Minnesota School Shooting Article

This piece is so outrageous that, after my knee-jerk anger, I had to laugh. I was reading what was really a pretty well-written article on the school shooting in Minnesota, when, at the bottom of the article, I see this:

America has the most liberal gun laws in the western world and shows little sign of changing.
President Bush's administration is heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the pro-gun lobby group which opposes even the most limited restrictions on buying firearms.
They claim the right to carry any weapons is constitutional and have long opposed measures including background checks on people buying guns, limitations on sub-machineguns and attempts to have childproof locks on handguns.

Out of the blue and apropos of nothing.

The NRA claims you can carry any weapon? Opposed to background checks? Opposed to limitations on sub-machine guns? What the hell is this, the 1920's? I've been a member of the NRA for years, and if y'all Londoners don't agree with us, fine. But at least tell the truth. Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 30's and the NRA is all for instant background checks.

If anyone is still arguing that MSM doesn't have a liberal agenda, they are either in deep denial or just plain dishonest. I heard someone on TV the other day saying that the White House views MSM as just another special interest group. That's the best definition I've heard to date.

Justice Scalia Speech

I have long maintained that the biggest internal threat to our democracy is the judicial branch of government. Their power has become unbridled. I have also said that to not have a guiding philosophy, to be pragmatic, is to make bad decisions and then make them worse in trying to fix them. Justice Scalia reinforces both of these points in what is the most important speech I have heard in some time.

Scalia rails against the "living Constitution":

And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea: persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea: persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion: create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea, and enact it. You want the opposite, persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce: rigidity.
Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional. I mean it’s no use debating it anymore. Now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility. That’s not the name of the game.

And here is the passage that speaks to, not only constitutional interpretation, but, I think, philosophical ideology in general:

If you don’t believe in originalism, then you need some other principle of interpretation. Being a non-originalist is not enough. You see, I have my rules that confine me. I know what I’m looking for. When I find it, the original meaning of the Constitution, I am handcuffed. If I believe that the First Amendment meant when it was adopted that you are entitled to burn the American flag, I have to come out that way, even though I don’t like to come out that way. When I find that the original meaning of the jury trial guarantee is that any additional time you spend in prison which depends upon a fact, must depend upon a fact found by a jury, once I find that’s what the jury trial guarantee means, I am handcuffed. Though I’m a law and order type, I can not do all the mean conservative things I would like to do to this society. You got me.
Now, if you’re not going to control your judges that way, what other criterion are you going to place before them? What is the criterion that governs the living constitutional judge? What can you possibly use, besides original meaning? Think about that. Natural law? We all agree on that, don’t we? The philosophy of John Ralls? That’s easy. There really is nothing else. You either tell your judges, “Look, this is a law, like all laws, give it the meaning it had when it was adopted.” Or, you tell your judges, “Govern us. You tell us whether people under eighteen, who committed their crimes when they were under eighteen, should be executed. You tell us whether there ought to be an unlimited right to abortion or a partial right to abortion. You make these decisions for us.”

And here is the sad conclusion:

And finally, this is what I will conclude with, although it is not on a happy note, the worse thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution. You heard in the introduction that I was confirmed, close to nineteen years ago now, by a vote of ninety-eight to nothing. The two missing were Barry Goldwater and Jake Garnes, so make it a hundred. I was known at that time to be, in my political and social views, fairly conservative. But still, I was known to be a good lawyer, an honest man, somebody who could read a text and give it its fair meaning, had judicial impartiality and so forth. And so I was unanimously confirmed.
Today, barely twenty years later, it is difficult to get someone confirmed to the Court of Appeals. What has happened? The American people have figured out what is going on. If we are selecting lawyers, if we are selecting people to read a text and give it the fair meaning it had when it was adopted, yes, the most important thing to do is to get a good lawyer. If on the other hand, we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience, a new constitution, with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right, and the other right. We want to pick people that would write the new constitution that we would want.
And that is why you hear in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, we want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Half way between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, “Draw me a moderate contract?” The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one. The moderate judge is the one who will devise the new constitution that most people would approve of. So for example, we had a suicide case some terms ago, and the Court refused to hold that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. We said, “We’re not yet ready to say that. Stay tuned, in a few years, the time may come, but we’re not yet ready.” And that was a moderate decision, because I think most people would not want a… If we had gone, looked into that and created a national right to assisted suicide that would have been an immoderate and extremist decision.
I think the very terminology suggests where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants. And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years.

Pragmatism without guiding principles. Law without a constitutional framework. We've come a long way, baby.

Idiotic Statement Of The Week

From my Brother-In-Law, regarding abortion:

I don't like it, but since we live in a secular society, I am pro choice.

Bill Maher

As a continuation of this post over at Hollywood, D.C., I find these quotes by the enlightened Bill Maher.

"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can't be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head."

There is much more in the same vein that I will not post here. The arrogance of these people never ceases to amaze me.

I don't mean to get on my evangelical soap-box, but it has already been predicted that this is the direction the world will go. And I'm one of those dupes who believes that crack-pot stuff. And it will continue to go this direction. And so, in a way, Maher is right when he says

"When people say to me, 'You hate America,' I don't hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion."

But, my friend, in the end you will be wrong. And I will pray visualize true enlightenment for you.

Evolution

After a lengthy discussion of this issue this week with Gunnar, I find this post on Powerline reinforcing my points. Those being primarily that taking the theory of evolution to the extreme of claiming it explains the beginnings of life is ridiculous. A claim I have made before. Here is a key passage:

I think that Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.(Emphasis mine)

Bush In Belgium II

Mark Steyn comments on Bush's performance in Belgium:

Nato will not be around circa 2015 - which is why the Americans are talking it up right now. An organisation that represents the fading residual military will of mostly post-military nations is marginally less harmful than the EU, which is the embodiment of their pacifist delusions. But, either way, there's not a lot to talk about. Try to imagine significant numbers of French, German or Belgian troops fighting alongside American forces anywhere the Yanks are likely to find themselves in the next decade or so: it's not going to happen.
America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the
noisier Continental mosques.
So what would you do in Bush's shoes? Slap 'em around a bit? What for? Where would it get you? Or would you do exactly what he's doing? Climb into the old soup-and-fish, make small talk with Mme Chirac and raise a glass of champagne to the enduring friendship of our peoples: what else is left? This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".

Libertarians vs. Religious Right

Instapundit has this post on the Republicans being accused of abandoning Libertarian principles in favor of "religious extremism". Since my Libertarian friend Gunnar Hagel and I often discuss these issues (usually to a standoff), I thought I would weigh in.

1. I have always thought that the premise that the past election hinged on moral issues was ridiculous. The election was first and foremost about the war on terror. Period.
   
2. The religious right certainly can at times become "the mirror image of it's hated enemy". They are too quick to look for government solutions to their social issues. However, many times the government is the cause of the problem in the first place (i.e. gay marriage).
   
3. Opposition to gay marriage, or even to the recognition and normalization of the gay lifestyle, does not make you a homophobe, intolerant, a fascist, a religious extremist, or a Nazi.
   
4. The Conservative philosophy is built on limited government, personal responsibility and personal liberty. If the Republicans abandon these principles to appease either the religious conservatives or the pragmatists (also known as moderates, independents or "swing voters") then they will ultimately lose the gains they have made.

Rehnquist Retirement Speculation

The New York Times is reporting on speculation that Chief Justice William Rehnquist will retire in June. In some sick way I'm actually looking forward to the confirmation circus that will follow. It will not matter who Bush nominates to the court, the opposition will be fierce. As I have stated before, the judiciary is where these people get a lot of things done, so the stakes are high.

With their backs against the wall and the party more and more beholden to the radical, fringe left, the Democrats will pull out all the stops. Just wait until this Certified Headcase gets rolling. It should be a great show.

Guardian Angels Coming To Dallas?

I have two opinions on this piece in The Dallas Morning News regarding the Guardian Angels coming to Dallas. First, is this what journalism has come to? He said, she said?

Dallas officials are hardly fashioning keys to the city for Mr. Sliwa, who some accuse of being more grandstander than crime fighter.

"It's probably not the best time for them to come to Dallas," Mr. Griffith said. "They're a very controversial group. All of our time, attention and resources need to be directed on what the chief is trying to do to fight crime."

"The last thing we need is for them to come down and have our crime statistics go up," the mayor said earlier. "Everywhere they've gone, they've created more controversy than they've done to solve crime."

Allegations of Mr. Sliwa lying about Angels' exploits have dogged the organization. But it retains a national presence, with more than two-dozen chapters nationwide.

"Some accuse"? "Controversial"? "Allegations"? What the hell!?!? Are there no facts to be known? Have any of them ever been arrested? Have they lost any civil suits? Does the crime rate go up where they are active? Does it go down? My post title has as much information as this entire story. The bottom line is, The Dallas Morning News doesn't give a damn about the facts. We have a dog fight! Here's how each side is handling the spin and who's winning the PR war.

Second, as with San Francisco and their ban on handguns, the last concern of city officials is the safety of citizens who might benefit from the Angels' presence. I have news for the City of Dallas: the law-abiding citizens of high-crime neighborhoods, like this family, who endure drug dealers right outside their door every night, don't care about controversy, they care about bullets.

Bush in Belgium

I read recently that Syria and Iran had entered a pact to protect each other from U.S. aggression. Boys, if I were you, I'd see if I could find a few more outlaws to join your club. You're going to need them.

Bush, from what I read, was excellent today in Belgium. The opening paragraph of this story sums it up quite well:

President Bush appealed to Europe on Monday to move beyond animosities over Iraq and join forces in encouraging democratic reforms across the Middle East. He also prodded Russia to reverse a crackdown on political dissent, demanded that Iran end its nuclear ambitions and told Syria to get out of Lebanon.

I think, as I said before, that this man means what he says and if Iran and Syria don't heed the warnings they are going to be next. But here is the best part of the story:

On Iran, Bush said the United States was working with European allies Britain, France and Germany on a diplomatic solution to end Iran's nuclear program. His administration, however, has been skeptical of the Europeans' approach to offer Iran economic and political incentives not to develop nuclear arms.

Hmmm. I wonder why the administration is skeptical? Could it be because this has never worked? And while Iraqis are risking their lives to establish a democratic government, Iran and North Korea are developing nukes, and Syria has a strangle hold on Lebanon, what are the libs concerned about?

Despite Bush's appeal to bury past differences, divisions remain over other issues, including the U.S. decision not to enter the Kyoto climate change treaty, which many European nations supported.

But of course, as climate change is going to kill us all. Just ask Al Gore.

Conservative Gains

As I mentioned in this post, I get discouraged sometimes by the fact that conservatives seem to have made some gains, but that most of the conservative principles I believe in are not even fought for anymore. It is interesting to hear Karl Rove discuss these gains in a congratulatory way in front of a conservative group, and yet hear the grumbling in the crowd for the departures from the ideology.
This quote demonstrates why conservatives are at a disadvantage to liberals from the start:

But some conservatives voiced alarm that Mr. Bush appeared to leave an opening for Congress to increase payroll deductions to pay for Social Security reforms. Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, warned that such a move would be seen as a tax increase and, therefore, a departure from the principle of low taxes embraced by Mr. Bush and his party. It could cost Republicans control of the House next year, he said.

Some of the activists yesterday grumbled that several egregious departures from conservatism were missing from the picture Mr. Rove painted of the Republican Party's dominance of Congress and of the Bush presidency. They cited Mr. Bush's guest-worker proposal, which they see as an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Others were critical of the administration's aggressive foreign policy. "This so-called "nation building' by Bush will tear apart the Republican Party before long," said a senior policy analyst, who asked not to be named.

"A departure from principle". "Tear apart the Republican Party". You rarely hear these sorts of comments from Democrats or the left. They have no guiding principles. And if their guy strays off the reservation a bit, they usually take it pretty well. Clinton enacted some conservative initiatives, such as welfare reform and NAFTA, but you didn't see the party disowning him. And when Hillary came out saying abortions are bad, the feminists certainly didn't cast her out. She is their best bet for power, and if she has to moderate a bit to get it, so be it.
Because the left has no overriding philosophical ideology to adhere to, they are free to address each issue in the moment, and take small gains where they can. While the right is prepared to abandon Social Security reform completely if there is a tax increase involved, the left incrementally chips away at gun rights, personal responsibility, and socializing medicine.

Greenpeace Meets Their Match

Now this is some funny shit.

WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail. What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.
“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”
Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy.”

Damn, I would pay good money to see a video of this. If this were the case at every Greenpeace protest, they could break all their fund-raising records selling tickets. I'd take the family. I'd even buy the VIP tickets that would let you take a few swings yourself.

Freedom Of Religion

The Right wing of the political spectrum is at a decided disadvantage due to our insistence on the rule of law. The left, in their arrogance, know what is best and never let laws get in their way. If the law is indeed an obstacle, they either ignore it (2nd Amendment), pretend it says something it doesn't (Establishment Clause), or add to it (right to abortion).

Therefore, when the right is faced with judicial activism, such as expanding the legal definition of marriage, we have no choice but to pursue legislation that will reaffirm what the law already says. Thus the "Marriage Amendment". And thus this Constitutional Amendment in Virginia to reinstate their freedom of religion. My favorite part:

"I think it's the height of arrogance and hubris to think we could improve on the words of Thomas Jefferson," said Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax). "There's no need to change it. It protects all our liberties, and it has stood the test of time."

Hubris? Oh yeah, the new buzzword. The first time I heard it I thought it was a plant disease. But I digress. This from the "living document" crowd? Funny that constitutions should be open to interpretation but not to change.

Good luck to the good people of Virginia, I'll be praying visualizing freedom of religion for you.

The Jacket

...I posted about here.

The Grammys

A couple observations on last nights Grammy Awards:

First, I know this has fallen out of fashion, but, no matter how much talent you collectively have, if your going to do Lennon's Across the Universe, you need to collectively blow a joint backstage to get your head right.

Second, it strikes me that at a time when the Grammys are recognizing roots music (Southern Rock, Soul, and Blues, Country, Gospel - all wrapped up in the man Ray Charles), the CMA (Country Music Assoc.) Awards are running from theirs like their hair is on fire.

Eason Jordan

So, Eason Jordan resigns. I hadn't blogged on this as it was a little too fast-moving for my approach at the moment. However, this is an excellent point that I think sums up the whole problem with MSM:

The man who probably was the most responsible for the blogswarm of Eason's Fables [Hugh Hewitt] pointed out that the networks, which had yet to address the issue, now needed to report the resignation of the head of a news organization for a scandal they never reported to their viewers.

Campaign Finance Fiasco

The Campaign Finance Reform Act, the single most powerful attack on free speech in the history of the U.S., was proven this election cycle to be a farce. It is a horrible piece of legislation, should never have been signed by President Bush, should have been declared unconstitutional, and now should be repealed. Where are all the people so exorcised over the Patriot Act?

But, as I always say, once the government has their tentacles into something, they never let go. Hence, this new legislation that tries to "fix" the problems with the new law. Only now, the argument has been lost. It has become law and now accepted that the government can limit speech in this way, so the next step is to close the "loophole" that is 527s. This is the problem with pragmatism - for all of you who bought into this BS about money corrupting politics, by not looking at the deeper and broader philosophical questions, we have allowed the federal government an encroachment they will never give up. More power for them, and less for us. Again.

Public Sex Education

Even with all the gains the conservative viewpoint is making, sometimes I feel we've already lost the war. Am I the only person in America that believes that the public school system should teach the three R's and nothing else? Why is the public school system involved in matters of values at all?

This debate would not be going on if the school systems were limited to teaching the physical, biological aspects of sex and nothing else. Anatomy, reproduction and disease. Period. But no, the schools now have virtually no limit to what they can become involved in. Teaching children how to deal with relationships, emotions, etc. I have railed against the schools teaching pacifism before.

And yet, the school system is not allowed to delve into religion at all, due to the "separation of church and state". Even though most Americans' values are in some way shaped and influenced by their religion, at school the children get a purely secular view of some of life's most important issues.

I read recently that schools should not be required to teach on the beginnings of life, but if so, they should teach evolution and nothing else, as creationism or "intelligent design" is a purely religious concept. I agree, though I would conclude that public schools should not teach on the beginnings of life at all, as evolution is only a theory, and a poor one I might add, used to explain where life originated. This is one of those areas where an individual's religious beliefs will play a prominent role in how they view the world, and, as a purely secular institution, an area where public schools have no business.

Many of the debates raging in the country now are the result of the government, most often the Federal Government, inserting itself where it has no business. From the FCC and it's handling of broadcast decency standards, to the Supreme Court's affirmation of a constitutional right to abortion. And yet, I see no stemming of this tide.

The "Nuclear" Option

I understand that the Senate is a deliberative body that moves slowly, and most of the time I appreciate that, as I see most of the legislation that comes from Washington to cause more problems than it solves. However, as I have said before, judicial nominations deserve to be voted on by the full Senate, period.

Therefore, I don't understand the reluctance of the Republicans to employ the nuclear option, barring nominees from filibuster. In my view, filibustering nominees in itself is nuclear, so why the timid approach? Arlen Specter, of course, is one reason. With Republicans like him in positions of power, it is a tenuous majority indeed.

The Culture War

Ok, I'm about to reveal myself as one of "them". One of those backwards people who got pissed off about Janet Jackson's nudity at the Super Bowl, enough so to send an email to CBS. One of those who agrees that PBS shouldn't be showing lesbian couples on a kid's show, one who, indeed, thinks that the gay lifestyle is deviant and unnatural. One of those who thinks it should be illegal for a woman to have an abortion. Yes, one of those.

I haven't blogged on this subject much, but this column by Frank Rich brought it all to the surface and I must comment. Frank is distressed by the government's heavy-handed response to the Super Bowl halftime show "wardrobe malfunction" and the chilling effect it has had on TV in general.

Now, I wasn't the only one to complain about the incident. Millions of people called or emailed to complain. Was it that I think it will scar my kids for life? No, the point is that it should be my decision what my kids get to see and what they don't. Why do I have to defend or rationalize that decision? If a family can't sit down to watch the Super Bowl together, then what is safe to turn on?

And as to the PBS episode of Postcards From Buster, it was set in Vermont, right? Well, what if, instead of Buster meeting a family with two Mommies, he instead met a family where the father and son go shooting together, and they take Buster to the range and teach him how to safely handle a firearm? I mean, after all, Vermont is a big gun-rights state, and I would think meeting this type of family would be more likely than a family with two Mommies. How would Mr. Rich feel about that?

The fact is, the left would have a fit. And throws fits regularly, just as the right does. Remember Michael Savage?

So, based on these observations, I have an idea that should make everyone happy. Let's shut down the Dept. of Education, scale back the FCC so they only deal with regulatory matters they were meant to, and push the cultural decisions down to families and communities. That way, New York and L.A. can have their standards, and Des Moines and Birmingham can have theirs. And I can have mine. What a novel concept.

Bomb Found Near U.S. Base In Turkey

I don't understand why stories like this don't get more press. The bomb was planted, found, and defused. But does this make it any less of an attack? I found this story buried on page 6A of the print edition of USA Today. Had the attack been successful, it would have been major news (depending, of course, on how many people died in the attack).

Why is that? I have seen compilations of the litany of terrorist attacks in the last several years, but what would that list look like if every failed or foiled attempt was also listed? Let's estimate the kind of damage this would do in a crowded nightclub and look at what could have been. Only focusing on successful attacks diminishes what the terrorists are doing and how active they are, and fails to give credit to ours and other country's successes in thwarting terrorist plots.