, advisers, heroes, counselers are known,Ayers, Wright, Alinsky, "Frank a well documented communist and many others leftist academics.What he stands for is a socialistic spread the wealth big governemnt, tax those who earn, give it to those who don't calling it a tax cut when it is welfare and a truly anti-military administration. When a sucker buys a pig in a poke he finds a rock when he open the poke. The democrats chose a candidate in a poke and when the poke is opened out comes a socialist/Marxist.

And with that in mind, Bruce has a bumper sticker for sale you might want.

One more thought: All the commentary in the interview about Obama having to "move to the center to govern" is going to be pretty funny about this time next year, I think.

Bias? What Bias?

Bias? What Bias?

Found over at Mostly Cajun:


See tomorrow's Quote of the Day.

What I've Been Saying for Over Five YEARS

What I've Been Saying for Over Five YEARS

What makes me angriest: that there is no outcry against election fraud; that the media have become pure political instruments; that our "educational system" has produced an ignorant electorate.

--

Never before has the ignorance of the electorate been so intensely cultivated as in this election. We all know that major publications and broadcasters have simply refused to report news, and what they did report was spun politically. And among the stories they are not reporting, is the massive electoral fraud, from the "where is all that money coming from?” to the “how dare state officials refuse to verify the identity of voters?" one, to the refusal to report, day by day, on Joe Biden's scandalously inept, incompetent, and often meretricious campaign. Instead, they obsess on every real and imagined misstatement by Sarah Palin, who for me has been the most attractive of the four candidates.

An ignorant electorate is a real threat to good government, and the whole point of the First Amendment is to create a wide-open national debate from which the truth might emerge. The current behavior of the media–now totally politicized–makes it very hard to get to the truth. They censor themselves, just as our Italian friends confessed they were doing to themselves thirty years ago.

Rush today played some clips from a conversation about Obama between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw. Each said repeatedly “we really don't know much about him.” Well, duh, whose fault is that, y'all? Yours. You haven't done your job.

That's from Faster, Please! in a piece entitled Election Thoughts. RTWT.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The problem is which paragraph to choose? I settled on this one:

All across the world, Mr. Obama's election has helped mend America's tattered image as a racist, violent cowboy, willing to retaliate with bombs at the slightest provocation. The huge outpouring of international support following the election shows that America can still win new friendships while rebuilding its old ones, and provides Mr. Obama with unprecedented diplomatic leverage over our remaining enemies. When Russian tanks start pouring into eastern Europe and Iranian missiles begin raining down on Jerusalem, their leaders will know they will be facing a man who not only conquered America's racial divide but the hearts of the entire Cannes film community. And those Al Qaeda terrorists plotting a dirty nuke or chemical attack on San Francisco face a stark new reality: while they may no longer need to worry about US Marines, they are looking down the barrel of a strongly worded diplomatic condemnation by a Europe fully united in their deep sympathy for surviving Americans. - Iowahawk: Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster

Tip of the hat to reader DJ for the pointer.

Somebody's going to offer Iowahawk a lot of money to write comedy for a living, I think.

Home Again, Home Again, Jiggety Jig

Home Again, Home Again, Jiggety Jig

Man, that four-hour trip home from the jobsite sucks. Blogging will probably be light this weekend. Like everyone else, I'm burned the hell out on politics. I think I want to kick back and read some brain-candy.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

This little corner of America did NOT provide a majority vote to elect Barack Hussein Obama. This state didn’t. The shadow that was a great nation did.

I am NOT a happy person this morning. - Mostly Cajun, Yesterday

Cuts to the Quick, Doesn't He?

Cuts to the Quick, Doesn't He?

Michael Ramirez pens another Pulitzer-worthy effort:


As I've said before, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"

I Reiterate . . .

I Reiterate . . .

Steven Den Beste in his post on the election, not the end of the world wrote, among other things:

A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.

The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.

The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.

And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.

Oh, the Democrats (will) try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.

If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.

(My emphasis.)

As I wrote in The Nuclear Option back in May,

The title of this essay is "The Nuclear Option." I named it that for a reason. John McCain has caught a lot of flak for preventing the implementation of "The Nuclear Option" with his Gang of 14 who negotiated the compromise that also resulted in Judge (Janice Rogers) Brown's confirmation.

But he was right.

As we go into the 2008 elections, the Democrats will, once again, control the House and Senate - perhaps with significant majorities. No matter who ends up in the White House, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be run by Democrats, and any and all nominees will be vetted by them. If John McCain wins the White House, then "moderates" are the best we as a nation can expect to see confirmed, but if Obama or Hillary wins, then Republicans will be in precisely the same position the Democrats were in. Filibuster will be the Republican's only arrow in their quiver.

What do you want to bet that "The Nuclear Option" will be brought up by the Democrats in that event?

At least that's not a tool the Republicans generously handed them.

Thank whatever Diety you worship for that.

Awwww Crap!

Awwww Crap!

Michael Crichton has died. I didn't even know he had cancer. One of the most eloquent voices against the abuse of and the politicization of science has been silenced. And it appears that his web page, where most of his speeches and essays are posted is getting hammered - I'm seeing a lot of "503 Error - Service Unavailable" messages.

I've read just about every book he's written, and most if not all of his essays. The last book of his I read was Next, and it was one of the most disturbing novels I've ever read - especially since I know how thoroughly he researched his work. The man was a national treasure.

If you haven't already seen it, I strongly recommend you go to this post from July and watch the 56 minute interview he gave to Charlie Rose after Next came out.

RIP, Michael. We need you, and we're going to miss you. The Church of Global Warming will be ramping up their membership drive shortly.

Quote(s) of the Day

Quote(s) of the Day

From Billy Beck:

At the moment, I have two general things to say:

1) That was the capstone of twentieth century American politics. That catastrophe is complete now.

2) It was the most profoundly foolish thing that American voters have ever done. As a matter of justice, it might be interesting to see how many of them discover this fact in the next four or eight years. It won't make any difference, however, to the price that comes with the lesson. This event will hobble Americans for whole generations. It is very much an open question to me whether anyone will learn anything in the wake of this. I am very much afraid that that capacity is on its way completely out of American civil life. I'm not kidding.

All bets are off.

ObamaNation

ObamaNation

Catastrophe defeated Disaster. Well, that answers one question - can a black man be elected President of the U.S.?

And another - no, there were apparently no "celebratory riots," thankfully.

The Democrats now have at least 56 Senate seats - not 60 (also thankfully), but not far off. They may have as many as 256 House seats.

For that which The Change we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful . . .

Here's hoping that Markadelphia isn't wrong about everything.

In Honor of Election Day

In Honor of Election Day

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We'd all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all want to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright

Commments?

The Test

The Test

Tomorrow is it. It's the test to see if America is still politically Lockean or if Rousseau has finally won. If Gramsci has won.

And if our children have lost.

Today was a long day. Tomorrow promises the same. But there will be an even longer night tomorrow.

Disaster or catastrophe? Here's hoping for the best of those two really dismal choices.

Vanderboegh Has a Wicked Sense of Humor

Vanderboegh Has a Wicked Sense of Humor

And I mean that in the best possible way.

(Anybody who likes Monty Python and the Holy Grail is OK by me.)

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires. - R.A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

And urge all your friends and neighbors to do likewise.

Remember: The choice is between disaster and catastrophe, and if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Archived for Posterity

I think Judge Andrew Napolitano will be an early candidate for re-education given this WSJ op-ed that I will archive here due to its excellence:

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution
The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.

Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.

Legally powerless, but that hasn't stopped them.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.

The case here was Wickard v. Filburn, and it represented the first really egregious abuse of the Commerce Clause.

Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.

Actually, as Senators both have already taken the oath. McCain violated it most blatantly with the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection "Campaign Finance Reform" Act. Obama hasn't spent enough time in the Senate to have a record, but it appears the country is about to put him in the Big Chair where he can redistribute wealth to his heart's content. Also without the legal power to do so.

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

And the American people haven't gotten out the rope or the tar and feathers, more's the pity.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

Simple. We let them. And now the majority of the public is so ignorant of the basis and the workings of their own government, they don't know any better! They think it's supposed to BE THIS WAY!

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, (my emphasis) how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

Well, not legally. (There's that word again.) Hasn't stopped them.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

And we, the public, are at fault for not stopping them.

If you have not read it before (and perhaps even if you have) I recommend the story Davy Crockett vs. Welfare as an illustration of what Judge Napolitano was talking about. (Please ignore the fact that it's on LewRockwell.com. The story is the point, not the source.) I also recommend you read The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp.

When looking for the Crockett piece, I found this quotation I think is apropos, but far too late:

Government, wherever it exists should be heavily shackled and released only to perform a very narrow function. When government is out exercising its power, there should be men of honor and valor, armed and waiting to subdue it at the slightest provocation. - Difster