Archive for March, 2008
Come Heller High Water
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Hi boys and girls! This here is a gun. It’s a SIG 229 to be exact and my brother owns one and I like it. A lot. He’s on a gun forum and those guys voted for me when I was up for some Blog award a year ago and I just want to give ‘em a shout out.
If you don’t know, you should know that a big case is before the Supreme Court regarding your right to bear arms. In Washington D.C. there is a hand gun ban and it’s being challenged and the case moved through the courts. The case has huge implications for gun owners everywhere and for those who might want to own a gun in the future.
Glenn Reynolds has been all over the Heller case and has been giving great updates. This is how the Wall Street Journal sums up the case (which will be decided by May):
Judging by Tuesday argument, the High Court has a majority in support of the circuit court opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the Framers included the word “people” if the Amendment only applied to militias. Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the importance the Framers attached to providing citizens the means to protect against tyrannical government. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the Court’s swing vote, informed all in attendance that “In my view, there’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”
The debate also focused on what restrictions, if any, government could impose on such an individual right. Several Justices had particular fun with Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was charged with defending his (and thus the Bush Administration’s) odd split-the-baby amicus brief arguing that while the Second Amendment is an individual right, the D.C. Circuit opinion would bar governments from banning even such heavy weapons as machine guns.
In fact, that opinion leaves ample room for a government to regulate machine guns, bazookas and the like — much as even the First Amendment protects speech as an individual right but not as a right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. We hope the Supreme Court agrees with Judge Silberman that the Second Amendment does protect the right to own pistols, rifles and other guns of the kind the American Founders believed were needed to protect liberty.
Amen to that. No one knows until the court hands down the decision what the outcome of the case will be, but it’s important. Jay at The Right to Bear Arms notes this:
The Toledo Blade wades into the Heller case and repeats some of the same drivel we hear all the time:No sane public purpose would be served if the court manipulates the wording of the Second Amendment to infer that Americans have an unfettered right to carry guns. The amendment says no such thing.
Moreover, while many people in the early days of the nation did carry weapons, they were single-shot muskets and not the rapid-fire Glock 9s or AK-47s that are the firearms of choice of modern-day criminals.
Don’t you just love how the anti-gun crowd loves to talk about what the constitution doesn’t say when it comes to the second amendment? I’m certain if we asked the editorial board of the Toledo Blade about the word abortion not being mentioned at all in the constitution, they’d stutter and spittle and tell us how that’s ‘different.’ Bottom line is, what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?
As for the type of weapons, all the talk about Glock’s and AK-47’s is a non sequitur. Free speech rights don’t change because we have the Internet now and they had quills and parchment paper back then.
It is uncomfortable to think about these days, but the 2nd Amendment is a hedge against governmental tyranny. I don’t know what could be done against the government’s arsenal, but an armed citizen can do more than an unarmed one, that’s for sure. The right to protect life and land is the right to protect liberty. The Heller case is important for everyone–gun owners or not.
I Made The List!
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008I know, I shouldn’t be such an eager beaver, but there you go. For the first time, I made John Hawkins’ list of favorite bloggers–and I’m not at the bottom either. #17–Not too shabby! Maybe, just maybe, I’ll up my game so much that I end up first. Hey, a girl can dream.
Fixing Higher Education–Guest Posted by Lorne Carignan
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008
Higher education is expensive. Along with K-12, education is usually one of the largest items in states’ budgets, consuming as much as half or more of all revenues. It’s also a fair chunk of the federal budget. Governments provide funds directly to public universities as well as offering numerous grants and incentives for specific research and development projects.
One problem in American education is that the broad, liberal education from High School no longer exists. My own American History class in High School was ridiculous. My Honors World History class followed U of M’s curriculum and was based on original works, but there was no continuity or time line, no perspective. So students getting into college have spotty liberal education. They leave with spotty education, too: At universities such as Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke, and Berkeley, seniors scored lower on the test, available here, than freshmen, living proof of the broadening relevancy of the old Harvard adage that the university is a storehouse of knowledge because “the freshmen bring so much and the seniors take away so little.” The average foreign student studying in an American college learned nothing about the country’s history and its civic institutions, according to the study. This is a problem, but I’m not sure the solution will come in the public schools or in colleges at this rate. The educational standards are too politicized. The post-modern take on subjective “truth” forbids honestly looking at history, economics and civics. The bias against rote memorization precludes a broad base of knowledge. Basically, any subject outside of science and math means uneven education. The SATs focus their verbal scores on grammar, analogies, comprehension, etc. But the guts of the content is pretty meaningless. And in the business world, a liberal education doesn’t serve one much anyway, but a math, science, finance, accounting, engineering or some other specialized degree will.
Beauty Is Truth
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008The things in the world that interest me are the things that have no “useful” purpose like big ideas, and imagining a future that could be, or fantasizing about technology that will clean my house, go grocery shopping and cook for me. Some “useless” things sit right in front of me. Take flowers for example. James Lileks says:
I think we’re just lucky that flowers are beautiful; it would be a strange world if flowers and most plants revolted the hell out of people the way most large insects do. Well, you can say, our aesthetic preference to flowers is simply the result of millennia of acclimation. There is no inherent beauty there; we mistake our inbred subjective reaction for an object truth. If flowers looked “hideous” in the same sense as big insects – a revulsion that’s also grounded in subjective reactions, not AGGGH THERE’S A COCKROACH ON THE DESK GET IT OFF GET IT OFF
Sorry; it was just a shadow. Anyway: we would have thought “ugly” flowers were beautiful if our species’ consciousness had evolved alongside “ugly” flowers, or perhaps we would have regarded them as neutral, the way we regard most small ordinary rocks. It’s possible another species might land on Earth on a mission
from Voltarus IV, examine our great botanical gardens, throw up en masse and leave, never to come again.Possible.
So why are the heavens so beautiful? Why, when we look deep into space with the eyes of Hubble and other machines, does everything seem so gorgeous? It’s not as if we evolved looking at that.
It would be interesting if it turned out Keats was right: beauty is truth. Imagine that: an aesthetic standard that exists whether we do or not. The tree that blossoms in the forest with no one around to see it.
Why do flowers exist? Why do manatees exist? I have to admit to a strange fascination with those creatures. They are benign, not very beautiful but seem to be utterly peaceful and gentle. They don’t have “usefulness” though–not like a cow or even a dog. Although my dog is completely useless, unless you consider cute and pooping in my office useful, which I don’t.
Anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Why is it that we all find the same things beautiful? We tend to all love Halle Berry’s physical attributes for example and agree that she has a beautiful face and body. We all look at Denzel Washington and think–wow, he’s handsome. And I don’t know why I came up with those two examples except they are the first actors to pop into my head. That, and I saw part of that movie American Gangster and boy can Denzel act. He scared me and made me feel sympathetic for him at the same time. That was a weird digression.
Lileks concludes and I agree:
But I suppose if you believe that, you think flowers have inherent beauty, and we’re more than chemicals and subconscious commands from the instinct gland in the bottom of your brain. You do? Me too.
I believe in inherent beauty, transcendent beauty, that is just there for our pleasure. And the pleasure is the purpose.
Michelle Obama’s Heart
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008Sigh. I don’t like the candidates this year. And I don’t like the Democratic candidate’s wife and husband. They are just lame on so many levels it’s fatiguing. One week it’s Bill Clinton shooting off at the mouth. The next week it’s Michelle Obama. She calls to mind a scripture in Matthew 12:34:
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Michelle Obama’s heart appears to be filled with America loathing. Gateway Pundit reports what she said:
“It’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your own ignorance…That’s AMERICA”Michelle Obama
Campaigning for Change at University of South Carolina
January, 2008Oops!… She did it again!
Michelle Obama bashes America
I watched the video and as usual, it seems rather benign. She is admonishing students to interact more on campus. I remember the self-imposed segregation at my small college. It never seemed like racism or exclusivity to me and it didn’t happen all the time. It struck me more as finding people like yourself with similar experiences and finding a connection. Still, it was a color divide sometimes. However, it didn’t bug me personally because I counted many in the “black group” as friends.
Obama frames this issue as one of ignorance and stereotypes. I didn’t feel that the “black group” was ignorant or steeped in stereotypes any more than I felt the greater majority of white people were ignorant and steeped in stereotypes. It seemed a matter of comfort. And yes, sometimes it’s good to push past a person’s comfort zone. But no, I don’t think that Americans feel generally “justified in their ignorance”. What a sweeping statement to make about America. Sure it describes some Americans, but all of America?
And if integration and stepping outside of the comfort zone is so important, why does Ms. Obama go to a black church teaching black superiority, hate toward Jews and weird conspiracy theories designed to inspire paranoia of America? You’d think she’d go to a multiracial church where universal values like love, forgiveness, reconciliation and charity are taught.
"Most Women Are Liars, Manipulators and Backstabbing Bitches"
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008Yes, well, I’m receiving interesting emails, that’s for sure. This one came in over the weekend and I’ve been debating how to respond to it. Here’s what a reader named Komolan asks:
My name is Komalan [I'm striking his middle and last name for anonymity -ed.]. I’m 28yrs-old,grew up between Italy Switzerland and a few years in South-Africa too. I’m currently studying in Manchester UK.
I’ll get to the point; I was grown up by my mother to respect a treat women as if they were all nice and righteous… fact is that after being single my whole life, and being treated like scum by women, I’ve come to the conclusion that, most women, are manipulators, lying and back stabbing bitches. I treat women nicely and get treated badly back. Don’t get me wrong, I’m good looking, honest and treat everyone with respect; but I don’t get that from women, well, most.
When I greet a woman maybe in a public place, she will “nod” and look at me as if I’m raping her…I can say that I cannot even have a normal conversation with a woman without being harrassed by one of them.
Can you explain why they behave this way…truth is that we men are really second class citizens.Regards.
Komalon,
I’m sorry your experiences with women have led you to believe that most of them are bad. While it’s true, there are some bad women out there, there are some good women, too. Your concerns are legitimate and I will address them in a minute.
First though, I want to talk about the concept of like attracting like. I’m not the only one to notice the pattern that birds of a feather flock together. Often we draw to us the exact sort of people we are like ourselves. Sometimes it’s good to look outside your life like an impartial observer and see if you find patterns to the people you attract into your life. A friend of mine dated, successively, men of similar face, build and temperament. If you find yourself attracting a certain kind of woman, you might question what it is about you that attracts this kind. And ultimately, you have no control over how another might act or treat you, but you have control over how your actions and what you find acceptable in the behavior of others. Examine yourself. You say that you treat all people with respect and most women don’t treat you with respect. Seek and build relationships with those who do treat you the way you wish to be treated.
Second, and more to what you’re asking: Why are women lying, manipulating, backstabbing bitches? Lying: All people have trouble with the truth. Getting a straight answer from a woman can be even more difficult. Maybe conflict bothers her. Maybe she’s afraid of hurting you. Maybe she thinks it’s okay to lie because she has no moral foundation. Manipulating: People who manipulate see themselves in the one-down position. That is, an overt action would likely be met with confrontation, so manipulation is used to control. It’s nasty behavior and difficult to deal with. Backstabbing: I’m taking that to mean that she acts one way to your face, but secretly does things that are mean or awful to you and you find out later. Some people just are out for themselves. Period. They will do anything to anyone to get what they want. It is wise to avoid these people, men or women. Unfortunately, they can be difficult to spot because they seem nice. Here’s my advice, though. As soon as you see the bad behavior, bail. When someone shows you herself, believe her.
I’m going to give bitchiness its own paragraph. I have noticed that bitchiness as a character trait in women has come to be extolled especially among the younger women I see. Maybe it’s the Paris Hilton effect. I don’t know, but women seem to revel in being a trampy looking tease and then biting back and hard when a man appreciates the physical form–an action the woman was obviously trying to provoke. This double-bind is bullshit. Now, I’ve also known borish, aggressive men, but this post is operating under the assumption of a respectful, appreciative guy. There has been societal support for women to be ungrateful, using, and disrespectful. Maybe it’s because they don’t respect themselves. Or, more likely, maybe it’s because they are spoiled rotten, entitled brats who are used to having things go their way.
Men struggle to be chivalrous, like I encouraged before, and are met with women who feel entitled to the respectful behavior while being bitchy and disrespectful themselves. Girls are socialized with Bratz dolls, see snotty, ditzy, superficial behavior in young adult role models, and hear how awful men are from the older women in their lives. Boys are made to seem bad by schools throughout and by college, girls are steeped in feminist culture where “sex is rape”–or that’s what they hear in class. That message is mingled with “embrace your sexual freedom”. So young women have this superficial view of women–empowered cock teases, essentially. And sometimes more than teases. They have sex, empty sex, and are taught to remove their attachment to the man and act “like a guy”. They get hardened, because women are NOT wired like men and have a more challenging time having random sex. They feel used instead of empowered. They get bitter. And then they wonder why they hit 50 and don’t ever get married. They tell themselves, “Men just can’t handle a smart woman”. Um, honey, maybe a man doesn’t want your brand of woman. And then the woman herself feels betrayed. She bought the feminist crap and believed it and lived it.
Of course, not all women are like this. In fact, most women are not at all like this, but it takes time and patience to discover what sort of woman you’re dealing with. And some women let you know up front. You have many years of dating ahead of you. I hope you’ll look at yourself first–it’s really the biggest part of the puzzle you control. And you also have control over who you ask out.
Be choosy.
The Pain of A Love Leaving
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008But you can’t feel sorrow like this without truly loving someone, and I figure, it’s worth it. I know it is, and I feel incredibly lucky to adore someone so much that his absence feels like a hole in my soul.
–Rachel Lucas on her boyfriend leaving for Iraq
Back From The Dead
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008Have you heard about this guy who was declared dead and then moved and says that he heard them declare him dead? Now, his family had approved of having his organs harvested. Do you wonder how many times people have been alive while presumed dead and had organs removed? How about people who are dead and are just alive and allowed to fade away? These are disturbing thoughts.
Religious Discrimination and More Stifling of Free Thought On Campus
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008Mike Adams, professor at University of North Carolina at Wilmington, shares his experience:
At first, I thought the decision to ignore our requests was due to the fact that the College Republicans are sponsoring Frank Turek’s talk. Then, I scrolled down the page and saw that the university had advertised a recent voter registration drive sponsored by the College Democrats. Certainly, the university is incapable of engaging in blatant political discrimination. And certainly Mike Adams is incapable of engaging in blatant sarcasm.
Read the whole thing.
Hillary Caught Lying–UPDATED
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008How do you know a politician is lying? Yeah, yeah, her mouth is moving:
UPDATED:
I thought this clip was so comically hilarious, that I’d leave it to speak for itself. Hillary is a liar. Lie. Lie. Lie. You know what? She always has been. This isn’t surprising. Does anyone in the world believe that she hasn’t known about Bill’s proclivities? Please. She’s a Yankees fan, too! And she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary! The list of these “misspeaks” is endless. The Anchoress says (and she has a great round-up):
Ace has more. I’m betting that the press will allow Hillary to get by with the “misspeak” claim and will not press her further. They’ll do that partly out of habit, but also because it’s more fun for them, news-wise, with Hillary in the race than out of it.
My goodness, this is one uninspiring election season. I want all new candidates, please. These have been around so long they are, like fish, raising too great a stench.
Indeed.
