Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.–Joe]
Category Archives: Politics
Pardon me but your your bias is showing
Alan Korwin was smart enough and fast enough to turn the tables on “an authorized journalist” during a recent encounter with a group of them:
The AP writer told of an assignment she got from the New York office, formerly the core of AP, and now restructured as one of four regional hubs. It seems the nation was bursting with hope and optimism right after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and now, one year later, everyone was disappointed and dejected.
“But wait,” pointed out The Uninvited Ombudsman, the emcee for the evening event, “for half the nation’s people, there was hopeless disappointment and dejection right after the election, and now, a year later, there is finally a ray of hope and light at the end of the tunnel. Doesn’t your story neglect that half of the picture?”
All four AP staffers, who had nodded approvingly during the anecdote, stared like deer caught in headlights.
Nice.
Quote of the day–Alexander Haig
The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that would be clearly understood.
Alexander Haig
December 2, 1924 – February 20, 2010
[I should have posted this a few days ago but I forgot that I had it in my collection.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Sydney J. Harris
Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.
Sydney J. Harris
[And there is a whole lot of asking going on around here now.–Joe]
Just a Reminder
Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK
The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn’t considered “balance” to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is– a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women’s suffrage coalition of Mayors?
One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, “enemy of the state” has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.
Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.–Joe]
Understanding the other side
Occasionally I have spent time on understanding those opposed to freedom. Other times I just said it doesn’t matter why — we just have to defeat them.
Kevin put a lot more effort and research into the understanding that I ever would have expended. It’s basically a extended book report on A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell with lots of supporting material from Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek to Markadelphia. I’ve put it in my “wish list” of books to buy from Audible.com and will probably start it within a week or so.
It took me an hour to read (it is a classic Kevin Baker post) but I found the enlightenment worth my time.
The main point is there is a fundamental first principle that differentiates advocates for freedom from those that oppose us. Sowell and Baker, in this post, refer to two different “social visions”: the Constrained and the Unconstrained.
The Constrained Vision people advocate, among other things, setting up processes to limit the damage done by the extremes of individual human behaviors such as violent crime and group crimes such as enslavement and genocide. This limits political power for both good and evil. The Constrained Vision advocates view the limit of political power as a trade-off. Sure, it might be that you can create something closer to a utopia if more power is given to the government but the risks are not worth it.
The Unconstrained Vision people minimize or dismiss the possibility enhanced governmental powers becoming a hazard and focus on the possible benefits. When the enhanced governmental powers fail to deliver the anticipated benefits they advocate even more governmental powers and the silence and/or death of those that oppose them. Facts become irrelevant (as seen in my post made a few minutes before I started looking at Kevin’s post).
Ultimately the two differences in first principle lead to conclusions that are diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. In this video where a liberal scumbag running for U.S. president gets rights and privileges absolutely backward you have to conclude that even though he is a lawyer that he cannot have read the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I keep reading Kevin’s post, hoping to find something that could be used as a tool to recover our freedom in this country. What can you say or do that lead us out of what to some appears to be a death spiral?
I didn’t find the conclusion I was looking for. Instead it was in the first few paragraphs. As Sowell says (via Kevin):
Peter Robinson: If you had a sentence or two to say to the Cabinet assembled around President Obama, and this cabinet holds glittering degrees from one impressive institution after another, if you could beseech them to conduct themselves in one particular way between now and the time they leave office, what would you say?
Thomas Sowell: Actually, I would say only one word: Goodbye. Because I know there’s no point talking to them.
Hence, understanding is not all that important. Only defeating them is important. I’ll still be trying to understand but the more I understand the more I agree with son James here and here.
Quote of the day–John Lilly
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.
John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.
There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible “immutable truths”. It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100’s of millions by those attempting to build a “workers paradise”. And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)–Joe]
Quote of the day–Andy Ostroy
What’s happened is that, true to form, Democrats can’t seem to get out of their own way. Unlike their counterparts on the right, the party leadership, from Obama on down the Congressional line, is comprised of a bunch of spineless, visionless, disorganized, pseudo-intellectual sailors sinking in a sea of their own delusion and denial.
Andy Ostroy (Democrat)
January 27, 2009
The Problem with Democrats
[Considering that nearly everything they attempt to legislatively do cannot be found in the enumerated powers granted them by the U.S. Constitution I don’t have a problem with this.–Joe]
Politicians Respond to Wa State ‘Assault ban’
Writing to one’s state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore’s internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do. They need to know what we’re thinking, whether or not they agree. More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget. Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;
—–Original Message—–
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This NonsenseHOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICETO: Senator Mark Schoesler
CC: Representative Susan Fagan
Representative Joe SchmickFROM: Lyle
BILL: 6396 (Against)
SUBJECT: Stop This Nonsense
MESSAGE:
Senate Bill 6396, the “assault weapon” bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”. Criminals by definition don’t obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.
Further, it is well known that the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.
This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.
I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396. Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also. Is this how we are to fight crime– by disarming or harassing the potential victims?
I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary. Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties. We will be watching.
Thank You.
I received the following response;
From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle
Subject: RE: Stop This NonsenseThank you for your comments. I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.
I oppose any gun regulation. I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.
Sincerely,
Joe Schmick
State Representative
Good for Joe Schmick. Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers “who so brazenly attack our personal liberties”. No big surprise there. This is a new concept. Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time. We’ll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change. Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense. I replied;
Thank you very much for your response. If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31. Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.
Best Regards,
Lyle
No one else responded for about a week. Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);
Lyle,
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.
I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District. As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider. We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy. We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.
Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government. Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.
Best regards,
Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District439 John L. O’Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov
It’s a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position. The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term “individual rights and freedoms” appears. A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn’t say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition. Not much to go on as part of a universal “I don’t have the time to respond to you directly so here’s some crap for you to chew on. Now go away and don’t bother me” letter. A bit insulting. She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement. Such is life. Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things. No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself). If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.
Head count from the “assault weapon” hearing in Olympia
Joe Waldron reported the following to the WA-CCW and WA-Guns email lists on the hearing in Olympia on Tuesday:
I just finished scanning the sign-in sheets on the bill.
313 signed in
14 signed “pro” (yes) on the bill
299 signed “con” (no) on the bill.Actually, it was 11 “yes” and three blank, but they were in a bunch, all from Ceasefire, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Congratulations to Washington gun owners on a fine turnout! It doesn’t quite beat the count for the gun show bill three years ago (SB 5197), but it was close!!!
21.4 to 1.
Typical. And probably the reason the MSM didn’t mention numbers.
Also in the comments there was mention of people on our side that didn’t sign in because they got there a little bit late (parking is hard to find near the capital) and who were directed to the overflow area away from the sign in table.
Good job guys.
Oh, there were some people that open carried. The cops helping with crowd control were just fine with it. They OC, so why should there be a problem if their bosses OC?
A step closer to freedom
Canadians took another step closer to freedom last night:
A decision by MPs in Ottawa to repeal the federal long-gun registry was met with harsh criticism by the Quebec government, and law enforcement groups across the country.
MPs voted 164-137 last evening to repeal the federal long-gun registry, despite police assertions that it saves lives.
…
The proposed legislation now moves to an all-party committee for public hearings before it returns to the House of Commons for a final vote and then heads to the Senate.
If the bill makes it through Parliament, it would mean the dismantling of eight million firearms records, say police.
The article is very negative on the news. The only thing positive in the article about the proposed easing of the infringements on an inalienable right is the following:
Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, the president of the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues du Québec, said he hopes yesterday’s decision will allow lawmakers to focus on more pressing matters.
“There are fewer and fewer hunting guns being bought, because fewer people are hunting, not because the registry has been a success,” Boisvenu said. “The real problem is caused by knives and handguns. (The long-gun registry) has cost $1 billion, and it’s not up to date. About half the people on that registry have changed addresses by now.”
Boisvenu, whose daughter Julie was kidnapped, raped and strangled to death in June 2002, said the money would be better spent cracking down on the trade of handguns and knives, many of which are funnelled through Native reserves. He said the long-gun registry would not have prevented a tragedy like the Polytéchnique massacre.
“All the mass killers have done their crimes with illegal guns,” he said. “There is nothing in place to stop someone from getting a gun on the black market and going to kill someone.”
If our president was doing his job he would praise the legislations and encourage them to hurry it through to completion–other presidents were advocates of liberty why not all?
Quote of the day–Ashleigh Brilliant
Maybe I’m lucky to be going so slowly, because I may be going in the wrong direction.
Ashleigh Brilliant
[If only President Obama were so smart.–Joe]
Good turnout in Olympia
I was unable to attend but the reports coming in indicate we had a good turnout. The MSM didn’t give us any clues (check here, here, and here–do you any hints at all?) as to the ratio but it appears it was fairly typical:
More than 300 Washington gun owners descended on the John A. Cherberg Building in Olympia Tuesday morning for a hearing on SB 6396, the so-called “assault weapons” ban legislation sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Adam Kline.
Opponents of the bill vastly outnumbered its supporters, and for many in the audience who had traveled several hours to reach the capitol, it was disappointing that Kline allowed only 30 minutes for the hearing, and only a handful of speakers – evenly divided between pro and con – were allowed to speak. The crowd spilled out into the hallway, and at least a couple of auxiliary hearing rooms were jammed.
Also typical is the following type of stunt:
Several in the audience, including National Rifle Association lobbyist Brian Judy, were astonished when Pillo claimed to be “here today representing myself and my personal opinions,” yet she was in full uniform, complete with duty belt and sidearm.
This happens a lot at these type of events. It’s very frustrating to have people who should be arresting and prosecuting people like the sponsors of these bills actually support them and openly admit they draw a government paycheck. They couldn’t openly be a member of the KKK so why can they get away with openly supporting gun control laws? This has to change.
Quote of the day–Charles Caleb Colton
It is almost as difficult to make a man unlearn his errors as his knowledge. Malinformation is more hopeless than noninformation; for error is always more busy than ignorance. Ignorance is a blank sheet, on which we may write; but error is a scribbled one, from which we must first erase. Ignorance is content to stand still, with her back to the truth; but error is more presumptuous, and proceeds in the wrong direction. Ignorance has not light, but error follows a false one.
Charles Caleb Colton
[I was reminded of this by:
Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, said the bill includes descriptions of features on firearms such as pistol grips on rifles and barrel shrouds that make a gun “more lethal than your average deer rifle.” That prompted laughter in the hearing room…
I also considered the following as QOTD in response but I had already used them. Anti-gun people suck up my supply of ignorance quotes at a prodigious rate:
- Quote of the day–Ben Franklin
- Quote of the day–Mark Philip Alger
- Quote of the day–Robert Burton
- Quote of the day–Lord Acton
- Quote of the day–Peter McArthur
- Quote of the day–James Huffman-Scott
- Quote of the day–Akhenaton
I have news for Mr. Kline. The days of ignorance by the people at large is over. It’s not going to work this time.
The sponsors of this bill have, and spread, malinformation. It’s sometimes tough to deal with. But public laughter is a far more effective cure than anger and is better for your blood pressure too.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Richard M. Nixon
It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.
Richard M. Nixon
[I am reminded of this by the Obama Report Card by the Brady Campaign. On that same day the candidate they endorsed and everyone initially expected would be a shoo-in for the open Massachusetts Senate seat was beaten by a (at least moderately) pro-gun candidate. Now they want to beat on Obama who was considered their savior just a year ago.
The Brady Campaign would do well to remember the conditions under which President Nixon left the political scene. Claiming “necessity” and acting on that without adhering to the universal principles of honesty and integrity can lead to ruin. But then honesty has never been a strong point of the Brady Campaign so my advice is probably going be totally ignored.–Joe]
Help stop the WA AWB
From Joe Waldron’s Washington State Gun Owner Action League post dated January 22, 2010:
A public hearing will be conducted on SB 6396, the so-called “assault weapon” ban bill on Tuesday, 26 January. The hearing will take place at 10 a.m. in Senate Hearing Room “1” in the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building on the Capitol Campus in Olympia.
It is imperative that as many individuals as possible attend the hearing and sign in in opposition to the bill. A sign-in sheet will be available at a side table just inside the hearing room (or if the crowd is large enough, the sign-in sheet may be outside the room in the corridor). Sign in with your name, address and a position on the bill: “con.” There is a place on the sign-in sheet to indicate whether or not you would like to testify. Time is limited, so I anticipate only a few individuals will be called upon on both sides of the issue. Who gets to testify and who does not is solely up to the committee chair (Senator Adam Kline, sponsor of the bill).
Hints on testimony: public input is limited to three minutes or less. Begin by stating your name and where you are from. Personal attacks on the motives of bill supporters are not allowed. If a point has already been made, do not repeat it. As with a letter to the editor, short, concise points are best. While reference to “cold, dead fingers” may be dramatic, this is NOT a drama. Courtesy is a virtue!
Parking in and around the Capitol Campus is extremely limited. Olympia parking enforcement makes a ton of money enforcing the one-hour limit in the residential areas just south of the Campus! If the spaces on Campus or overflow parking lots to the east are taken, it’s best to park in the business area in the blocks to the north, using the parking meters. Car-pooling is the way to go!
It is equally imperative that, whether you can attend the hearing or not, you contact your Senator, by e-mail (https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx), direct telephone (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx) or Legislative Hotline (1-800-562-6000) to indicate your opposition to the bill.
A committee vote on the bill will likely be taken a few days later in executive session. The Judiciary Committee has eight members, five Democrats and three Republicans (matching the proportion of Democrats to Republicans in the Senate). The three Republicans and one Democrat lean our way.
WA AWB is likely DOA
People are still saying the proposed AWB will be stillborn at best:
After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state’s gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.
The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.
“There’s more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people,” said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. “You can’t sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn’t enough to confront gun violence in the state.”
The bill was named in honor of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan, who was shot and killed by a SKS 7.62-caliber rifle in Seattle in July. The legislation focuses on “military-style” assault weapons, which can fire rapidly and carry large magazines of ammunition.
Similar bans have not fared well in the state Legislature in the past, and in an election year, supporters face a battle to even get the bill out of committee.
They did manage to avoid Fascitelli embarrassing himself with more talk of “animal assassins”.
Israel and Guns
I know there’s a perception that in Israel, by golly, practically everyone has guns and that makes for great security. They may have an effective military. I don’t know. When was the last time it was really tested?
From our friend in Israel, we get a more accurate picture of how the government treats private gun ownership there;
Friends:
Something new has been inserted into the firearms regulations here.
When your rifle (includes all .22 caliber rifles, even Olympic small bore .22s and air-guns) license comes up for renewal, if you are not an active member of the new Israeli Rifleman Association– a new branch of the Israeli Shooting Federation arisen out of the ashes of the Civil Guard Sharpshooters Association in 2009 – you must turn your rifle into the police or get a licensed firearms dealer to carry it on his “books” for you or sell it.
1. Since no one can obtain a rifle license, you can’t find anyone entitled to buy your rifle.
2. I know of almost no gun dealer who wants the headache, even for a fee, of having to deal with the Ministry of Interior inspectors about having “your” gun on his book. Even though it is “kosher.”
3. Turning your rifle(s) into the police, because your license to possess (even exclusively in your home) your private and valuable property is not renewed because of an administrative decision not to renew it, is confiscation.
And they will send the anti-terror unit of the Border Police to knockdown your door and destroy your home in the process of taking your rifle and you will be arrested and carted away – the TV cameras will be rolling and the newspaper photographers will be snapping photos of the event – you can be sure that the police will invite the media.
If you are a member of the new Rifleman Association you must be “active.” The Ministry of Interior regulations define active as you participating in a minimum of 5 national competitions per year.
GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMMENDMENT and the entire Bill Of Rights! Things Israel lacks.
Enjoy the Shot Show.
Howard
This resembles the UK more than it does our popular ideas of what Israel is supposed to be.
Environmentalism as a religion
Via IM from son James we have a philosophy professor explaining how environmentalism is a substitute for more traditional religions:
Feeling unworthy is still a large part of Western religious culture, but many people, especially in multicultural urban centers, are less religious. There are still those who believe that God is watching them and judging them, so their feelings of guilt and moral indignation are couched in the traditional theological furniture. But increasing numbers, in the middle and upper classes, identify themselves as being secular or perhaps “spiritual” rather than religious.
Now the secular world still has to make sense out of its own invisible, psychological drama—in particular, its feelings of guilt and indignation. Environmentalism, as a substitute for religion, has come to the rescue. Nietzsche’s argument about an ideal God and guilt can be replicated in a new form: We need a belief in a pristine environment because we need to be cruel to ourselves as inferior beings, and we need that because we have these aggressive instincts that cannot be let out.
Instead of religious sins plaguing our conscience, we now have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper. In addition, the righteous pleasures of being more orthodox than your neighbor (in this case being more green) can still be had—the new heresies include failure to compost, or refusal to go organic. Vitriol that used to be reserved for Satan can now be discharged against evil corporate chief executives and drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles. Apocalyptic fear-mongering previously took the shape of repent or burn in hell, but now it is recycle or burn in the ozone hole. In fact, it is interesting the way environmentalism takes on the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional religious narrative. The idea that the end is nigh is quite central to traditional Christianity—it is a jolting wake-up call to get on the righteous path. And we find many environmentalists in a similarly earnest panic about climate change and global warming. There are also high priests of the new religion, with Al Gore (“the Goracle”) playing an especially prophetic role.
We even find parallels in environmentalism of the most extreme, self-flagellating forms of religious guilt. Nietzsche claims that religion has fostered guilt to such neurotic levels that some people feel culpable and apologetic about their very existence. Compare this with extreme conservationists who want to sacrifice themselves for trees and whales. And teachers, like myself, will attest to significant numbers of their students who feel that their cats or whatever are equal to human beings. And not only are members of the next generation egalitarian about all life, but they often feel positively awful about the way that their species has corrupted and defiled the whole beautiful symphony of nature. The planet, they feel, would be better off without us. We are not worthy. In this extreme form, one does not seek to reduce one’s carbon footprint so much as eliminate one’s very being.
It appears many people have a religious gene. They are, in essence, programmed to feel as they do toward “something greater than themselves”. As science made the unknown more knowable and more under the control of man it reduced the domain of possibility and probability of god(s) controlling people’s lives. And people had to have a substitute. This professor proposes environmentalism fulfills this need for many people.
I would like to suggest that an all powerful state fulfills that need for far too many other people–socialism can be thought of as a religion. It is a belief in the goodness of something without, or in spite of, evidence. Compare that to traditional religious faith.
This has serious implications for society and even the entire human race. If we are condemned to believe in things contrary to the facts how can we make the best decisions for ourselves let alone justify the forcing of others to adhere to the will of the majority?