Archive for June, 2008

The Heller Decision

I guess today came and went like it should.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Heller vs. DC that questioned why a DC special police officer who carries a handgun for work is banned from keeping it at his home for personal protection. The court held that his Constitutional right to bear arms was violated.

I read some but not all of the majority opinion. It doesn’t offer anything that those of us who happen to cherish our Second Amendment rights didn’t know. Justice Antonin Scalia, in my view, simply performed his job in the way that it should be done. Notice that the decision wasn’t “sweeping,” and it didn’t write new rights, unlike other decisions that recently went so far as to give POW’s access to the American legal system. 

Heller restored rights. It confirmed what those of us who’ve read the history of firearm ownership already know and believe.

Scalia definitely is the best at what he does, but it feels like we’re crowding around the front door of a workplace at 7 a.m. to cheer for the people who got to work on time. 

But I guess gathering around the door at the commencement of the work-day does make you observe who’s not there, which currently is 4 or 5 (depending on the day) justices of the Supreme Court, and a lot of other elected officials who swore to uphold the Constitution.

So “landmark” decision?  It is a waypoint in the fight to maintain existing rights.  But it does give you a moment to take a deep breath before plunging back into to melee.

Just Wondering…

This is from an email correspondence in the G.I.N. The G.I.N. President and CEO has taken up the questions and answered artfully (in bold):

Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods? They were at the BET awards last night talking about Obama for Prez (link).

Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn’t solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are? Trailers? I’m sure there’s no room in Iowa for more double-wides. (awww come on, it’s jusha joke).

Why isn’t the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago? Chicago? Because the people of Iowa are smarter than that – they’d rather take their chances against acts of God rather than a gang riddled corrupt city like Chicago.

When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines? As soon as he gets done lambasting Clint Eastwood for being a racist. One battle at a time here fellas.

Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks? Venezuela and France. Oh, wait – you meant figuratively…

Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets? They’re too busy putting up sand bags and helping each other out.

When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a “vanilla” Iowa, because that’s the way God wants it? Dude, I was thinking this 2-weeks ago. But I just wandered how long it would take for it to come out in an e-Mail. Evidently a lot longer than Mayor Nagin took to say it.

Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism? Too busy covering the Obamessiah.

Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people? See answer #1.

How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again? There were floods in Iowa? Seriously, we … will never forget about the floods because the … will never let us.

Good questions. Good questions indeed.

By the way, if you want to help, there are a lot of charities that can help directly.

News Tilt Short

The headline says it all, doesn’t it? Blame the retailer and the refiner! (link)

yahoo.JPG

There are so many things wrong with this headline. 1. It assumes that this is a failure, 2. It assumes price gauging is taking place, and 3. It assumes Congress has a role to play in regulating gas prices.

If you have “gas pains at the pump,” figure out how much in taxes you’re paying, how much ethanol is costing vs the “benefit” it provides, and how many new refineries have been permitted to be built to keep up with demand for gasoline. Then ask yourself: who failed to do what?

Abortion Advocacy In Time Magazine

I really like the article “Will Pro-Choice Women Back McCain?” in Time Magazine (link). As an advocacy piece for “choice” or “pro-abortion,” it does a service for like-minded (pro-choice/pro-abortion) readers. 

This blogger asks many a question in a title of a written post, but I don’t pose to be a journalist, unlike this abortion advocate turned journalist, writing a piece of pro abortion advocacy in what purports to be a news magazine. Unlike her, the end of an article written by me would say “BadIdeaGuy is a kooky gun nut and has been relegated to living in his truck in a sleeping bag” or something like that.

Will Pro-Choice Women Back McCain? By AMY SULLIVAN
Tue Jun 24, 2:25 AM ET

The 2008 presidential race may have been branded a “change” election, but abortion rights advocates have seen this movie before. Once again they face a Republican nominee who supports abortion restrictions yet is widely viewed as moderate and unthreatening to pro-choice voters. Eight years ago, it was George W. Bush who convinced pro-choice Republican and independent women that he was a safe bet, asserting that “America is not ready to ban abortions.” This time, according to a poll released last week by NARAL Pro-Choice America, voters have a fuzzy sense of John McCain’s views on abortion – which is just the way the McCain campaign wants it.

The NARAL survey found that when pro-choice women are told that McCain believes the Roe v. Wade decision should be overturned, their support for him drops substantially. Among pro-choice independent women, who are already more inclined to back Obama, information about the two candidates’ abortion positions improves Obama’s edge from 53-35 to 66-26, for a net gain of 22 percentage points. Even pro-choice Republican women shift their support after hearing about McCain’s opposition to Roe: 76% initially say they will vote for McCain in November, but that number drops to 63%.

The problem for Democrats is that most voters don’t sit through phone calls with pollsters walking them through the respective positions of the two nominees. That sets up a messaging battle, and it’s one Republicans enter from a position of strength. In the 35 years since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, abortion has reigned as the single most controversial issue in American politics. Nevertheless, GOP presidential candidates have demonstrated a remarkable ability to strike a politically successful balance, quietly reassuring their conservative base of their anti-abortion commitment while publicly hewing to language that appeals to the pro-choice majority.

So you assume that the reporter is just reporting the news, like Time Magazine does. You know, like Time does.  Perhaps a more appropriate byline is “Amy Sullivan used to live in a trench, one where abortion warfare was conducted,” as portrayed by her Washington Monthly column “A Time To Choose” from December 2003 (bold is mine) (link):

With luck, such a bill may some day pass. But it won’t be easy. I know, because six years ago, I tried. As a Senate staffer, I worked with a group of senators from both parties for such a compromise. We failed, and the story of that failure illustrates the power of organized extremists on both sides to thwart a great idea. …

So just weeks after the veto override vote, Daschle led a group of like-minded senators–(including Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)–in an effort to develop legislation that would restrict abortion while protecting women. I was one of the staff members who participated in the effort that would be known as the Alternative, as many of the senators considered it a better way to address the problem of abortion than the “partial-birth” ban. Our unique approach was to focus not on how an abortion was performed, but on when. …

We also went to work trying to line up support from the medical community. One of the objections lodged by anti-abortion groups was that they didn’t trust doctors to use their best medical judgment to determine either when viability took place or when a woman’s health was in danger. The implicit suggestion was that many doctors were all too eager to perform late-term abortions and would abuse their power to make any situation fit into the exceptions written into the bill. We made the case to the American Medical Association (AMA) that the partial-birth ban was an infringement on their professional independence. We also worked with a subgroup of the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), to develop legislative language that was understandable to doctors–giving them a clear idea of when abortions could and could not be performed–and they ultimately lent their professional endorsement to the Alternative. ACOG’s parent organization, however, the AMA played hard to get. …

It’s time for defenders of a woman’s right to choose, both Democrats and Republicans, to revisit the Alternative. Its moral, policy, and political logic are if anything more compelling than they were six years ago. Of course, there won’t be an opportunity to raise the issue again if Republicans retain the White House and Congress in November. That’s why a savvy and aggressive Democratic nominee for president ought to campaign on it now.

Amy Sullivan is a doctoral student in sociology at Princeton University and the author of Political Aims, www.politicalaims.com.

Here’s yet another sign of the times. The monolith of liberal advocacy groups, political bureaucrats and liberal campaigns, and the mainstream media are inseparable, and people cross over from one to the other seamlessly. 

Ask yourself: does the author work for NARAL, a liberal US Senator, or Time Magazine?  The answer: it doesn’t matter, they’re all the same.

AP On Behalf of Obamessiah: Stop Criticizing The Bible!

(AP) Oh Dr. Dobson, you’ll soon learn about criticizing me about the Bible…

criticism.JPG

…when you’re head’s on a pike!

Crossing the Line Between News Reporting and Aiding the Enemy

Mick Wright over at Newsbusters.org (link) lays out how the New York Times decided to go ahead and publish the name of the CIA interrogator who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed despite requests by the interrogator and the CIA that they not. Obviously he’s concerned that he’d become a target for retaliation.

If I were in the White House, US Marshals would already have evacuated and chained up the New York Times’ facilities until the conclusion of the war.  As a citizen, I vote with my dollars. Apparently a lot of others do too (link).

Backpacking Stoves/SHTF

internationale.JPGSize comparison

When I first started backpacking in college (well, restarted if you count Scouting as a young’un), I would pack a 9000 cubic inch pack almost full for a long weekend.  I lived it up!  I had deluxe accomodations, enough clothes for anything, and enough food for myself and a few others.  Though I worked full-time through the end of college, it was always fun to pack up and hit the Appalachian Trail for a few days by myself or with anyone who’d man-up (or girl up in some cases) to stay in my 4 Season Chalet of a tent (lugged in on my back).

I never was ambitious or crazy enough to hike the entire trail, though if I can still walk when I retire I may do it then.

When I moved West, I got ridiculed on my first trip with new friends.  It would’ve been fine if I was on my own turf, but the thin air and steeper terrain kicked my butt.  On each trip, I’d not only shake down to get unneeded stuff out, but then shake down again, and sometimes a third time.  I’m a pack rat, a preparedness freak, and always hungry, so I’d still pack a lot of stuff.

After a year of weekly forays into the wilderness areas (which still get crowded sometimes), I honed my stuff to fit into a 4200 cubic inch pack.  I still didn’t usually suffer.  Buying better gear was one thing that helped, too.  I’ve gotten the mindset that if something’s significantly cheaper than its competition, it’s probably “cheaper” too.  It’s one thing if your toothbrush breaks, but entirely different if it’s a cheap water bladder you bought (hey, it was really light!) that to your surprise split at the seam and put 1.5 liters of water (that you needed to drink) all over your sleeping bag.. dual lessons learned there.

Anyway, I found that having a cook-stove is important.  During the college years, having the biggest possible cookfire seemed important.  But it takes a lot of energy and water to put out a fire to my satisfaction, and it some areas it’s not permissible or advisable to have one at all.

I wound up getting two very light stoves.  One is the Mountain Safety Research “Pocket Rocket” (link).  I found that at lower elevations and higher temperatures it worked well, but that the isopropane and isobutane I used to fuel it wouldn’t work at high elevations or low temperatures.  I assumed it was Boyle’s Law in action, so if that’s a problem I wouldn’t advise it.  But for regular backpacking (or SHTF situations), at 3 ounces plus the canister, it’s a “high speed low drag” gem! One other drawback is the canister is finite.

The other one I use is the MSR Whisperlite Internationale. (link) I call it the Royale with cheese.  This one is also relatively light (approx 11.5 oz) and uses white gas (which, according to the MSR website, is known to the Taiwanese as “fai phat yao”. In case you ever go backpacking in Taiwan?).  It also will burn kerosene and unleaded auto fuel. 

I don’t need to explain why the ability to use gasoline to boil water would be advantageous in a SHTF situation. I’d also be treating you, my loyal readers, like idiots if I told you that I don’t recommend cooking hot dogs or marshmallows over this flame.

I found it humorous reading several books about British mountaineering expeditions, that the writers would lose a friend or climbing partner in some catastrophe, then make some tea over their parrafin stoves, and press on.  I’ll have to find exact passages some time, but the first time I read it, I wasn’t struck by it, but then I saw it a few other times and began to find that it was more than a coincidence.

I’ve found recently that there is something about tea that is enjoyable.  I do keep some tea with me in my kit in case of such a catastrophe.  (See, we’re right back where we started, in a 9000 cu inch backpack) And whiskey in case it really gets bad.

Trivia Question: Where in the Constitution…

Does it say Congress shall take control of refineries? (link) If you’d like to see the Republic of Texas break away from the Union, here’s a good starting point, you Democrat-Communist fools:

Urgent: House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries
Per Pergram-Capitol Hill
House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that “there were multiple reasons for the postponement” including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup

This is scary stuff. You’ll recall that the arrogant Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) said this the other week in hearings, but I read this to mean that talk is more widespread.

For fun, mention this at the “water cooler” at work and see how many people either don’t care or like the idea. I swear that some people are so mind-numbed that they think this is a good idea.

Haditha Marine Prepares to Sue Rep Murtha

I think that Congressman John Murtha and his handlers should be prosecuted in criminal court, but hopefully Lt. Col Chessani gets the remedy he seeks in the civil realm (link):

With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers.

In an interview with nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Savage, the lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

But the attorney, Brian Rooney, said nothing will happen immediately because he wants Chessani, described as a devout Christian and the father of six homeschooled children, completely “out of the woods” legally before any action is taken. The government, through Lt. Col. S.M. Sullivan, today filed a notice that it would appeal the case to the next judicial level.

As WND reported, a military judge at Camp Pendleton in California yesterday dismissed charges that Chessani failed to properly investigate the Nov. 19, 2005 incident in which 24 Iraqi men, women and children were killed.

Rooney, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center who served a tour of duty in Iraq himself, is urging citizens to tell their representatives in Congress and military officials that they want the case to come to an end.

This is important: If you have a phone, a piece of paper and pencil/crayon/pen/charcoal, or a computer with email please contact your representatives and tell them you’re sick of this insurgent-fueled witchhunt.

Shut The Huck Up

I guess now that he’s taken my advice and gotten a gig as a tv political analyst, he won’t be going away, but we can only expect more sanctimony like this from Mike Huckabee (link):

June 18 (Bloomberg) — Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee warned members of his party that any attempt to undermine presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama by “demonizing” him would backfire.

“The Republicans will make a fundamental, if not fatal mistake, if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barrack Obama,” Huckabee told reporters in Tokyo. “Don’t underestimate the extraordinary, substantive moment that Barack Obama’s nomination represents in our country.”

Huckabee, 52, dropped out of the Republican nomination race on March 4, paving the way for presumptive nominee Arizona Senator John McCain. Huckabee is considered a potential choice for McCain’s running mate.

“The truth is that the vice presidency seems to be a job nobody wants and nobody ever turns down,” said Huckabee, who is visiting university campuses and meeting business groups in Japan. “I’m not seeking it, and that’s the truth.”

Didn’t someone once say never trust a statement from a former Arkansas governor that ends with ”and that’s the truth” as a qualifier, or did I just make that up?

Tell me how this is any different than what we’ve heard from the paid and unpaid (media) staffers in the Obama campaign. You can’t question his patriotism, don’t bring up his church, don’t question his wife’s views, don’t question his choice in friends- because you’re demonizing the man. And this election is so important.

This is the PC stuff that’s been driving me nuts.  It just feels so good for people to say it, doesn’t it?  To take the high road on someone?  I guess we should expect a lot more of it in the coming months.  And perhaps for a few years after that.  A nation of high-roaders…