Monday, June 26, 2006

The Wife part II

I don't feel much like blogging about politics today, so this post may not interest you if you read this for my poli-rants.

It's more self-therapy than anything else.

I miss my wife. I'm on the road for work at the moment and immensely depressed about it. There's something about being married to your best friend - the person that truly completes you - that makes it a miserable experience to be apart.

I suppose that may sound corny or lame to some. Maybe even weak. But to me, it's evidence of a great and mysterious blessing. For whatever gracious reason, God chose to give me the woman that I can't live without. He entwined two lives so completely that the time we spend apart feels like hell.

I love you, baby. I'll be home soon.

Friday, June 23, 2006

The wife chimes in... the comments section of my We need an exorcism... post:

the wife said...
Do parents ever ask, "are there matches in your house?" No. Who in their right mind would? (This goes back to the ideas in the "Knife Control" anyone post.) Again the media is missing the point and picking the easy target to try and solve it. The real point is that you should always know if you are allowing your child to play in a well supervised, safe environment. Safe meaning you trust the adult that your child wont be playing with matches or knives or the outlets or doing crack or making out with their boyfriend; supervised so they wont fall into their harmful temptations whatever age they are.The sad truth is that media just feeds the bad parents so they can keep lying to themselves claiming that they are great parents. Then they praise the media- which makes NBC think that they are impacting the nation- so they do another story about guns...

Right on, babe! I'm proud of her. A welcome addition to my little corner of cyberspace. A welcome addition indeed.

I just have to mention how much I love the fact that she posted under the name "The Wife." It reminds me of the scene in It's a Wonderful Life where Harry has returned from college with a new bride. "I told you I had a surprise!" he excitedly says. "Meet the wife!" My sister always thought it was somehow derogatory. I always looked forward to being married so I could use the term just to annoy her (my sister.)

I love you, babe.

The Only Ones

I am proud to announce the arrival of a new recurring feature for my blog: The Only Ones. This post is an explanation of the concept. The post immediately below this one is the first actual contribution to the feature.

I got this idea from The War on Guns, a blog written by David Codrea. He got the idea from Lee Paige, a DEA agent who shot himself in the leg. There is a highly publicized video of the event that nearly everyone has seen. You can see it here. That same link has an article detailing the lawsuit he has filed against the DEA for allegedly distributing the video.

What makes the event notable is the arrogant declaration Paige made mere seconds before he capped his own ass: "Ok, I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock .40 I'm the only o-[gunshot]"

Paige's statement illustrates a disturbing attitude that is all too prevalent in today's law enforcement community. They are the only ones professional enough. Usually this mantra is applied to the use and carry of firearms, but it can apply to other things as well.

Codrea started keeping tabs on the Only Ones and their zany adventures. The Only Ones archives range from the hilarious to the infuriating. The most frequently recurring theme is that the Only Ones' incompetent and rights-stomping behavior is usually rewarded with protection and a lack of real consequences.

Reason Engaged and Blogonomicon have started their own Only Ones files. To my knowledge, I am the fourth to join this effort, but there may be more that I am unaware of. Say Uncle frequently notes that the Only Ones are "like you and me, only better." [edited update: Looks like Bob G is keeping track as well.]

So what's the point you ask? Education. Shining light in the darkness. The public needs to wake up and realize that we have created a separate class of citizens that are not held to the same standards that the rest of us are - even though they are granted more privileges (and more rights.)

We're the Only Ones Mixed Up Enough

Problem: Man in tree wearing only underwear.
Solution: Taser his butt!

Kitsap County Deputy Accidentally Shoots Man

Here we have a case of the Only Ones handling things incorrectly to begin with. Excessive force turns to excessive gunfire - accidentally!

Also of note is that the article all but excuses the behavior simply because the victim's injuries were not life threatening and the cop was very upset about the mistake.

Par for the course: Names have been withheld to protect the Only Ones.

Thanks to Say Uncle for the heads-up on this one.

Presumption at its worst

This article was brought to my attention by an alert reader. It's from FoxNews, and it contains a firsthand account of an encounter with the infamous funeral protestors.

You know, the bunch of morons that laughs at fallen American soldiers, saying that God is allowing this because our country is pro-gay.

What presumptuous idiots. I'm sure that this issue has been commentaried to death, but maybe I can hit things from a different angle.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin abhorrent in God's sight. It doesn't take a lot of ground-breaking research to come to this conclusion: it's stated explicitly several times in His Word. There are also plenty of Biblical accounts of God destroying wicked nations (Isaiah for one.)

Yes, the American public (and government) tolerates and encourages homosexuality to an extent that I find deeply disturbing.

However, to reach the conclusion that God is judging our nation through this war is pure presumption. When we start attributing bad events to God's judgment, we are putting ourselves in His place. That's their first mistake.

Their other mistake is that they don't acknowledge that America is far from being completely given over to wickedness. The Church is still very much alive in this country. As a whole, this nation may not cling to Christian ideals like it once did. But we are not yet Babylon.

My conclusion: false prophets.

Without a Clue

The anti-gunners are at it again. These people just never let up. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their assertions are, they'll just keep hammering away with their lies, deceit, slander and hysteria.

The Brady Campaign has just released a "report" titled Without a Trace. It details some supposed findings about tracing illegal firearms. The underlying theme (and the key word there is lying) is that the gun lobby (be sure you use a husky ominous announcer voice when you say "gun lobby") wants to strong arm the government so that they can continue flooding The Street with illegal guns.

They don't bother to tell you what they mean by "illegal guns." Guns used in crimes, I guess. More likely, it just sounds better when you tack the word illegal on as a descriptor. The "report" states that there are certain dealers who have a higher percentage of guns traced back to their shops. The logical conclusion of course, is that gun manufacturers, distributors and retail dealers are in cahoots. Their master scheme is to get rich by selling thousands of "illegal guns" to gang bangers who use them to kill children.

They go on to mock the NRA and the (ominous voice) gun lobby for their "paranoia." The NRA's opposition to a police state is apparently just ridiculous. What I found really ironic is that the report attempts to quash the idea that confiscation is the end goal of tougher restrictions. One of the Bradys' greatest champions, Diane Feinstein, is well known for saying that if she could have garnered 51 Senate votes, she would have pushed for "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in" legislation. What is that but confiscation?!

Not only do these people continue to lie about the gun industry and their supposed evil agenda, they continue to lie about their own goals as well!

I just love this gun lobby tactic. They're trying to associate gun manufacturers and distributors with the despised image of the Big Evil Corporation. They want the public to believe that the Congress is being strongarmed by millions of dollars of blood money.

Nevermind that this "gun lobby" is actually a group of legitimate business - founded nonetheless by men who embody the American spirit (real entrepreneurs like Samuel Colt, Bill Ruger, Oliver Winchester, and so on) - pressed into action by the hysterical efforts of people guided only by their emotions. The "gun lobby" was born of necessity.

The other half of the equation - the equally demonized (announcer voice) NRA - is referenced as a special interest fearsome lobby group. They want you to think of the NRA as a group of overweight, 50's-ish, cigar-smoking crooked billionaires sitting in a boardroom on the 95th floor. Alone and immune, they hatch plots for world domination. Of course their plots will only succeed if their good friends in the gun lobby are allowed to continue passing out machine guns on playgrounds.

Nevermind that the NRA is populism at its very best. Four million Americans get together and chip in $35 a year. The NRA is nothing more than public opinion in action.

When it comes to billionaire-funded 'Big Lobby' type interests, the Brady Campaign has no farther to look than in the mirror. George Soros, radical leftist and billionaire, is well-known for his anti-gun campaigning and world gun-ban hopes. They are the ones with the fat-cat backers.

We're just lucky that (so far) 4 million people with $35 a piece have been able to make themselves heard just as well as one guy with a bottomless bank account.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

We need an exorcism... least that's how it feels with all the demonization going on by the anti-gunners. Here's their latest tactic. For those that won't follow the link, it's an "Ask" campaign funded by United Way. (Thanks to David Codrea for bringing my attention to this article.)

If you've seen NBC's The Less You Know campaign, you've seen this tactic. Encourage parents to ASK if there is a gun in the home where their child is visiting.

"What's wrong with that?" you ask. Well, inherently, there's nothing wrong with parents educating themselves about their children's whereabouts. I would call that sound parenting.

My beef is that this campaign is aimed at changing public opinion such that people start to think gun owners = irresponsible. Gun owners = dangerous. Homes with gun = unsafe. Guns = bad. Locked up gun = safe gun.

It's a bunch of crap. Unless your kid's visiting a crackhouse, they're actually safer visiting a *gasp* home with an unlocked gun! A crazy assertion? Not quite. People own guns for protection. And if your kid is in that house, they're going to fall into the category of "protected."

Sure, you have to educate your kids about guns. Satisfy their curiosity. Show them what a gun can do. (This is all subject matter for another post.) But demonization isn't the answer.

"Hi there. This is Mr. Smith. My daughter Suzy is coming over to your place after school. I, uh...I have to ask... Um. Well. This is awkward. Is there a gun in your house?"


"Ok, good."

Monday, June 19, 2006

Identity Crisis

It's almost too much for me to stomach. Read this. It's an article about the death of the metrosexual movement. (We could be so lucky.) I was excited when I saw the headline. I should have kept my expectations low.

Sometimes I'm afraid that there are no real men left in this country. That's what the article is really about - the death of the American Man.

The adult males in this country are such a sorry bunch that they now need to be told how to be masculine. And even that comes in a shifting, incorrect mandate from the mainstream media.


Sunday, June 18, 2006

Something has gone horribly wrong...

...when an American says something like this. This article is about the Dixie Chicks and their struggles with being rejected by a fan base that, as it turns out, didn't like their leftist leanings. Here's the quote that I was referencing to begin with:

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Here is a woman who lives in the freest land this world has ever known. That freedom has allowed her to experience prosperity that exceeds most of history's kings and queens.

Millions of men have bled and died and suffered to keep this country free, and she is so utterly stupid that she doesn't understand our enthusiasm?

Talk about the consequences of an entitlement attitude! She takes every good thing in life for granted to such a degree that she is actually upset at people who are thankful for their blessings!

I may complain about government interference in our personal lives. I may call for extreme reform. This country may not be all that it used to be. No nation state is without its imperfections. But we're a damned sight better off than the rest of the world.

Natalie Maines, you are an idiot.

It's just senseless...

So I was flying recently. As I sat in the airport in the meet/greet area preceeding the security line with my wife, I reflected on the utter stupidity of some of the post-9/11 security measures we have adopted. Or more appropriately, the government has adopted for us.

How is anyone more safe because my wife cannot proceed through the security checkpoint to tell me goodbye at the gate? Is there something inherently safe about showing your ID to someone, walking twenty yards, and then showing it to someone else who watched the first person check it?

No! (Obviously.) We now have to deal with a dozen idiotic (not to mention inconvenient) "security measures" for one simple reason: the government wants to show us how proactive they are in ensuring our safety.

Hey, I've got an idea. How about you leave the insurance of my safety to someone who actually cares about it - me. How about you cease to strip me of my rights and allow me the means to protect me & mine?

How many planes would have crashed on September 11th if the passengers would have been armed?

Goodness, I can just see the liberals and the antis all up in a flutter over that one. "Armed passengers?! Are you crazy!?!"

If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. The one thing we could do to actually prevent another 9/11 is just too radical for anyone to stomach. No one even bothers to think about it because we're all programmed to surrender our duty to defend ourselves to the government.

"Let passengers have guns? No way! They might hurt someone! We have to be responsible about this. We have to make reasonable choices and not react in the heat of the moment."

Hell, the nanny-staters don't even want pilots to have guns! (I guess a uniform doesn't make you professional enough - must be the badge, heh heh.) So rather than man up and accept the reality that what works isn't always warm and fuzzy, we wring our hands and make air travel a labyrinth of administrative hell. "Well, we've taken some reasonable and responsible precautions to ensure that this doesn't happen again."

Oh yes. Reasonable and responsible choices. (nodding emphatically) Like more ticket checks and less accessibility to the gates. (more nodding) That will stop a fanatic who is willing to trade his life to accomplish a mission. (vigorous nodding)

We need John Wayne and we've hired the friggin PTA.

My viewpoint on this issue may not be popular, but I'm not entirely alone. I got this article from Reason. It's a good read. It addresses some of the idiocy we must endure at the airport (and why.)

The reality is that when people want to kill you, you have to be ready to kill them back. And when the government strips you of your right to self defense - regardless of the circumstances - that is irresponsible.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Misplaced priorities

This article will give you a good laugh. Hillary is trying to stir up support for the creation of a "privacy bill of rights." Hey, I've got an idea, H-Rod:

Why don't you worry about the real Bill of Rights?

She's not fooling me. She stands for socialism and government-controlled-everything. She doesn't give a damn about your rights. She doesn't care about the NSA wiretapping. It's just a good chance to take some partisan digs at W:

"The administration's refrain has been, "Trust us,"' said Clinton. "That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations."

What, Hillary, your track record warrants our trust? Your administration used the same program when you were in the White House (chuckle chuckle). You'll continue to use it if you resume power. (Read: if this country is stupid enough to let you.)

So let me get this straight. We can't trust Bush with our phone calls, but we can trust you with our guns?

Knock-Knock (not)

This is Rush Limbaugh's commentary on the Supreme Court's recent decision on no-knock entry by police. To sum up, their decision was that evidence found in a no-knock entry can be used in trial. Rush thinks it was a good decision because it has the liberals mad.

And there we part ways, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I love to anger liberals. It's fun. (Not to mention, funny.) And I've rarely disagreed with Rush in the 14 years I've been listening to him. But I disagree with him on this.

I think the reason that you see this being painted as a "conservative" decision (it is not) is that liberals generally tend to be the ones standing up for the rights of criminals, while conservatives are more interested in victim's rights. Liberals usually prefer to make things harder for the cops while the conservatives usually prefer to let them catch crooks.

As I read about the growing epidemic of police abuses and incompetence, I can't help but come closer and closer to the "liberal" side of this issue. (I can't believe I'm typing that.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about standing up for the rights of criminals. I have no desire to see any criminal set free because of some loophole. I watch Dateline's To Catch a Predator specials, and in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "Why don't they just take them to the backyard of the house, drop them to their knees and pop 'em in the head?" Fast and efficient.

Of course that's not Constitutional, but what I'm trying to communicate is my deep-seated distaste for people like that. So if I'd like to see a tough justice system, why am I against no-knock warrants?

Well, probably because you have people like Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Barak Obama, Rod Blagojevic, Lane Evans, Michael Bloomberg, Sarah Brady, George Soros, Khofi Annan, and Richard Daly that want to make people like me into criminals. If they get their way and disarm America, I'll be a criminal! (Disarm, hell!) And that will make me subject to their no-knock warrants!

Sure, I don't have anything to worry about now, because I'm not a criminal. But I object to this for the same reason I'd object to video surveillance in every household.

Big Brother: "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you so worried about?"

That's not the point. It never was.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Coming Bloodbath

In a couple weeks, I may have the opportunity to do some prairie dog shooting. In retrospect, this post would more appropriately be titled, "The Coming Gut-bath." Anyway, I'm really looking forward to it (if it works out.) It raises an interesting philosophical/theological issue.

I don't have a problem with waging wholesale slaughter on vermin population. They are a nuisance to the people who own the land where I'll be. They are by no means in danger of extinction. And they're a lot of fun to shoot (they explode quite violently.) But some people do have a problem with hunting that doesn't result in meat-eating or hide-tanning.

I don't. This argument is largely a byproduct of the clash between a Christian worldview and a Darwinian worldview. I believe that God created the human race as something special. I don't believe in evolution. Genesis talks about man being made master over the animals. So, if you need to do some housecleaning on the ranch (i.e. kill a few hundred rodents), no problem. That said, I think that mastery over the animals comes with a responsibility to be good stewards. I also believe in being as humane as possible.

Believe me, they don't feel anything.

Anyway, those who oppose prairie dog hunting (or hunting in general) are likely to be of the ilk that believes that we humans are nothing more than the highest level of a random evolutionary process. As such, what right do we have over prairie dogs, deer, or indeed insects?

The biggest hole in that argument is this:

If we are nothing more than the most evolved animal, what responsibility do we have to anyone or to anything? If this (existence, life, the universe) is all a random and non-determined event, there is no God. And if there is no God, how can we possibly establish “right and wrong? Without God, everything is completely meaningless. Who cares if I kill every animal on the planet?

But there is a God. And He never said it was wrong to kill prairie dogs.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Burn him!

This article is about the arrest of a man in Denver. Reason has an excellent post of his own about this. He has additional links to more articles and a PDF version of the affidavit.

To summarize, the man was arrested by the FBI for selling a machine gun to a confidential informant. The following is a series of excerpts from the article about his arrest, followed by my commentary in [brackets.]

According to the arrest affidavit, the firefighter, Stan Taran Ford, has "anti-U.S. sympathies and has ties to an unknown domestic terrorism organization." [Let the demonization begin. What exactly is the pertinence of his “sympathies?” If you read the affidavit, you will find no evidence to support the “domestic terrorism” claim. He’s probably just a life member in the NRA…]

A federal official told 7NEWS that Ford, 34, is interested in militias, and that the terror organization is more like a domestic hate group than an international terrorist organization. [When did being "interested in militias" become a crime? Oh, right it's not. And what's this backtracking about the nature of the "terror organization"?]

A source told 7NEWS that Ford refused to get a Colorado driver's license for some time because he felt that the government could track him that way. That same source said Ford was a "gun enthusiast" who would show up at fire department events with lists of guns that he had available for sale, 7NEWS reported. [“And what else is made of wood?” “Witches! BURRRRRRN HER!!!!”]

A search of his home after his arrest brought about several more weapons, 7NEWS reported. [You think? He’s a gun collector. Again, pertinence please. Did these other weapons have big red “sold” tags hanging off the trigger guards? I'll bet they found a kitchen drawer full of spoons, forks and knives, but that's not a crime either.]

The investigation into Ford began more than two years ago after the El Paso County Sheriff's Office learned that Ford was allegedly trying to buy sensitive military communication systems and night vision goggles from a military base in Colorado Springs. [BUUUUURRRRN HIM!!!! Would someone please tell me what this has to do with the case against this guy? Oh, right, right. We have to make him look like a wacko. Otherwise someone might figure out just how stupid and unconstitutional the NFA is…]

According to the affidavit, investigators also developed information that Ford and his associates had obtained Chinese military weapons. [Were these “Chinese military weapons” measured in megatons? If not, then shut up about it. Again, where’s the crime? Ooooooooh, he had an SKS!!! I’m surprised they left out the obligatory “…capable of firing dozens of rounds per second when sprayed from the hip. These guns are widely favored by criminals.”]

7News said that other people are also under investigation in the case. [Including the Special Agent, I hope. He sure spent a lot of taxpayer money and ink swearing to the fact that Ford committed several non-crimes.]

What bothers me the most here is the persistent demonization of this man for things that had nothing to do with the actual crime he committed. (Things, that is, that are not illegal.)

No matter which way I think about it, I keep coming back to the Monty Python scene. This time, however, we've got a group of Feds standing around some poor guy they've slapped a fake nose and witch costume on.