Category Archives: Politics

More on the Practical Application of Principles

Posted on by

It’s time to restate this.  I posted it last year, and I wonder if anyone really “got it”.  It cannot be overstated.  Reading Joe’s recent post about the open carry debate among the pro gun rights camp reminded me of it, once again.  That debate can be said to be between people with the same basic principles.  We’ll see how Rand’s “rules of engagement” as I call them, apply.  Last year I noted;

In the essay, Rand defines three rules “…about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals.” 

Wait.  What?  “the working of principles in practice”?  What’s that?  “The relationship of principles to goals”?  Sounds pretty juicy if there’s anything to it.  Well, there is.

 Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

Open carry verses keeping it hidden so as not to scare or offend anyone.  Which position is more consistent with the basic principles of RKBA?

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

It applies to any situation, but the idea of government “taking care of” the American people, shared by Republicans and Democrats, comes to mind.  Democrats win here.  Every time.  Republicans will never understand this.  It’s not in their DNA to understand this rule.  It’s in their DNA to deny it.  The NRA had a similar problem about 15 years ago, but they seem to be getting over it, like getting over a very long-lasting flu.  You cannot collaborate with someone who holds different basic principles and expect a nice outcome.  It’s better to do your own thing, unless you want to be the more evil and irrational one.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;

Gun control debate.  Practicing rule 3, without fully understanding it, is the one and only source of our recent successes.  Understand it, Little Grasshopper, and you will go far.  Some of us think that we’ve been trying to appear rational as a selling point, or trying to get the opposition to think that we aren’t bad people after all, but it is by simply being rational, and by being rational in a public way, and sometimes in an in-your-face way, that we win.  There’s a fine distinction here, but a very important one.  Selling ourselves as people is what Republicans do.  That argument says, “I’m a nice, decent person, so you should agree with me.”  Blech.  Selling our ideas, on their own merits, and damn the torpedoes because we know we’re right and we can prove it, we know our opposition is wrong, disastrously wrong, and we can prove that, is what rational people do.

when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Taking RKBA in light of that last bit; hiding your (our) position (that guns in public are a good thing) or evading it, tends to work in favor of the irrational side (gun restrictions).  We’re trying to coddle those who are wrong, trying to sell ourselves in a way tailored so as to appeal to their stupidity and bad behavior.  In so doing we lend them an appearance of credibility or legitimacy that they do not deserve.  Like it or not, that’s how it works.  We have to understand that there are some people who have no credibility, have no legitimacy and deserve no accommodation (anti gunners in this case, or people who are offended or “scared” by visible guns [I think most or all of the “fear” is a cheap act perpetrated for maximum drama]) and we have to be ready to point out why.

I believe there are enough examples in most people’s day-to-day lives that these basic axioms, Rand’s rules of engagement, will be seen as not only valid but very useful once you look at things with them in mind.  Working with institutions installing and troublshooting PA systems (I have an appointment tomorrow) I’ve run into all these situations.  They’re political events as much as anything else.

Open carry being used as a political statement

Posted on by

From the WA-CCW email list:

Mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan will be walking North Beacon Hill Sunday. I plan on a walk, open carry at that same time in that area. Info follows:

On Sunday, October 25th, mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan will do a walking tour of N. Beacon Hill, beginning at 1:00 at the Lite Rail Station. Please note that the North Beacon Hill Council does not endorse candidates, however it is worthwhile for our community to express our dreams/hopes/concerns/issues, etc. to each candidate who contacts us. Mr. Mallahan will be at Kusina Filipina from 2:30-3:00 to hear from community members. Please join him there.

Anyone interested?????

Mike C—Seattle

I’m 300 miles away this weekend and I’m a little too cowardly to do that anyway. I’d be afraid of being forced into a “pavement tasting party”. But I think it would be rather cool to follow him around with pro-gun signs and shirts protesting his support of the illegal acts of the current mayor.

Quote of the day–Don B. Kates

Posted on by

The proven fact is that judges will move heaven and earth to uphold assault weapon bans. They will accept fallacious arguments that will justify not only those bans but bans against other guns which might be struck down except for the false precedent of assault weapon cases. Until assault weapon cases were brought, Colorado, Connecticut and Ohio had state constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions. Now those provisions have been construed into nullities by courts determined to uphold assault weapon bans.

Don B. Kates
November 2009 issue of Handguns
The Power of Patience
[This article is very important advice on building upon the Heller decision from the ground up rather than jumping ahead to “assault weapons” or machine guns. Read it and remember it. When Kates talks about gun laws I listen.

See also other posts I have referring to Don Kates. Although it was Alan Gottlieb that first introduced me to the concept of anti-gun bigotry Don Kates used that meme before I heard it from Gottlieb.–Joe]

Digging gun rights out of a State House Dumpster

Posted on by

Awesome story from a Massachusetts (of all places!) state representative:

The board conducted regular meetings regarding state library budgets, acquisitions, personnel, and maintained the security of the second oldest library in the country. Our duties included the preservation of the commonwealth’s one million book collection, special collection of documents, e.g. Mayflower Compact and the Bradford Manuscript.

The Bradford Manuscript is often described as the diary of the Mayflower’s personnel and passengers and is stored in the State House vault whose exact site is shared with very few individuals. Once we allowed the Plymouth Historical Society to “borrow” it for their 350th anniversary. After six months of negotiations to insure its safety, we sent the document to Plymouth escorted by state troopers. It is now ensconced in the State Archives, Dorchester – under 24-hour guard.

Probably the shortest term served was by a library director who “purged the collection” by throwing out leather-bound books because “we have several copies of those books.”

“What a waste,” I thought. So when I spotted the leather-bound books in a State House hallway Dumpster, I climbed in and retrieved them. I donated several to local collectors and libraries. I confess, I kept one for myself. “The Acts and Resolves of 1779.” Occasionally I would thumb through the book to experience the mind set of legislators in 1779. It was there I learned why the Legislature is often referred to as “The Great and General Court.” There was no court system in 1779 and a wide variety of issues were brought before the Legislature for resolution.

Some years later, the recurring argument of gun control surfaced. A new legislator proposed additional controls on gun ownership.

The debate went on for hours. I remembered the old leather-bound “Dumpster” book . I rushed to my office, found the book and rushed back to the Chamber to join the debate.

The proponent of new gun ownership controls was in hot pursuit of his opponents. I joined the fray. “Mr. Speaker.”

“For what purpose does the lady from Milford rise?”

“To debate, Mr. Speaker.”

And there I was at the podium, “I object to the proposed changes to our gun laws,” I said.

My opponent roared, “On what basis?”

“The second Constitutional amendment… the right to bear arms.” I stated, firmly.

My opponent was relentless. “And where is it written, that a man has the right to a private weapon? Where is that written?”

“I thought you would never ask.” I responded and read from the book’s withered pages:

“Whereas by a Resolve of the General Court of this State, past the 2nd of April 1778, for raising 1300 men for North River, it was among other Things resolved that every person who supply himself with a good firelock and bayonet, cartouche-box, haversack and blanket … shall receive, agreeable to a resolve by the Congress, … two dollars for the use of his firelock, bayonet and cartouche and two dollars for the use of his blanket and four dollars in like proportion for either of them.”

According to the Acts and Resolves of 1779, “after producing proper vouchers they were so provided. It is my considered belief the farmers earned tacit approval of private gun ownership.” In conclusion, I said, “Had not the farmers brought their private weapons to the Revolutionary War we might not be standing here today.”

I called for a roll call vote. The proposal to restrict ownership of private weapons went down in flames.

Additional data (other data is here) to oppose those that would claim the Second Amendment is not a right of the people but instead some sort of “state right”.

Birthday loot

Posted on by

I recently had a birthday and although I haven’t collected all my loot yet (the family party will be this weekend) I do have some of it.

From son James I received this awesome card and coin:


Front. Click to see the inside.

 

From wife Barbara I received (in part) this card and a scrapbook:

 


Front. Click to see the inside.

Here are a couple pages from the scrapbook:


First page.


Next to the last page.

Daughters Kim and Xenia called me up on my birthday and sang Happy Birthday to me over the phone and asked what I wanted for my birthday dinner this weekend. They asked what James gave me then they complained that James needs to give me his presents after them from now on because they can’t match him. I’m not so sure on that. I think my kids could give me lumps of coal and I’d still be just as proud and pleased.

Update: Due to popular request via email: The coin (and others) can be purchased here. The scrapbook and wife are not for sale.

Been there, done that

Posted on by

Via the encyclopedic gun law brain of Joe Waldron on the Washington CCW email list last Monday:

From 1968 to 1986, all purchasers of handgun ammunition nationwide had to sign a book and provide identification data. It was discontinued because it proved useless as a crime fighting tool.

Not that anyone in the California legislature cares.

Again, the anti-gun bigots not being able to answer Just One Question is no impediment to them infringing on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

NIH studying gun control issues again

Posted on by

After getting their hands slapped for shoddy research with predetermined anti-gun outcomes 13 years ago the NIH is again doing research on gun control topics:

More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.

Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They’re also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control.

“It’s almost as if someone’s been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago,” Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. “But it doesn’t make any more sense now than it did then.”

“Gun related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

“These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death,” he said.

It’s not guaranteed to be a bad thing. But it should be watched just as closely as if they were studying violence initiated by Jews/blacks/homosexuals with an eye to create public policy which restricts those groups more than others.

Why aren’t they screaming about this illegal act?

Posted on by

So even though I don’t pay much attention to them it was hard to avoid hearing about “the criminals in the White house” and all the “criminal acts” and the charges of treason against the Bush administration. But what I don’t get is why I don’t hear anything about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels when he does stuff like this:

A new city of Seattle gun ban takes effect this week – prohibiting firearms in places like city parks and community centers.

But the law is already generating controversy with many asking is this new rule truly enforceable? Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna and some community gun advocates say, no.

“What this does is put Seattle on a collision course with state law,” says Dan Sytman, the Attorney General’s office spokesperson.

The questionable deeds that Bush administration did at least had prior approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s office. Nickels is doing something that all legal advisers, except the city lawyer who found a contorted rational, say is illegal.

So where is the outcry from the left?

Apparently they don’t really care about politicians engaged in illegal acts. They just wanted to remove their political opponents by whatever means possible. Having their own politicians commit illegal acts on their behalf is just fine.

See also what Ry has to say on the topic.

Quote of the day–Michael Beard

Posted on by

I often find that true wisdom comes from simple stories, and one of the great story tellers was the one called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the writer known as Luke, Jesus was traveling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee on a journey to Jerusalem. He stopped in a village and told his listeners a story about a widow and an unjust judge.

He said that in a certain town there was once a judge who cared nothing for God or man. There was a widow in that same town who constantly came before the judge demanding justice against her opponent.

For a long time the judge refused to grant the widow justice. But in the end he said to himself, “True, I don’t fear God or care about men, but this widow is so great a nuisance that I will see her righted before she wears me out with her persistence.”

In this simple story there is a great political lesson that is often easy to overlook. The persistent widow is a reminder to those who seek justice that we should never lose heart. We must continue to press on, and will be rewarded if we do so.

Michael Beard
October 12, 2009
Wear Them Out
[Good advice. The anti-gun bigots have nothing but hate and fear to sustain them. That is very draining. It saps their energy. It is depressing. It is lonely. It is a very anti-social mindset. They are very unhappy people.

Freedom loving people have a myriad of social outlets and rejoice in competitions. They acquire new skills. They learn about the mechanics and physics of simple but incredibly clever and precise machines that can propel small pieces of metal at Mach 3+ across distances that take you 10 minutes to walk and hit objects that are impossible to see at that distance with the naked eye. They hunt and bring food home to their families. Guns are part of the Olympics. What do the anti-gun people have to show to compete with the thousands of competitive events each year and the Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals that are recorded in the permanent history of mankind? Nothing but news releases that dance in the blood of innocents killed and maimed by criminals.

The People of the Gun know history is made with guns and love to learn that history. They know it is guns in the hands of everyday people that keep the would be tyrant from attempting to gain power and brutalize them, their family, and their neighbors because they happen to have the wrong skin color, the wrong religious beliefs, wear glasses, or own property. They know the gun is civilization and although it can and has been used for evil it is far more often used for the protection of innocent life and property against those that do not respect life or the property of others.

Because gun ownership is a positive thing it makes it easier for us to be persistent over the long haul. The Million Mom March was founded in August 1999, reached their peak in May of 2000 with, according to their own (probably inflated) numbers consisted of nearly one million people. Now they don’t even have a website of their own — http://www.millionmommarch.org/ redirects to the Brady Campaign. They were a flash in the pan because it’s hard to hold onto hate for very long. The Brady Campaign is 35 years old but even after merging with the MMM have so few adherents they don’t even bother to have a way to join their organization. They have nothing to offer prospective members except hate and fear. The NRA is 138 years old and has thousand of instructors, millions of members, a history of competitions, they helped blacks protect their communities in the darkest days of the KKK, they teach hunter safety, and helped Great Britain prepare for the expected invasion from Germany in WW II.

Make the most of that persistence. The other side frequently has an unfair advantage with the assistance of a duplicitous press and their own willingness to twist the truth and ignore the facts but our numbers, our love of people and freedom, and our righteousness give us the long term advantage. They made a big play for the win during the Clinton years and many or even most gun owner rights activists thought the bigots had won. But they ran out of steam and we are now winning.

Let’s keep doing what we do best. For some people that will be a great gun blog, mocking those that hate freedom, playing the political game, teaching new shooters, teaching experienced shooters to be better than they ever thought was humanly possible, getting good press for gun owners, or it might be just being a proud and responsible gun owner who takes a new shooter to the range every once in a while.

Michael Beard is right that persistent is important and that characteristic will enable our eventual win. But I suspect it was some sort of Freudian slip that resulted in that recognition of his. Michael Beard is on the losing side of this epic struggle for freedom. He recognized the persistence of his opposition and envies it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lew Daly

Posted on by

We’d like to retire that word [redistribute] from the political vocabulary because you can’t redistribute something that is already highly socialized, and wealth and income in the “era of knowledge-based growth” (whoever ends up “owning” it) is indeed highly socialized. Most importantly (and more to the point), individual productivity is increasingly dependent on what can only be described as a collective good, a common inheritance of knowledge. No one deserves to benefit from this common inheritance more than anyone else, by moral definition, because it’s not created by any individual. So, to the extent that inherited knowledge (“technical progress in the broadest sense,” as Solow termed it) is increasingly driving economic growth, the fruits of knowledge—the wealth being generated by knowledge—should be more equally shared. Wealth that is commonly created should be equally, or at least more equally, shared.

Lew Daly
Via AmericanMercenary in the post What the hell is “Social Justice”?
[This is very scary stuff. Strip away just a little bit of the fluff and it’s, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Just reading the praise for the book you realize these people not only have zero respect for the right to own property but they don’t believe you even have a right to your own thoughts. This is what inspires thoughts of Atlas Shrugged. In this book the people of the mind went on strike. Those that contributed through the power of their creative minds declared those that demanded the product of their minds through the force of government had received their last handout. You can force someone to work but you can’t force them to think.

After reading of people like Daly I don’t just long for a John Galt but a Ragnar Danneskjöld as well.–Joe]

Quote of the Day–Ayn Rand

Posted on by

Just so we’re all clear;

Such is the state of today’s most critical issues: political rights versus “economic rights”.  It’s either or.  One destroys the other.  But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights”.  The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

Ayn Rand – from the appendix “Man’s Rights” in her book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”

If you don’t have a copy, get one.  The first copy I saw had every other sentence or paragraph highlighted by the owner.  It’s that kind of book.  It was written back in the 1960s, though it seems to be directly addressing our current crop of idiots, moonbats, loons, thugs, bounders, cads, hucksters and charlatans in Washington (to say nothing of the Democrats).

Ethical blogging

Posted on by

The FTC has declared they are the ethics police for bloggers:

Certainly, it seems like this is an update that’s time has come. While most well-run social media programs already include appropriate disclosure, there’s still no shortage of unscrupulous marketers using deceptive practices to sell products. Now, with the threat of serious fines, those who look to push the boundaries of ethical blogging will be doing so at their own risk.

I wonder if those advocating more government regulation are required to disclose their voting history, tax filings, and political donations.

Quote of the day–Joe Waldron

Posted on by

The Supreme Court prefers to work in “baby steps,” changing the law slowly. The Heller case was a very carefully and cautiously crafted to open the door to further Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they attempted to overturn 20,000 gun laws all at once, all nine Justices would have run out of the courtroom with their robes pulled up over their heads, screaming. Step one was Heller, to get the SCOTUS to acknowledge that the Second Amendment was written to reaffirm and protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL citizen to keep (not necessarily bear) arms for personal defense, inside the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia, where there is no state constitution, just the US Constitution..

Step two (McDonald) is to extend that acknowledgment to the states. Why McDonald?” Because the Chicago handgun ban is a duplicate of the DC ban. If the DC ban is unconstitutional, so must the Chicago ban be. But Chicago is part of a state, not a federal enclave.

Once that occurs, we start knocking down the “house” of gun control laws, one brick at a time.

Heller is the alpha. not the omega. We’re decades away from that. But we’re working on it. We didn’t get to the point of 20,000 gun control laws all at once, and we’re not going to get free of them all at once. It ain’t a “once and for all” system, much as we might like to see it that way.

Joe Waldron
October 1, 2009
Re: Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Chicago gun ban
wa-ccw: Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
[People who are pessimistic (see also here) about the status our gun laws have forgotten or weren’t of an age to be aware of how things were in the mid 1990s (see here, here, here, and here for some clues). Those were very, very dark days. The turning point may have been the 1994 congressional elections with the anger over the 1994 “assault weapon ban” playing a big role (I find it very interesting that the Wikipedia articles on this and Tom Foley don’t mention this) or perhaps here.–Joe]

Montana fires it’s guns

Posted on by

In an email alert today the Second Amendment Foundation announced:

GUN GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT TO VALIDATE MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined with the Montana Shooting Sports Association in a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which takes effect today, Oct. 1, 2009.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut’s group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at mtssa.org.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

See also the article in the Missoulian.

I wish them well and figure it will be at least worth buying some popcorn and cold drinks for watching the comedy.

The press has it wrong again

Posted on by

Dave Workman explains:

That the local press has once again erroneously given the impression that the store has lost its FFL, when in actuality it is Borgelt’s license revocation that has been upheld, is one more reason for gun owners, and one frustrated firearms retailer, not to trust the news media.

This is one time the press has it coming.

The basic story is the previous owner of the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply (the store from which Beltway Snipers stole the rifle they used) had his FFL revoked but the new owner is up and running just fine. The press is reporting the store lost it’s FFL and implies it has been shut down.

Half-truth, full-truth, who cares? Not the mainstream media with their “professional” journalists.

Quote of the day–Danville Editorial Board

Posted on by

While the president hasn’t proposed any specific gun control legislation, it’s also true that if every statement he’s ever made, every bill he’s ever supported and every position he’s ever taken during his entire political career were taken as a whole and proposed as legislation — which is not being done — then the gun owners would have something to fear.

But that’s not happening, for a couple of reasons. The Democrats have focused their attention on the economy. Also, Obama has moderated his views on these issues over the years. As a lawyer by training, he appears to understand the Second Amendment’s place in law, not as something to pay lip service to, but as one of the fundamental rights all Americans enjoy.

Danville Editorial Board
September 28, 2009
Worst kind of economic stimulus
[I agree President Obama has not been on the offense against gun owners since he took office. But before believing he has moderated his views on these issues I’m going to need some proof. Directing the DOJ to arrest and prosecute Federal, State, and local officials for violation of 18 USC 242 in regards to infringement of the 2nd Amendment would be a good start. Instead his cabinet is filled with people opposed to allowing citizens to exercise a specific enumerated right. I keep expecting him to “turn the dogs loose” on us.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

Every part. Every last little bit of it, from its inception, from the thinking behind its inception, to all of its variants, to every attempt to implement it in any form, any time and anywhere it’s been foisted upon anyone. I consider socialism to be more offensive, more disgusting, more sickening, more dangerous, more deadly and more virulent than any disease– more destructive than any force known on Earth. Sold to the unwary as the warm-hearted answer to the suffering and problems we all face in life, it is the poison pill, cleverly slipped into all our forms of sustenance: our very food and drink, our homes, our schools and our institutions by the sick, the envious, the jealous and the hateful, who would be our masters and we their playthings.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 2, 2009
In response to the question, “What part of socialism do you disagree with?”
[One friend was a bit more succinct but only for those that understood the fundamentals, when he told me it was like a sugar pill that caused cancer twenty years later. “Here, try it! It’s sweet. Just a little bit…”–Joe]

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt…If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

Thomas Jefferson
[President Obama and supporters, please meet my hero, Thomas Jefferson.–Joe]

Only one move ahead

Posted on by

Sometimes it boggles my mind just how stupid some people can be and still be able to write complete sentences and breathe–and apparently at the same time. Case in point:

Free marketers don’t care much for bank bailouts so long as they’ve gotten their money out the bank before it fails.

But when it’s health care? I think you will find that teabaggers everywhere will have a very different perspective when they find themselves out there alone with no way to pay for their family’s medical costs.

Who will need the save the day when this happens? The government will – and that means a single-payer system.

Whether the result fits your ideology or not, the numbers would seem to make clear that it is only a matter of time before private health insurance prices itself out of the market, leaving only the government with the capability to insure the nation’s health.

“Leaving only the government with the capability”? And just where does he think the government will get the money that private health insurance companies and individuals couldn’t?

When I used to play chess a lot (high school and college) it was very rare that someone couldn’t see pretty clearly two and usually three moves in advance. And the better players would have a pretty fair view out six or seven moves on some critical branches. But this guy apparently can’t see even one move in advance. What would you call someone like this? In my chess playing days we would call those people losers.

Update: He makes an “interesting” comment in response to another commenter to his article:

I rarely watch CNBC and, anyone who reads this post knows I wouldn’t be caught dead watching Fox.

He admits he studiously ignores data considered to be fair and accurate by millions of people? This isn’t someone concerned with knowing the truth. This is someone who has a deep and profound commitment to some sort of cult.

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we’re the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I’m reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.–Joe]