Quote of the Day

Two imperfect and wildly incompatible world views have been on collision course for decades, and it's going to stay that way until we, as a society, remember why we intentionally made a government that is powerless in areas in which people will never agree, because at the heart of the matter is using the naked power of government to enforce ones preferences on the other.

Part of that process is realizing that you're going to have to give up the club your own team would use to enforce its preferences. For the Left, the list of offenses against Liberty is endless. For the Right, amongst other things, that means getting over antipathy towards homosexuality, and it also means recognizing and accepting that the definition of abortion as murder hinges on the ensoulment of the fetus, because until that happens, there is no party whose life is deprived. Since this is a question that cannot be answered without appealing to the unprovable propositions of religion, it is therefore a private matter, and not fit for public policy.

The only other alternative is that those who insist on their right to decide on these things for others wipes out those who disagree, which is the precedent that the bulk of human history offers us.

-- geekWithA.45

The Geek is at least a half-magnitude brighter than I am, and I am constantly humbled by his ability to say, and say more precisely, in ten words what it takes me 50 to attempt.

Blog more, Geek.

Who Should We Worry About?

Interesting piece from "Robin of Berkely" - "a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal" now writing for American Thinker. In her latest piece, Obama's Mind Game, she opens:

It's a chilling moment when the light goes out in someone's eyes. A once-radiant child hardens from abuse. A woman's heart shrinks after her husband's abandonment.

The person looks the same, maybe acts the same. But something is gone, and what's lost is irretrievable. It's like when a person dies: in a heartbeat, the soul vanishes.

I witnessed this alteration recently when I visited my goddaughter, a radiant girl. Her mom, a hardcore progressive, has started exposing her to the darkest elements of the left. And the last time I looked in the girl's eyes, the light had gone out. Disappeared. Just like that.

I see this phenomenon every day: a light dimming. The friendly shopkeeper snaps at me. My cheerful neighbor seems flattened.

And you hear it in the news: people acting strangely, going off the deep end. The most bizarre behavior becoming the new normal.

A thug bites off a finger. Sarah Palin's church is torched. Bullies intimidate voters.

Last week, an esteemed Columbia University black architecture professor punched a white female coworker in the eye for not doing more about white privilege.

He has no history of violence. So why now?

Why now? This may be the most important question of our time. Why are some people reaching the boiling point? Why do many others look vacant, like an Invasion of the Body Snatchers? The shootings at military bases, from Little Rock to Fort Hood -- why now?

It's Obama, of course.

Quite aware of what she just said, she follows it with:

Liberals will excoriate me for writing this.

Can I have "DUH!" for $1,000, Alex?

Interesting piece. The howls of anguished outrage will be more interesting still.

(h/t: MK Freeberg)

Why? I'll Tell You Why.

Why? I'll Tell You Why.

Yesterday Glenn Reynolds said that he still didn't understand "what the White House’s calculus is" on trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists in New York in civil court.

Back in 2006 when I wrote The United Federation of Planets, I explained it:

The "state of nature" is the ultimate objective reality. In it, people will do whatever is necessary to survive, or they don't survive. In point of fact, throughout history - even today - people have not only defended their lives, liberty and property, they have taken life, liberty, and property from others not of their society. And they have done so secure in the knowledge that their philosophy tells them that it's the right thing to do. This is true of the The Brow-Ridged Hairy People That Live Among the Distant Mountains, the Egyptians, the Inca, the Maori, the British Empire, and the United States of America. It's called warfare, and it's the use of lethal force against people outside ones own society. Rand explained that:

A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

That's a critical definition. If a society truly believes that:

...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

then that society cannot wage war. It cannot even defend itself - because to take human life, to destroy property, even to take prisoners of war is anathema to such a society, for it would be in violation of the fundamental rights of the victims of such action. (See: the Moriori. Or the Amish.)

This creates a cognitive bind, then, unless you rationalize that the rights you believe in are valid for your society, but not necessarily for those outside it. Those members that violate the sanctions on freedom of action within the society are treated differently from those outside the society that do the same. Those within the society are handled by the legal system, and are subject to capture, judicial review, and punishment under law, whether that's issuance of an "Anti-Social Behavior Order" in London, or a death by stoning in Tehran. Those outside of a society who act against that society may be ignored, or may risk retaliatory sanctions up to and including open warfare, depending on the situation. (See: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons.)

--

(W)hen a society faces the fact that its philosophical foundation does not match objective reality, it is inevitable that there will be a loss of confidence and a societal change.

--

If you examine it closely, (the Left) has wrapped itself in a philosophy that attempts to extend all of the West's "rights of man" to the entire world - up to and including those who are actively seeking our destruction, and the Left holds itself as morally superior for doing so. Attempting to intercept terrorist communications is "illegal domestic wiretapping" - a violation of the right to privacy. Media outlets showing acknowledged Islamist propaganda is exercise of the right of free speech, but suppression of images from the 9/11 attacks - specifically, the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center, or its victims jumping to their deaths - is not censorship. The humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is described as a "human rights violation," as is the detainment of prisoners at Guantanimo without trial. For the Left, the war between the West and radical Islamists should not be handled as a war - it should be handled as a police matter - as a society would handle internal violators. Our enemies shouldn't be killed, they should be, at worst, captured and counseled. Our enemies are not at fault, WE are, because we are hypocrites that don't live up to our professed belief in absolute, positive, unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate rights. If we just lived up to our professed beliefs, the rest of the world would not hate us. Yet to believe this, the Left must ignore objective reality.

It's Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." Destroy the enemy's society so you can build your new one on top of the ruins.

The Zen of Shooting

The Zen of Shooting

LabRat does a helluva job explaining it.

I Repeat:

I Repeat:

Get Out. Get Out NOW.

I wish I could say I was surprised.

UPDATE: Reader "eeky" points out this earlier story:

Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free

Monday, September 29, 2008

A man accused of beating a DVLA inspector with a broom handle as walked free from court after claiming his alleged victim had exaggarated the incident.

Inspector Hayden Hart had claimed he was attakced my[sic] Paul Clarke, 26, as he patrolled Wood Street, Merstham, checking parked cars for out-of-date tax discs.

The inspector said he was clubbed repeatedly by his attacker, who warned him: "If you come near my vehicle again, I'll break your f****** legs."

But Mr Clarke, of Wood Street, Merstham, walked free from the Crown Court at Guildford after winning his appeal against conviction for assault by beating at Redhill Magistrates Court on March 12 this year.

Mr Clarke, 26, of Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, denied the offence, insisting he had never actually struck Mr Hart during the confrontation on June 12 last year (2007).

The court was told that Mr Hart was driving along Wood Street stopping to inspect parked vehicles to make sure that they were displaying valid vehicle excise licenses.

Giving evidence at the appeal hearing, Mr Hart said: "I had seen four vehicles which I was going to report for not having up-to-date tax discs."

He said he was inside his Honda filling out the appropriate forms when he heard a loud bang on his window and looked up to see a young man.

Mr Hart said: "He was carrying a broom stick without the head on the end of it."

He said the man appeared very aggressive and threatened violence against him.

"As I got out of my car to ask him what he was doing, he struck me on the arm two or three times with the handle," he said.

Mr Hart said he grabbed hold of the stick and there was a scuffle before the other man walked off.

He said he suffered extensive bruising on his arm and had to have time off work because he felt so shaken by the incident.

"I felt very depressed," he said.

However, under cross-examination by defence counsel Richard McConaghy, he admitted the bruises might have been caused when he had leapt out of his vehicle to see what was going on.

Mr Clarke said he had confronted Mr Hart because he thought he had seen him trying to steal something from his pick-up truck.

"I didn't realise he was a DVLA inspector. He might have been a prolific thief," he said.

He said he had the broom because he had been sweeping up some glass in the road - and the head, which was loose, had fallen off during the fracas.

Mr Clarke accused Mr Hart of exaggerating his injuries, adding: "I reckon he wanted some time off work and compensation."

After the court was told that it was not possible to prove that the bruising to Mr Hart's arm had actually been caused by Mr Clarke, prosecuting counsel Laurence Aiolfi applied to have the offence changed from assault by beating to one of common assault.

But the judge, Mr. Recorder Stuart Lawson-Rogers, refused to agree to this - allowing Mr Clarke's appeal to succeed.

Eeky and I seem to agree that someone decided Mr. Clarke needed to pay his debt to society for failing to conform to the "passive victim" standard. Loaded sawed-off shotguns don't magically appear in most people's gardens.

Verbatim?

In fact-checking a recent comment, I found a review of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story which contained this fascinating bit:

Early on, Moore admits that he, too, fell in love with post-war capitalism as a child, and that the system used to work pretty well for the average middle-class American — even if it was made possible by a lack of global competition made possible by the United States’ military dominance. The problem is that there is no middle class anymore –– there is only, as one subject of the film puts it, "the people who got nothing and the people who have it all"

Boy, that sounded familiar. Where had I heard that before?

Oh! Here:

At one time, there were wealthy people in this country who enjoyed comfortable lives, a middle class that never really had to worry about money, and poor people. Now we have wealthy people who have rigged the system and have seized more money (see:power) than this world has ever seen, no middle class, many who are one illness away from losing our homes, and an underclass that resembles Third World countries.

Now, I haven't seen Moore's latest "masterpiece," but I'm willing to bet that Moore uses those exact words, verbatim in it: "NO MIDDLE CLASS."

And my dauntless crusader for Truth, Justice, and the "GOOD Capitalist" way (that of redistribution of wealth) Markadelphia repeated it because it fits his worldview perfectly - even though I doubt seriously that he is neither of the "got nothings" or the "have it alls," which pretty much disproves the assertion from the word "go."

Projection, thy name is "Markadelphia."

Just for Fun

Just for Fun

I received this via email today:


Thought you might enjoy that.

I May Have to Paint This on the Tailgate of My Truck

I May Have to Paint This on the Tailgate of My Truck


Found at AR15.com.

Quote of the Day - Snark Edition

Wait a second... I can't believe it's taken this long to point out that Kevin finally is quoting Rush verbatim.

-- "EMP" in the quotes to A Host of Holy Horrors to Direct Our Aimless Dance

That's some quality snark, right there!

Speaking Truth to Power

Speaking Truth to Power

Where are the “General Betray Us” ads, offered at a reduced rate in the New York Times? Are we going to see an entire subculture—Michael Moore, novels, docu-dramas, comedians, etc.—slamming Obama on the war? Or, in contrast, an entire populist, in the streets, protest over Obama voting “present” while he goes to Copenhagen instead of meeting with Gen. McChrystal? Cannot the media see that the surge in Iraq—little public support, defections in Bush’s own party, a hostile media, demagoguery from the left, campaign distortions by the likes of Obama himself—was the far harder call than granting a troop request in Afghanistan? Why was Bush’s tough call “doomed” in a “lost” war, while Obama’s “present” vote is seen as sober and judicious?

--

These are the most interesting of times: we are witnessing nothing less than an attempt in just 10 months to reinvent the United States at home and abroad into something it never was, led by someone who, the more soothing, comforting, and melodic his speech-making, the more bruising, cut-throat, and ruthless the act that follows.

So it’s like we’re living in the late Roman Republic…

Victor Davis Hanson, Works and Days - Thoughts from the Later Republic>

RTWT. Out loud. Print it out and pass it around.

More like this, please.

Quote of the Day - Thomas Jefferson Edition

Quote of the Day - Thomas Jefferson Edition

Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty [The Louisiana Purchase --mpa], and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." -- Wikipedia

Found in an interesting post at Mark Alger's Baby TrollBlog.

That's very much the point I was making in The United Federation of Planets, in far fewer words.

AZ Blogmeet & Range Trip - Update

AZ Blogmeet & Range Trip - Update

OK, according to the poll, 11 people can make the Dec. 12 date, one (1) can make Dec. 5, and six can't make either. (Sorry, y'all!)

We're going with the 12^th. Now I need to verify from the City of Casa Grande that the range is not reserved on the 12^th for Cowboy Action shooters or such. It would be a bummer to show up there and not be able to shoot!

Assuming there's no conflict, here's how I see it happening: I and at least a couple of other people need to be at the range when it opens at 7:00AM in order to secure good shooting positions. I'll be bringing my AR500 plate steel targets, and I'll need a hand setting them up - they weigh about 35lbs each, and they have to be hand-carried downrange, since there is no longer vehicle access. We'll shoot until about 1:00PM, then pack it in and go to a restaurant still to be determined. I'll be contacting other, non-gun-oriented Arizona bloggers to invite them to shoot and/or eat, too. At least this gives me about a month to get this organized.

A word or twelve about the Elsy Pearson Public Rifle Range:

1) It is an unsupervised range - there are no Range Officers, so we have to do that ourselves. I expect everyone to be familiar with the Four Rules. I also expect everyone to be familiar with firing range etiquette.

2) There is no potable water at the range. Bring fluids. (But no alcohol.)

3) There is, at least, a Porta-Potty on site now. There didn't used to be. I suggest that someone bring some toilet paper, just in case. And hand-sanitizer, too.

4) Even though it's late fall, and the firing line is covered, Mr. Sun is nasty. Bring sunscreen.

5) There are no targets nor target stands at this range. You can bring anything you're willing to clean up as a target (exceptions being glass and explosive targets - that's posted). As I said, I'll be bringing my steel targets, and everyone is welcome to shoot them. I'll also be bringing a target stand for paper targets. If you go out to pick something up, don't get the "stick in the ground" type target stands. The ground out there is caliche, and about as hard as cement.

6) There are three ranges to shoot from, a 100 yard range with covered shooting benches, a 300 yard range with covered benches, and a 25 yard range with no benches, but the firing line is covered too. I figure we'll take up one end of the 300 yard range. In addition, the backstop is a range of mountains. About 600 yards downrange on the side of the mountain someone has put some steel targets, so if you bring something with some reach, you have something to shoot at.

7) Sorry, but they don't allow .50BMG at this range. I suppose it's just slightly possible to loft a 750 grain .50 caliber projectile over the mountain range backstop and drop it onto Interstate 8, so they're verboten.

We still need a place to go after the shoot. I'm open to suggestions. I'd prefer it if it wasn't posted "No Guns," obviously. Anyone familiar with Casa Grande?

Your Moment of Zen

Your Moment of Zen

By request:

In a Mature Society, "Civil Servant" is Semantically Equal to "Civil Master"

In a Mature Society, "Civil Servant" is Semantically Equal to "Civil Master"

The title of this post is a quote from Robert Heinlein's The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, and it is echoed by Brit Phil B's essay from last week, specifically this bit:

You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country.

RedState expands on a memo released by the US Office of Personnel Management yesterday, explaining:

Obama Administration Intends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

My favorite quote from the memo:

I believe we must hold ourselves and the government to a higher standard, one that honors and supports the President’s strong commitment to a Government that is transparent and open.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Indecision is Statesmanship, and Transparency is Opacity. So far I haven't seen Obama show a "strong commitment" to anything other than getting elected. But he apparently deeply understands how to manipulate the levers of power.

A Host of Holy Horrors to Direct Our Aimless Dance

A Host of Holy Horrors to Direct Our Aimless Dance

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- Rush, Freewill

I don't have much to say on Obamlet's indecision on Afghanistan (other than "why is anyone surprised?") but others do. Gerard Vanderleun and Neo-Neocon for example.

There's an App for That

There's an App for That

For SayUncle, who's enjoying his Droid far too much:

Who Wants to Attend an Arizona Blogmeet & Range Trip?

BUMPED AND POLL ADDED.

I've been thinking about this for a while. For one thing, I desperately need to update my blogroll and get a LOT of AZ bloggers on the sidebar. Second, I've attended blogger get-togethers in Louisville, Reno, Phoenix, and Moyockistan, but the last time I met up with local AZ bloggers, we didn't do any shooting.

So, I'm thinking we invade the Casa Grande public shooting range one Saturday, hurl a ton of lead downrange, then caravan off to dinner somewhere not too far off to eat, drink, and tell lies for a few hours.

Who's interested? Can we set this up?

UPDATE: How about Saturday, Dec. 5? UPDATE III: I'm informed that there's a gun show in Phoenix that weekend. How about the 12th?

UPDATE II: If you're a blogger and you're up for it, please spread the news. Not everybody who reads you reads me. Again, blog readers are more than welcome! And if you happen to live in Casa Grande or are familiar with it, some suggestions on where to go eat, drink, and be merry afterwards would be appreciated.

When Running Away is Not an Option

Police: Woman In Home Kills Intruder

Mother Of 3 Children Opens Fire On Alleged Robber

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Investigators said a mother of three children shot and killed an intruder who was trying to get into her home Tuesday night.

Image by Oleg Volk
And I guess she was compensating for something, too?

(h/t to Zendo Deb for this one, again.)

COP-KILLER

COP-KILLER!

A lot has been written recently about Major Hasan's choice of weapons for his Ft. Hood rampage shooting, the FN Five-seveN handgun. SayUncle has some links, Tam discusses the SS190 5.7x28 loading in some detail, Michael Bane talks about it, and mentions a Brady press release from 2005 that describes the pistol as a "cop-killer gun."

If you want real hysteria though, you have to travel back in time with me to July of 2006 when a Queens, NY District Attorney announced that an FN Five-seveN pistol was one of the weapons confiscated during a drug arrest. Apparently he read the Brady presser and thought it didn't go far enough, as the DA's press release contained this little bit of hyperbole, picked up and spread by media outlets such as Newsday, the TimesLedger, the Staten Island Advance, and local AM radio station 1010AM. It was also picked up by the Ass. Press:

Three men have been charged with illegally possessing two handguns, one of which is called a cop killer because it can break through most bulletproof vests and plates worn by police officers, prosecutors announced Thursday.

William Davis, 21, his brother Clarence Davis, 18, and their friend Gquan Lloyd, 18, all of Queens, were charged with multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon, District Attorney Richard A. Brown said.

During the execution of a narcotics search warrant Wednesday at the apartment the men shared in Far Rockaway, police found a defaced, unloaded Fabrique Nationale Five-seveN semiautomatic handgun, the first recovery of such a weapon in the city, Brown said.

"Its presence is troubling and makes the job of street cops that much more dangerous," Brown said.

Of the 616 police officers killed nationwide between 1994 and 2003, 425 were shot with FN 5.7s, Brown said.

So far as I can tell, Officer Kimberly Mundy is the only officer who has ever been shot with an FN Five-seveN, and she's still alive.

The piece I wrote in 2006 was about how the media, with all its professionalism and layers of editorial oversight, managed to pass DA Brown's little faux pas on as fact, and then did very little about correcting the error afterward, but the Brady Campaign has never worried overmuch about little things like facts.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

In the twentieth century...it has been said in a highly acclaimed book that "healthy, rational people will not injure others." -- Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, 2007 Edition, p. 163

That "highly acclaimed book" is Ramsey Clark's 1970 Crime in America.

Think about that for a minute. From my perspective that sentiment is missing one word: "Healthy, rational people will not injure others criminally." There are other ways to say it, but honestly, given Clark's actions, I wonder if he didn't mean it precisely as it reads - that anyone who deliberately injures another for any reason cannot be healthy and/or rational.

This is, once again, a statement illustrating the inability to differentiate between violent-and-predatory, and violent-but-protective.

I would very much like to read that quote in full context.