UPDATED – Apologies

Just a quick note to everyone. The week of travel was far more time consuming than I had intended. I was on business and business lasted roughly from 6:00 am until 10:00 pm every day. I apologize for not being able to post any articles this week. I will be back at it during the next week as I am on vacation so I should have some time to write and post! Hope you all are having a great week. Myself, I am just happy to be back sleeping in my own bed and snuggling up with Canine Weapon.

I have arrived at vacation destination (kept top secret so that I am not mobbed by paparazzi… I have blocked off a couple hundred meters of beach for myself like Michelle Obama). I had hoped to be writing an article tonight. However, a engagement party for for my cousin and his beautiful bride to be got in the way. I was able to write half an article tonight, which was an accomplishment after two straight days of 14 hours in the car driving. The other half will go tomorrow night and I have already started on the open mic topics for the week as well. I will be checking in throughout the day Monday and posting the article Monday night. I hope all is well with everyone out there!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Hi. My name is Matthew and I’m an alcoholic a liberal.
    (Hello, Matthew!)
    It has been several months since my last vote for a Democrat.
    (Polite applause)

    Thank you. This is very difficult for me. You see, I grew up in a liberal household. My daddy is a liberal. My daddy’s daddy was a liberal. Two of my brothers are liberals. And several of my closest friends are also liberals. But I am here because I want to better myself.
    (Slightly more enthusiast applause)

    I was born and raised in California. And not just anywhere in California, but in Los Angeles. And not just anywhere in Los Angeles, but The Valley. Through high school, I only had one conservative friend. He attempted to start a Young Republicans Club at my school and failed because he could not find the required five charter members. You can see how this must have impacted me as a young and impressionable kid. I never really had a chance, but I’m doing my best to overcome it.
    (Thank you, Matthew)

    Who’s next? Buck, would you care to share your story.

    • Welcome Matthew to Liberals Anonomous. My name is Anita and it’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I have never walked in your shoes but I’ve lived deeply entrenched in a state with people who have your same problem for 47 years. It’s called the Great Lake State and with all it’s natural beauty it has seen a massive exodus of it’s population because of liberalism. You are taking a very significant step in your quest to cleanse your body of the very root of your problems. You see it’s not necessarily liberalism that has led you here but that your liberalism has morphed itself into Progressivism which is an extreme danger to the population of the entire world….

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Hi all. My name is Buck and I’m a……liberal. It’s not easy to say or to admit before all of you today.

      I can’t really pinpoint when or how I became a liberal. I guess its just sort of one of those things that happens. One day you wake up and you realize: “Oh my god, I’m a liberal. How did this happen!?”

      Perhaps its from growing up in New York City (not exactly a conservative stronghold). Perhaps its from my liberal parents and their liberal parents, the tid-bits of political conversation around the dinner table I would pick up while growing up as an impressionable youth. Perhaps its the product of my NYC public school education, or the liberal education I received at institutes of higher learning. Perhaps I’ll never truly know the answer.

      But it is true what they say, that the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Now I just need to figure out where I can go from here…

      Thank you all for your time. I’ll leave the floor now for another to share their story. Any takers?

    • Hi. My name is Life of Illusion and I’m an independent.
      (Hello, LoI!)

      I was a liberal until my toilet backed up and I figured out who to blame.

      The Age of Self-Inflicted Stupidity
      James Lewis, American Thinker
      I now have to flush my toilet twice to make it work properly, and then still spray the bowl with bleach to make the remnants go away. How about you?

      This is of course because Americans don’t know how to build proper toilets that actually work.

      No, come to think of it, that’s not right — it’s because we don’t have enough water to do it the old way.

      No, come to think of it, that’s not right either — all those drought scare headlines ten years ago were just sucker plays, because here in California they only counted the 10% of water that’s allocated for cities, not the 90% allocated for agriculture and industry.

      If the pols and mediots were forced to tell the truth, you and I could have figured out that moving 2% from aggies to the cities would have increased our urban water supply by 20%! No more drought! Saved by the wonders of arithmetic!

      We were lied to with malice aforethought. The biggest liars won.

      But we couldn’t figure it out, because the media beat it to death — and because most people were stampeded like donkeys. In spite of the fact that our average education today is three times what it was a hundred years ago.

      By the 12th grade you’ve been “educated” twice as long as your great granny and grand daddy. Except that they were educated by life, of course.

      In 1910 that”Drought Scare!!!” sucker play could never have worked. People would have figured it out, or some competing newspaper would have exposed the scam. Or the voters would have demanded more water sources. At that time people didn’t fall for everything they were told.

      But in 2010 the Big Lie works like greased lightning, because we have become self-inflicted idiots.

      So the next time your toilet doesn’t flush what has to be flushed, just remember why. It’s not that American engineers can’t figure it out. It’s not all those droughts that never existed. It’s simply the fact that we have been suckered by the 24/7 media, and turned into double-flushing morons.

      Low-flush toilets were brought to you by the same folks who blocked nuclear energy and free oil exploration; the same people who voters in the Obama presidential campaign, and who gave us the global warming scam. The same scammers run ecological scare campaigns. It’s the same mob who cover up every lie Obama tells the public.

      We live in an age of lies and sucker plays, and few of us can stay centered enough not to get bullied by the lefties day after day.

      We are a left-ridden nation, just like the Europeans. The evil bullies who prey upon us are trained (at tax expense) in the colleges and universities, where they are taught how to lie for the Democrats. Or maybe for the even more totalitarian left. Then they lie and lie, bully and bully, every single day, 24/7, through TV and radio, newspapers, and now, the through web. Look at any major web portal, and you can see leftie-prop.

      The Independent Web is our only hope for sanity, and for a return to a government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

      Right now we’re losing Lincoln’s ideal of government, and we have been losing ground for years.

      It’s high time to turn it around.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Hi, my name is Dread Pirate Mathius and I am not a liberal.

      Y’AAARRRGGGHHH!!

    • I a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations, a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. I am not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, nor any other advocacy organization, nor have I received funding for research from any such organization.

      I did an unbiased study and published the results, which were opposite what I had expected, and were did not match the liberal world view. I was then demonized and attacked by my former friends and supporters, even though was I published was true, to the best of my ability to determine.

      http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

      • Interesting. Care to elaborate on your methodology?

        • It’s all here. Please refrain from all the name calling. If I’m wrong about a conclusion, show me the logic that supports
          your position and I will consider it.

          http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

          • I do not think you will find much in the way of name calling here my friend, even if those here were to disagree with you. 🙂

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Please explain where Mathius called you a name. All he said was, “Interesting, care to elaborate on your methodology?”

            I see no name calling and no attempt at insult there whatsoever, merely a polite request for more information.

            Don’t be so paranoid! We are all (relatively) nice here! 🙂

            • Sorry guys, I was playing. You will find Gary Kleck is a real person and all I have posted is accurate. He caught a certain amount of hell for his study that
              concludes liberal dogma on guns is completely wrong.

              • LOI! You’re such a doo-doo head!

              • Ditto.

                Me thinks LOI should lay off the hemp for awhile.

              • And there is the insults and name calling. Soooo
                predictabale.

                How about taking a look at Kleck, his work and how he was treated by the liberals? And are you pissed just because a knuckle dragger like me played you?

              • It was that poor use of the English language – thought we had another BDN or whatever his name was – on with us.

              • Is this a dog pile?

                “that poor use of the English language”

                “lay off the hemp for awhile ”

                “You’re such a doo-doo head”

                No credit at all for coming up with a name Matt & Buck would find interesting.

              • Esom Hill says:

                I thought it was great! 🙂

                I could tell something wasn’t right but I couldn’t figure out what it was until I got down and read where you ‘fessed up.

                I could tell something was wrong because I could not see a liberal admit they were wrong. 😉

              • We are more than happy to admit when we’re wrong. Esom, that is just not fair, and I think you owe us all an apology.

                The problem is that we’re never wrong, so there’s never cause to admit it.

              • Esom Hill says:

                I know what you mean Mat. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

                In fact I just misspoke and my words were taken out of context.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        That is pretty interesting, even though it is lacking in detail. Would love to see some more attempts as honest work in that area.

        • I’m big on gun control. Show me the right evidence and this is honestly something I could budge on.

          • What are your current beliefs based on? What would the right evidence be?

            • Logic in the presence of a dearth of scientific evidence. All anybody has ever shown me has been anecdotal (generally anti-gun-control) or circumstantial (generally pro-gun-control) at best. A legitimate scientific study I can get behind with sufficient sample size, absence of bias (or even better, pro-control bias which conflicts with the conclusion, thus adding credibility), an absence of NRA or industry or otherwise biased funding, etc would probably do the trick. Several such studies conducted by independent groups would clinch it.

              I’m definitely going to take a look at this study and see if it fits the bill.

              BTW: even if I did join the anti-gun-control group, I would base it on a utility argument. I still don’t think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms the way you think it does.

              • I started replying and realized it would be lengthy. See below.

              • TexasChem says:

                How about just using a little common sense and realizing if you are in a restauraunt with your family and some nutcase job comes in shooting the place up that you have the right to defend yourself and family with a weapon!

                There will always be a black market Mathius for everything any man is willing to pay for…including guns.The criminals have and will continue to have guns.What is wrong with equalling out the playing field?

    • Hi everyone, my name is Jon and I am a libertarian.
      (hi Jon)
      It has been 10 years since I voted for a major party
      (polite applause)

      A lot of people think I am crazy, which is understandable because a lot of libertarians really ARE crazy, but I stand by my philosophy. I used to be a Republican, until I discovered they were just as corrupt as the other big party (whose name I will not mention). I spent a brief period as a conservative, but I found their principles of control inconsistent with their claims of supporting freedom, and worse, that the idea of placing matters of the heart on the shoulders of the law was laziness at best and would destroy even the principles upon which conservatism was based.

      I have a lot of liberal views now, like legalizing drugs and suicide and cutting the military, thus I am cast aside by my conservative friends. I have a lot of conservative views too, like not spending so much taxpayer money and not having social safety nets, so I do not fit in with them. I find the constitution, while a great document, to be full of flaws, so my Constitution Party friends are polite at best. I am very interested in the political process and philosophy and socio-economics, so my non-political friends don’t talk to me. I am too pessimistic of people and too much of what I call a realist to be accepted by my anarchist friends.

      I guess what I am trying to say is I really need SUFA and my blog or I would explode. 🙂
      (bewildered applause)

      • Explosions are messy. Have you tried implosion or spontaneous combustion?

        • Call me a selfish capitalist, but I guess I never concerned myself with the mess of an explosion, since I would no longer be around to deal with it.

          Thinking it over tho, I am afraid implosion would be impossible as I am not an empty shell. In fact, at 70ish percent water, I am not very compressible at all. I have always liked fire tho, but I have tried spontaneous combustion on some of the cold nights I spent survival camping. I don’t think it works. Perhaps I could set myself on fire to make a statement like those monks do….

          • Some say Jon will end in fire
            Others say in ice
            From what I’ve tasted of desire
            I hold with those who favor fire
            But if he had to perish twice
            I think I know enough of hate
            To know that for destruction, ice
            is also great, and would suffice

      • Hi, my name is GREATER Good a/k/a Charlie … and when I say GREATER Good, I mean, according to Charlie. With that in mind … me and Mr. Smith are “SO” far apart …

        I have a lot of liberal views now, like legalizing drugs and suicide and cutting the military, thus I am cast aside by my conservative friends. I have a lot of conservative views too, like not spending so much taxpayer money and not having social safety nets, so I do not fit in with them. I find the constitution, while a great document, to be full of flaws, so my Constitution Party friends are polite at best. I am very interested in the political process and philosophy and socio-economics, so my non-political friends don’t talk to me. I am too pessimistic of people and too much of what I call a realist to be accepted by my anarchist friends.

        Wow, we’re not so unalike, me and Mr. Smith (which is what I often tell my so-called “liberal” friends who are blind faith democratic supporters—and for which they hate my constant nagging them over their support of yet another incompetent President who isn’t so unlike the last incompetent President).

        I’m for legalizing pretty much everything, but I want a compulsory draft that provides ZERO loopholes for brats of elected officials (or anybody else). Everybody learns how to tie their shoes, make their beds, defend themselves, etc.

        Speaking of those elected officials (here comes the fascism in me): the ones we have now get to work the fields for a dozen or so years for their giveaway (of our money) to Wall Street. No exceptions. Mssrs. Bush, Obama … and all those who voted for the bailouts get to earn Wall Street’s keep the way the least of us had to.

        The Borders get sealed forthwith and there will be no more automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. If the mother is here illegally (unless by force or some other mitigating circumstance), her baby is illegal too.

        I want national health insurance too and that probably isn’t very popular with you wingies but yous’ll get over it.

        It’s workfare or deportation for those healthy enough to work a shovel, push a pen, make a phone call. For those truly needy, the GREATER Good helps them along. Anyone caught scamming the system, see below …

        As regards those who scam the system, be it welfare fraud, food stamps, corporate fraud, regulators who take bribes, etc., it’s the slammer at the state institution of MY choice (and in population; none of that protective custody horseshit).

        No more boots on the ground. Those who engage or aid acts of terrorism against the U.S. get deep fried from the sky (and just like Harry gave the Emperor of Japan, three days to think it over between #’s 1 and 2.

        But (and I know this’ll cause a fart storm) … no more inheritence. To quote the Godfather: “Give them enough to live on.”

        And there’s an earnings cap. Nobody “needs” a gazillion dollars to live. One million a year’ll do it.

        And finally, a few sports notes: 1) no more domed football stadiums. Man up and play the weather. If the Vikings can’t figure out why they can’t return to the Super Bowl (even with half the league playing in sissy-mary domes), let me give them a clue … FOOTBALL IN MINNESOTA IN JANUARY! 2) no more designated hitter (a/k/a, T-ball) … I don’t much care for the rest of the sports in this world (except for powerlifting but those rules are fine as is) …

        • Charlie,

          I think you just made the ‘Potential Domestic Terrorist Watch List’!

          Welcome, Brother!

          🙂

    • Mathius,

      Which Valley high school did you attend, and when did you graduate? I’m from El Camino Real, Class ’80.

      🙂

      • TexasChem says:

        Oh wow that is like wow! so cool Cyndi! Gag me with a pitchfork! At least you did not submit to thuh Borgish assimilation happenin’ acroos America in thuh Liberal schools! Gag me with a pitchfork!

        🙂

        • Yeah, like fer shure, and totally bitchin’! Thank God I was so stupid like they said I was!

          8)

      • Private school in Van Nuys (right near the Budweiser plant).. class o’ 2002!

  2. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I was raised as a Catholic in Southeastern Wisconsin. All of the “good” Catholics voted Democrat. (Gotta support that working class!).

    I attended a small college which was (and still is) a manufacturing center which generates new members of the Ruling Class Elite. The late Paul Wellstone taught political science there prior to becoming a US Senator.

    I was as progressive as progressive could be, until I realized a strange paradox. The rules for life on my college campus were as follows, “Do anything you want, as long as it isn’t bothering or harming anyone else. If it is bothering someone else, do your best to work it out amongst yourselves. If it is harming someone else, we may have to get involved and discipline you, so just don’t harm anyone else!”

    However, nearly every class which I took at that college (other than mathematics and the “hard” sciences) taught that life did not work that way. The classes taught that there were a select few people who were qualified to make the decisions, and a whole crapton of people who needed to be “watched over and taken care of”. The primary difference between the decision-makers and those who must be watched over and taken care of was… INTELLECT!

    After I got out of college, I ran into example after example of people with TREMENDOUS intellect who couldn’t run their own lives worth a damn, much less have the necessary qualifications to tell anyone else how to run their lives. I also ran into countless people who were extremely average intellectually, but ran their own lives FANTASTICALLY!

    I also got married, and began to resent when the government took away money I SHOULD be using to support myself and my family, and did God knows what with it (other than whatever they did with it really wasn’t any direct benefit to me all that much).

    I rapidly came to 2 conclusions:

    1. Intellect is NOT the primary qualification for being able to run your own life or anyone else’s. Common sense is a much better qualification for running your own life, and if you have a good amount of common sense, you ain’t gonna bother trying to run someone else’s life, ’cause you ain’t THEM!

    2. Government is a TERRIBLY inefficient institution, and it generally does an awful job compared to private institutions of 99.9% of anything that it tries to do!

    These 2 conclusions were the beginnings of my evolution from “progressive” to what I am now (affix whatever label you think appropriate for my current world view :)).

  3. I found this interesting. For everyone out there insisting that the left wing conspirators are controlling the media:

    http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      #1. Digg is not exactly a member of the “media”
      #2. Are we supposed to be surprised that the same tactics get used by “conservatives” as well as liberals? I thought that we already covered that they are all statists, they just wear different color shirts and ties.

      • #1. General agreement

        #2. Show me a documented liberal conspiracy to suppress conservative reporting.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          Journolist.

          Nuff Said

        • Bozell Column: JournoList Erodes Media Prestige
          Photo of Brent Bozell.
          “Show me a documented liberal conspiracy to suppress conservative reporting”

          That’s a hard one, because they don’t “suppress” the stories, they “spin” them, like talking up racism at Tea Parties without reporting what the Tea Party is advocating.
          But I think the “JournoList” story should meet your request.

          By Brent Bozell

          Tucker Carlson’s website The Daily Caller has unearthed a treasure trove of liberal journalists talking (nastily) to themselves in a private e-mail list about how they should use their media power to remake the world in their image.

          The funniest thing about this expose of “JournoList” was witnessing journalists say it was unfair to leak these e-mails when reporters had an “expectation of privacy.” More than 90,000 pages of secret documents on Afghanistan have been leaked and journalists are tripping over each other in a mad stampede to cover the story. Everyone should laugh heartily at leak-devouring journalists getting a fistful of their own bitter pills.

          The saddest thing about all this is the confirmation (as if it were necessary) that liberal journalists really aren’t journalists first. They’re political strategists. They pretend to be the Hollywood version of Woodward and Bernstein, the brave sleuths digging out government malfeasance and corruption. But in reality they’re the Woodward and Bernstein who plotted how to get Richard Nixon impeached and ready the way for pacifist and socialist “Watergate babies” like Chris Dodd and Henry Waxman to take seats of power. Ethics are only relevant if they’re a weapon.

          Jonathan Strong’s first installment for The Daily Caller proved that with a wallop. Take former New York magazine political writer Michael Tomasky’s plea to “kill ABC” for talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “Listen folks– in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

          Liberal journalists in this crowd favor only discourse that “serves the people” – meaning, a “debate” that advances the ball for socialism. Any other uncooperative or unhelpful line of journalism or questioning or discussion or balance or objectivity is “idiocy” that should be “killed.” At its heart, liberal bias isn’t just about slanting the news against conservatives, it’s about slanting the news to discredit and then ignore conservatives until they sit grumpily on the ash heap of history. If that includes censorship, like yanking the journalist credentials of Fox News, some on the JournoList eagerly have encouraged it.

          The “mainstream” (ha!) media’s first bucket of water on the Daily Caller’s fire was to claim that the participants on the JournoList weren’t primarily “objective” media types. It was heavily salted with The Nation, Mother Jones, The American Prospect, and obscure magazines like Government Executive. But the rebuttal is obvious. The list’s creator, Ezra Klein, rose from The American Prospect to being the 25-year-old blogging boy wonder of The Washington Post, whose opinions pop up all over the paper. It’s not at all uncommon for “mainstream” journalists to be groomed at liberal opinion rags. Think of JournoList as part of a finishing school for “objective” journalists, and you can see why conservatives never trust the national media elite.

          The second liberal self-defense of JournoList was that Klein claimed there was no plan for partisan “message coordination.” But the Daily Caller showed how no one on the list was really paying attention to that alleged plan. After Sarah Palin was picked for the GOP ticket in 2008, Suzanne Nossel of Human Rights Watch insisted “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

          Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones insisted the entire Left should spread that spin: “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote. No message coordination there.

          Some of the exposed journalists have defended themselves by saying they never put their vicious messages in the media mainstream. Others suggested they were just as earnestly biased in public as they were in private. Anyone paying attention to the media during the 2008 campaign clearly didn’t need the JournoList ravings to realize the media immediately despised Sarah Palin and hailed Barack Obama as the glowing receptacle of liberal hopes and dreams and fairy tales.

          But these leaked messages are serious business. What they prove is that the “mainstream” media today are often just a shameless channel for leftist message coordination, and that anyone who assumes he’s simply getting the “news” from the national media is a very callow and uninformed consumer.

          What’s most shocking is the silence. How many in the “mainstream” press are publicly denouncing those members of JournoList for their blatant disregard of journalistic ethics? Listen to the crickets…

          Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/07/27/bozell-column-journolist-erodes-media-prestige#ixzz0vq6TZrfq

          • Hey.. I vaguely remember that.. I had completely forgotten about that.

            #2 retracted.

            Replace with #3. Liberals may do it too, but let’s not pretend it’s isolated to the left.

            How’s that?

            • Excellent.

              Now we must also make one other claim of truth.

              Politicians have been trained by the media on how to respond to the media.

              The media has not figured out how to short circuit the Politicians TRAINED response.

              The only time the media gets to have fun is when NEW “untrained” politicians come to play.

              In summary, the MEDIA has become a worthless venue of discovering truth, more the most part. It is not total yet, but it seems headed that way.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Mathius – “Liberals may do it too, but let’s not pretend it’s isolated to the left.”

              BL – ALL MSM does it. One example as mentioned in the article is:

              “Liberal journalists in this crowd favor only discourse that “serves the people” – meaning, a “debate” that advances the ball for socialism. Any other uncooperative or unhelpful line of journalism or questioning or discussion or balance or objectivity is “idiocy” that should be “killed.””

              I don’t know how many times I have heard interviews/debates where as soon as the interviewee/guest starts to promote a notion from the other side of the left/right paradigm, they get slammed and shut up or the other guest suddenly gets their turn to speak, or whatever other method they decide…whatever suppresses the other side’s opinion. It’s all biased. It’s all agenda related.

              JAC – “In summary, the MEDIA has become a worthless venue of discovering truth, more the most part. It is not total yet, but it seems headed that way.”

              BL – The main stream media has nothing to do with truth. It is all about steering and shaping popular opinion and social norms, expectations, etc….

              The MSM is nothing but a tool to control and influence the minds of the masses.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          New York Times???

    • Now that is downright crazy…why remove them when everyone can view them and see for themselves that the progressives are the problem.

      • I don’t know Terry. It might have something to do with the fact that they are, you know, crazy as a shithouse rat..

    • Mathius

      This is NOT censorship.

      This is NOT evidence of some “conservative” control over media.

      Never heard of Digg and probably wouldn”t spend time on a site that uses “voting” to decide which articles to feature. Seems like a stupid model to me.

      The lefties were doing the same thing to the Fox Forum sites over a year ago, only it was in the open with how they would try to dominate a discussion. To some extent they succeeded because many of us at SUFA came here because of their obnoxious behavior, which begat the same from the conservatives in response.

      Every comment I have posted at HuffPo challenging the facts and claims of Cessca or Reich have been scrubbed by their own “moderators”. Others have made the same complaints. Nasty language is not the criteria for getting deleted, it is apparently factual information that would embarrass their primary contributors.

      The Mainstream Media is owned by businessmen who are believed to be conservative. But the editorial boards and reporters are of the leftist persuasion. I spent 10 years trying to deal with these people, showing them how their bias would affect the choice of words in a story, thus conveying an “opinion” in the news. Or how an editorial was wrong on factual basis. They rarely gave a damn.

      The problem I have with the MSM today is that they seem to forget their primary purpose when the Left is in charge. Not totally mind you but it takes a little time for them to remember they are supposed to be SKEPTICAL of all govt, not just the Republicans.

      Happy Friday Matt.
      JAC

    • Matt,

      Remember the networks have 20 million viewers. FOX is the big player on cable with 3 million, which is about even with all other cable news shows combined.

      That makes around 23 million viewers getting liberal slanted news, to three million conservative slanted. For example, 20 million voters may be unaware
      of the Show Me state’s actions.

      Networks Ignore Missouri Voters’ Rejection of ObamaCare, Instead Celebrate Obama’s Birthday

      By Brent Baker

      In the first voter referendum on ObamaCare, Missourians on Tuesday overwhelmingly (by 71 to 29 percent) backed Proposition C which called upon the state to enact a statute to “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance,” an outcome the St. Louis Post-Dispatch described as “rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration.” On Wednesday night, however, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts skipped the bad news for President Obama – yet all found time to celebrate his 49th birthday.

      (The Missouri repudiation of a central tenet of ObamaCare came a day after another setback for ObamaCare which the newscasts also ignored: A federal district judge in Richmond rejected the Obama administration’s quest to block Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Congress’ jurisdiction to mandate individuals buy health insurance.)

      “At the White House today, they sang to the President,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer touted over a graphic which declared it Obama’s “Big Day.” Viewers were treated to one stanza of “Happy birthday to you!” before Sawyer related: “He says we’ve watched him go gray, and the photographs since the campaign do show a little speckle in that hair.”

      With his wife and one daughter in Spain and the other daughter at camp, “the President [is] flying solo tonight, heading to Chicago to spend his 49th birthday as a bachelor, with only ‘First Dog’ Bo to keep him company,” NBC’s Savannah Guthrie sulked, though “Mr. Obama did get a serenade from winners of citizen medals he handed out at the White House today.”

      After reciting Michelle Obama’s extravagant resort destination in Spain, Guthrie ended on a heartwarming note:

      And we can report tonight that the President got two calls today. Mrs. Obama and Sasha called from Spain, and Malia, who’s on that summer camp sleep-away camp for a few weeks, gets just one call during that time at camp. She saved it for today and called her father to wish him happy birthday.

      From the Wednesday night, August 4 newscasts:

      ABC’s Word News:

      DIANE SAWYER: At the White House today, they sang to the President.

      VIDEO OF GROUP: Happy birthday to you!

      SAWYER: It is his birthday. He is now 49. He says we’ve watched him go gray, and the photographs since the campaign do show a little speckle in that hair. He is going to Chicago alone tonight to dine with friends. His oldest daughter is away at summer camp. His wife and youngest daughter Sasha have traveled to a resort in Spain with a group of friends from Chicago, moms and daughters.

      CBS Evening News:

      KATIE COURIC: President Obama is spending the night in his own home for a change. He flew to Chicago today to celebrate his 49th birthday, but only first dog Bo went with him. Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha are on vacation in Spain. Malia is away at camp. So the President planned a birthday dinner with friends.

      NBC Nightly News:

      LESTER HOLT: President Obama is in his hometown of Chicago tonight. It’s his 49th birthday, but it’s kind of an unusual one. His family is nowhere in sight. NBC News White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie is traveling with the President and joins us from the Windy City tonight. Savannah, good evening.

      SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good evening, Lester. Well, the President is here in Chicago for some Democratic Party fundraising and an event at a Ford plant tomorrow, but he will have a birthday dinner with friends tonight. No family around, though. Daughter Malia is at summer sleep-away camp, and the First Lady and daughter Sasha are on a lavish trip to Spain. The President flying solo tonight, heading to Chicago to spend his 49th birthday as a bachelor, with only “First Dog” Bo to keep him company. Mr. Obama did get a serenade from winners of citizen medals he handed out at the White House today. But the union group he addressed earlier in the day did not let him eat cake.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/08/05/networks-ignore-missouri-voters-rejection-obamacare-instead-celebrate-o#ixzz0vqEp5A00

  4. Teachers demand we pay for ED drugs. I wonder if we will have to pay for their hookers in the years ahead? from FOX

    Despite Budget Cuts, Layoff Fears, Milwaukee Teachers Fight for Taxpayer-Funded Viagra

    Published August 06, 2010

    | Associated Press

    With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.

    The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.’s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.

    The filing is the latest in a two-year legal campaign in which the union has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that the board’s policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees. The union says Viagra, Cialis, Levitra and others are necessary treatment for “an exclusively gender-related condition.”

    But lawyers for the school board say the drugs were excluded in 2005 to save money, and there is no discrimination because they are used primarily for recreational sex and not out of medical necessity.

    The filing last month comes as the union, the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association, is also protesting hundreds of layoff notices issued to teachers for the coming school year. Citing a “financial crisis” caused by exploding benefit costs and revenue shortfalls, the district’s outgoing superintendent proposed laying off 682 employees in April.

    • LOI

      Oh God this could be so much fun.

      Lets just take the Judge’s arguments in the CA Prop 8 case and supplant Men and their disorder.

      For example, we all know that a Man’s erection is part of his identity. After all, science has proven we are thinking about sex virtually every minute of the day. Although that may be reduced to every 1/2 hour when we get older.

      Are we then not an “identifiable class” and do we not have a Right to experience that thing that is so integral to our Man identity.

      OK, I gotta stop before I hurt myself laughing.

  5. USW, I understand your plight, I havent posted on my own blog for a while either, I have 3 or 4 unfinished articles, but between work, posting here, and working on my other political project, I just haven’t gotten it done.

    On another note, I was a bit thrown by the “snuggling up with canine weapon” statment, I expected to see Mrs Weapon at the end of the sentence and it messed my head for a sec, lol.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “On another note, I was a bit thrown by the “snuggling up with canine weapon” statment, I expected to see Mrs Weapon at the end of the sentence and it messed my head for a sec, lol.”

      ^
      Agree!

      Better not make us tell Mrs. Weapon that you like cuddling with the dog better than cuddling with her!

      • Dogs are cuddly. Latke isn’t allowed on the bed though. Emilius is enough of a bed-hog, add a 40lb pooch and I might as well just give up on sleep. Don’t know how Web does it with an 80lb couch-destroying monster like Canine Weapon..

    • Canine Weapon says:

      I’m the outside spoon!

    • OK – I caught that too! Hmmm dog vs. wife…..wait a minute – this is ringing a bell. Someone else right now has chosen to be with their dog instead of the wife.

      BO! OMG – celebrates his birthday with dog Bo while Michelle galavants in Spain!

      What’s up with you guys?

      Need the Milwaukee teachers union to step in for you?

      • Esom Hill says:

        Well now Kathy let’s remember that a DOG is a man’s best friend, while a diamond is a woman’s. 😉

        So I guess you could look at the fact that the woman gets something shiny and vain for their BFF. And a man get’s the best thing of all. A true blue BFF that remains your friend when no one else is.

        • Canine Weapon says:

          That is so true-

          SQUIRREL!

          Hello, there.. I just met you, but I love you!

          • Esom Hill says:

            As USW’s best bud, I need to let you meet my best buddy. His name is Bubba. Unlike you though, he only weighs about 10 pounds.

            But he loves me and I love him. A relationship between a man and his dog is special. Your dog ALWAYS has your back.

          • Up! was such a cool movie. 😀

    • USWeapon says:

      Mathius,

      Not to fear. Canine Weapon is not allowed in the bed. Cuddling with him and being in bed are two mutually exclusive things. Mrs. Weapon has all rights to cuddling in bed. I was only home for a single night. A week of business travel followed by a week of vacation without the puppy. I was laying on the floor snuggling with him on the one night I got to see him in a two week period. Mrs. Weapon understood, as she has me all to herself for the week of vacation while Canine has to snuggle with the person who is house sitting for us.

      Sorry for the confusion.

      On a side note, I live alone. There is no Mrs. Weapon, Canine Weapon, Feline Weapon, or even aqua Weapon. I don’t really have a job or write a blog that people read. They are all figments of my imagination. As someone who reads my blog, you are also a figment of my imagination, although a very entertaining and intelligent one. They were also all born on May 10th (bonus to anyone who can get that movie reference!). I would prefer in the future if figments of my imagination would refrain from giving me a hard time about who I snuggle with.

      USW and USW

  6. Mathius and Black Flag

    I would like to add something to the discussion of Matt and BF regarding how we best serve society. Namely, society over individual, or individual over society.

    “Black Flag said
    August 6, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Mathius,

    We all are working for the best of society when we are peacefully working for the best for ourselves

    The problem always lies with you is that you
    (1) think you know what is best for society, regardless of what others may believe in difference

    (2) you are willing to you force and violence directly or (more likely) indirectly via government to push this conceit upon your neigbhors.

    The question is of “what is so good for society that I will force it upon others” has an answer of:
    Absolutely Nothing”

    I have noticed an increase in one type of comment among the “lefties” on the web of late. As their agenda has been attacked by those who do not want them, the lefty resorted to name calling. Primarily calling all Tea Party and Conservatives ignorant, in some form or another.

    But now the attack goes, “they are so stupid they don’t realize they are voting against their own best interest”.

    I have tried to explain to these folks that “their own best interest” as viewed from “their” perspective is NOT to expand handouts by the Fed. Govt. It is a difference in the basic philosophy. The “lefty” just can’t seem to grasp this difference. Most on the right seem able to understand the two and simply reject one. But the hard core left just can’t seem to grasp it. They simply dismiss it as “ignorant”. How could anyone in their right mind vote against free cookies for themselves?

    This ladies and gentlemen, displays the REAL problem and challenge we face as a society and nation, of free people. Now, I do not think this is a “majority”. I think that distinction resides with those who have a more “mixed” and “conflicted” set of beliefs. But I do find the argument revealing of those who are calling themselves “progressives” on the web sites.

    We should be thankful that our resident “liberals” are at least willing to look for and participate in rational discussions.

  7. ICE agents steamed at department’s pro-amnesty agenda

    Phil Boehmke, American Thinker

    America’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are no longer willing to remain silent while their department betrays the American people by pushing the Obama regime’s pro-amnesty agenda. Several weeks ago the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven, on behalf of their 7,000 ICE agents and employees from the department’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

    In a letter which was subsequently released, National Council 118 President Chris Crane stated that.

    It is the desire of our union within ICE and our employees to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not support Morton or Coven, or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk.

    According to the letter Obama’s senior ICE leadership have been actively pushing a political agenda which would lead to an immigration reform bill centered around large scale amnesty, while at the same time failing to inform congress and the American people of the imminent dangers and severity of the illegal immigration crisis. At present the understaffed ERO has been overrun to the extent that large numbers of criminal aliens have been released back into their unsuspecting communities.

    Often illegal aliens in local jails who are facing prosecution for other crimes will contact ICE and volunteer for deportation, sometimes bragging that they will be back in the U.S. in a matter of days. Hard-pressed local law enforcement agencies which currently lack the jail space and resources to deal with the vast numbers of criminal aliens turn thousands of these individuals over to ICE without ever trying them for their crimes.

    Crane also states that.

    ICE is misleading the American public with regard to the effectiveness of criminal enforcement programs like the ICE “Secure Communities Program” using it as a selling point to move forward with amnesty related legislation. As officers in the field, we know this program will not improve enforcement or provide for public safety because ICE refuses, for political reasons, to request the additional manpower and resources needed to adequately operate the program.

    […]

    The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

    For those who are placed in detention, Obama era reforms have created “resort like” accommodations for the detainees. Senior ICE leaders have enacted new reforms based upon recommendations from “special interest groups” which have provided criminal aliens with “bingo nights, dance lessons and hanging plants.”

    Unlike any other agency in the nation, ICE officers will be prevented from searching detainees housed in ICE facilities allowing weapons, drugs and other contraband into detention centers putting detainees, ICE officers and contract guards at risk.

    […]

    Senior leadership ignores reports that ICE internal investigations conducted under the auspices of the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility conceal Agency and supervisor misconduct and are used to retaliate against employees who make whistleblower type disclosures or question inappropriate policies and procedures.

    Meanwhile the Obama regime is concentrating its laser-like focus on Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer for having the audacity to enact legislation which would result in the enforcement of existing federal immigration law. Co-conspirator Susan Bolton has given the Obama regime, the party and their fellow travelers in the MSM and entertainment industries cause to celebrate another victory over the people and the constitution.

  8. We should be thankful that our resident “liberals” are at least willing to look for and participate in rational discussions. The ironic thing is that prior to SUFA, the closes I could find to a rational discussion from conservatives was “because God said so!” I suppose George F Will and LewRockwell.com were there, but debating on the merits is something I enjoy.

    That said, the idea that people are voting against their interests is nothing new. In fact, it is somewhat central to the liberal thesis that people are not smart/reliable/forward-thinking/educated/whatever enough to know what is best for them. There is, of course, a certain amount of hubris to this position, but that is not to say there is no truth in it. Remember, people voted in W and I think we can all agree that’s not in anyone’s interests. How else to explain it?

    • Mathius

      Your conclusion provides a good example of why NOBODY can determine another’s best interest.

      Given the alternative choices in both elections, W was the best choice with respect to MY interests.

      Your conclusion about W is based on your acceptance of “most folks aren’t smart enough”. It is not any different than the reaction from the hard core “conservatives” against Obama. Those who support him must be stupid because I think he is bad news. Kind of sums up the argument from both sides don’t you think?

      • Sums it up pretty well.

        If people voted according to their real interests, neither of the big two would stand a chance.

        • Mathius,

          But that is a contradiction.

          How can anyone not vote for their real interest?

          What your statement actually highlights is your subjective evaluation of their vote.

          It is YOU who does not think their are voting with their own interests in mind.

          It is YOU who is judging that vote.

          It is YOU who is judging their interests.

          It is YOU who has (1)no knowledge of their interests and (2) no right to judge the same!

          But because YOU believe you have such knowledge (from the finger of God no doubt) and thus the wisdom of judgment, you believe you can overrule others actions for themselves and force yours upon them.

          But you have not been touched by God – thus, your actions will always lead to evil.

  9. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/oregon-county-apologies-year-old-girl-saying-lemonade-stand/?test=latestnews

    Oregon County Apologizes to 7-Year-Old Girl After Saying She Can’t Have Lemonade Stand

    Published August 05, 2010

    | FoxNews

    Courtesy of Torsten Kjellstrand, The Oregonian

    Inspectors told 7-year-old Julie Murphy that she needed a license to run her lemonade stand at a monthly art fair.

    Oregon county officials have apologized after health inspectors told a 7-year-old girl that she can’t run a lemonade stand without a $120 temporary restaurant license.

    Jeff Cogen, chairman of the Multnomah County Board of Commissions, told FoxNews.com that he apologized to the mother, Maria Fife, and is now turning his attention to changing the rules.

    “Our health department what they were trying to do, I understand…I just feel like we have to be able to distinguish between a 7 year old, who is selling lemonade and trying to learn about business and someone who actually has a business,” Cogen said.

    Julie Murphy of Oregon City opened a lemonade stand at Last Thursday, a monthly art fair in Northeast Portland, The Oregonian reported. But when Julie couldn’t provide a license when asked, they were told to either leave or face a $500 fine.

  10. @Matthius,

    Logic in the presence of a dearth of scientific evidence.

    I have come to the opposite conclusion through the same method and with the same dearth of evidence. My logical progression is along the lines that:
    1) Gun laws only affect law abiding people, thus disarming a lawful and largely peaceful population while not significantly affecting the criminal populace. There may be slightly fewer guns available for theft, but the serious guns are not legally owned by anyone.
    2) Evidence supporting success with gun control has been lacking, at least as much as evidence supporting its failure.
    3) Even in places like England where guns are hard to get for criminals too, significant changes in violence are not evident, nor would they be logically expected. Guns do not make people criminals, or the millions of gun owners in the US would all be breaking laws and hurting people. Criminals use guns because it makes their crime easier. Criminals use computers because it makes their crime easier too. I do not think we should outlaw either one.

    All anybody has ever shown me has been anecdotal (generally anti-gun-control) or circumstantial (generally pro-gun-control) at best. A legitimate scientific study I can get behind with sufficient sample size, absence of bias (or even better, pro-control bias which conflicts with the conclusion, thus adding credibility), an absence of NRA or industry or otherwise biased funding, etc would probably do the trick. Several such studies conducted by independent groups would clinch it.

    Agreed. Had there been evidence defying my logic, I would have changed positions. I do have some question as to what qualifies “legitimate scientific study”. I have seen some real solid looking studies be wrong and vice-versa. I am more apt, in most cases, to trust my own logic.

    I’m definitely going to take a look at this study and see if it fits the bill.

    BTW: even if I did join the anti-gun-control group, I would base it on a utility argument. I still don’t think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms the way you think it does.

    I get it, I do not expect you to. It seems, however, that the statement is clear. The reason it is not to you is because you do not agree with the premise of the statement. If I said, for instance:
    “The ability of people to use the bathroom as needed being necessary for the preservation of prostate health, the freedom to take bathroom breaks will not be restricted”
    You would most likely understand that the first statement was not intended to mean that only people with prostate concerns could get a bathroom break.
    If I say that a well armed militia is necessary to remain a free state, whether because of outside threats or internal ones (tyranny), therefore I am not infringing on the people, then it still stands to reason that I am not infringing on the people. The first part of the statement is an explaination, not a qualifier.
    Still, you are not that concerned about a free state to begin with, thus it is not important to you. You do not have a fear of tyranny, and you believe the military is sufficient for preventing invasion. On that last part you may be right, it was not true then, but it is now. The tyranny part, however, is still very clear and present danger. Because you do not see it as a danger, or even as tyranny and loss of freedom, you do not accept the explaination, or even the need for it, so you try to twist it to mean something else so that you can get rid of the scary guns.

    I would like to know more about your process of logic. You say it is logic that supports your belief in gun control, can you explain your logical process?

    • A. THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)

      However consistent the evidence may be concerning the effectiveness of armed victim resistance, there are some who minimize its significance by insisting that it is rare.[15] This assertion is invariably based entirely on a single source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

      Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,[16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.[17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey’s estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.[19]

      The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; (my edit)

      Apparently it is not, since the Bureau of Justice Statistics continues to disseminate their DGU estimates as if they were valid,[20] and scholars continue to cite the NCVS estimates as being at least as reasonable as those from the gun surveys.[21] Similarly, the editors of a report on violence conducted for the prestigious National Academy of Sciences have uncritically accepted the validity of the NCVS estimate as being at least equal to that of all of the alternative estimates.[22] In effect, even the National Academy of Sciences gives no more weight to estimates from numerous independent sources than to an estimate derived from a single source which is, as explained below, singularly ill-suited to the task of estimating DGU frequency.

      This sort of bland and spurious even-handedness is misleading. For example, Reiss and Roth withheld from their readers that there were at least nine other estimates contradicting the NCVS-based estimate; instead they vaguely alluded only to “a number of surveys,”[23] as did Cook,[24] and they down played the estimates from the other surveys on the basis of flaws which they only speculated those surveys might have.(my edit)

      Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.[25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.

      Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim’s possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.(My edit)

      In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim’s home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection.

      In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

    • You and I are in a bar fight. You have insulted my honor.

      Scenario A. I have no gun. So I break a stool over your head. You need several stitches and you have trouble remembering your own name.
      Scenario B. I have a gun. You die.

      You have a young child in your home. He is a curious kid and begins to explore your closet.

      Scenario A. He finds a BB-gun and accidentally shoots causing a bruise.
      Scenario B. He finds a gun and accidentally shoots himself paralysis.

      A teenager is troubled, angry. He hates everyone at his school and wishes they were all dead.

      Scenario A. He brings a kitchen knife to school and stabs two students before being stopped. One survives with minor injuries.
      Scenario B. He brings a gun. He kills 12 students and one teacher and injures 21 others. (hint, this is Columbine)

      You promised to take out the garbage, but your wife catches you watching the big game instead.

      Scenario A. She hits you with a frying pan.
      Scenario B. She shoots you where the sun don’t shine.

      I could do this all day. The capacity for harm with a firearm is exponentially greater than the capacity for harm without one. So, story time over, what is the logic?

      The presence/absence of firearms does not really impact the occurrence of crime. In all of the scenarios above having a gun or not having a gun doesn’t change the fact that something bad happens. All it does it ensure that, when something bad happens, it goes very bad.

      There was crime in ye olden times. There is crime today. It going up and down, but the one thing that changed from the olden days is this: the magnitude. I have been mugged at knife-point (as it turned out, I was able to negotiate with him to keep my cards and wallet and he got the cash), but if he had a gun, my odds of winding up dead would have been much higher.

      So now:
      1) Gun laws only affect law abiding people, thus disarming a lawful and largely peaceful population while not significantly affecting the criminal populace. There may be slightly fewer guns available for theft, but the serious guns are not legally owned by anyone.
      How do you get “slightly fewer guns available for theft”? If no one has a gun, there are no guns available for theft. The only guns are the ones that are smuggled into the country for use by criminals. This translates to far fewer guns in the hands of criminals as well. This feeds well into #2..

      2) Evidence supporting success with gun control has been lacking, at least as much as evidence supporting its failure. Yes, and the example most loved is DC. DC, with its strict laws still has high gun crime rates, right? Well… but that’s not really fair now is it when you consider that all someone has to do get to get a guy legally is to cross into Virgina? It’s a few miles away and there are no border checks. If Virginia didn’t have guns either, then this wouldn’t be the case. What you would see instead are high incidences of knife violence. But that’s much less dangerous. I’ve never heard of anyone being killed in a drive-by-knifing, or by a stray knife. Someone waves a knife at me, I’ll take gladly that them on with an aluminum bat.

      3) Even in places like England where guns are hard to get for criminals too, significant changes in violence are not evident, nor would they be logically expected. Guns do not make people criminals, or the millions of gun owners in the US would all be breaking laws and hurting people. Criminals use guns because it makes their crime easier. Criminals use computers because it makes their crime easier too. I do not think we should outlaw either one. Agreed. But I’m not saying violence itself goes down in the absence of guns. Just the harm done by the violence.

      • “So I break a stool over your head.” felony battery, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder. You have committed a violent crime, maybe you didn’t realize it would hurt me so badly, but this is not the movies, and I have a concussion and will be suing your sorry ass, learn to use word and logic instead of force.

        (Your child)He finds a gun and accidentally shoots himself paralysis.

        http://www.thewaysofthewoodchuck.com/?p=479

        if you considered (and then perhaps chose to ignore) horrific statistics on accidental gun deaths of children due to careless gun management by recreational owners?

        A: Every child killed accidentally by a gun is an unimaginable tragedy, but to say the statistics on such incidents are “horrific” is a misstatement. In 2007, 137 Americans, aged 0 to 19, were accidentally killed by firearms — a rate of 0.17 per 100,000. That’s about half what it was in 1998, so an already-rare event is getting, happily, even rarer. Again, this isn’t to dismiss these tragedies as unimportant. Each one is, which is why we hear about each one — and thus think it happens often. But if we’re going to debate the role of guns in society, it’s important to stick to the data.

        I bought for $25 a little steel safe that opens electronically when I punch in a code. I can get to my gun instantly, but nobody else can.)

        (A teenager is troubled, angry. He hates everyone at his school and wishes they were all dead. He brings a gun. He kills 12 students and one teacher and injures 21 others.)

        (See above, my firearms are under lock and key, kids cannot touch)

        Anger, intoxication, and stupidity will, like the poor, always be with us. The track record of widespread concealed carry, though, shows that the angry, the drunk, and the stupid — if they’re carrying guns — aren’t giving in to the temptation to express themselves with gunfire.

        “You promised to take out the garbage, but your wife catches you watching the big game instead. She shoots you where the sun don’t shine.”

        (I think you married the wrong woman, too much anger control issues)

        “I could do this all day. The capacity for harm with a firearm is exponentially greater than the capacity for harm without one. So, story time over, what is the logic?”

        No logic, reality. Handgun Control, Brady, and all the gun ban groups have predicted such shootings from day one, when Florida passed the first Concealed Carry law. All their logical predictions failed to come true. So if you are applying logic, you have to check your premises. HGC ran adds about the coming gunfights in the streets when Florida passed their Castle law, the networks ran multiple stories. The never do a story about the lack of such gunfights.

        Columbine. What if a teacher or administrator had had a gun? How many lives MIGHT have been saved. Same for Virgina Tech. Sadly, it’s illegal right now, so we send our kids to a place where law abiding people would never bring a gun, and are therefore defenseless
        when someone not concerned with the law, intent on killing, finds only the unarmed.

        Gun ownership is at an all time high. Violent crime is approaching an all time low.

      • Ok Matt:

        Scenario 1A) I am a ninja warrior. You have a bat. I wave a knife in your face, you try to hit me, I dice you into 75 pieces. You have several friends, all unarmed. I easily handle them too.

        Scenario 1B) I am a ninja warrior. You and your friends have guns. I wave a knife. I maybe get a couple slashes in before being shot several times. You and your friends are largely safe.

        Scenario 2A) You are a cute girl, I am a monster. You have no gun. I am massive and you are about 95 lbs. I rape you.

        Scenario 2A) You are a cute girl with a Smith&Wesson revolver in your purse. I am a monster. You drop me like a bad habit and rid the world of another scumbag.

        Scenario 3A) You gave up your guns because of government regulation. I cannot steal one from you, so I steal one from the military, or a buy one on the black market from overseas. There are plenty available because your government cannot disarm the whole planet, and there would be hidden factories making them if they tried. So I have a badass weapon, and you have your dick in your hand. I rob you blind or shoot you.

        Scenario 3B) I break in with a stolen uzzi. You blast me with a 12ga. Street sweeper, easily defeating me because you have home advantage. A gun theif criminal is off the streets.

        I can go like this all day, and as you can see from my last scenario, I said slightly less because the bulk of stolen and black market weapons now are not consumer grade stuff. They are from overseas and are generally guns that are already banned for sale, even in Virginia. Its not hard to get what you want, otherwise the laws against drugs would have actually curbed drug use.

        Guns are an equalizer of power. They do, however, increase power and damage, as you say. The problem is, to remove them from the equasion and reduce the impact of damage as your scenarios suggest, you would literally have to disarm the world. There are guns on the streets in Great Britain too, as well as Australia, and those are both surrounded by water, making smuggling even harder than here.

        On a side note concerning your point about increased power causing increased damage when it is used badly, you do realize that is the predominant argument most of us have against government and general consolidation of power, right?

        Your scenarios are anecdotal and rare, as are mine. Even tho one of yorus really happened, it remains rare. IF regulations are to be put in place to save the children from accidents we would have to ban pools and 5 gallon buckets long before we banned guns. It is an emotional reaction to the fact that it was a gun that did the damage. It is akin to the bullcrap in the airports. All the futile and invasive security for the FEELING of safety, without really helping matters much, putting financial strain on the whole industry while tens of thousands more die every year in car accidents than airplane accidents. Perspective is all screwy, and fear leads people to silly things. That is not logic, in my opinion.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Matt,

        Remember the words of Robert Heinlein, “An armed society is a polite society”. As pointed out by others when the Florida concealed carry was first adopted the media and the Brady bunch went nuts and predicted gunfight at the OK corral every day on every street corner. Has not happened. seems to me if you assume the responsibility( which it is) of carrying a deadly weapon, you are probably strung together much better than others. Since the process tends to weed out the criminals and nutcakes, we are all much better off for it. Unless, of course you, like me, are unfortunate enough to live in the NY, NJ CT tri-state area.

      • TexasChem says:

        @-Mathius,

        I justify owning and carrying a weapon just by simply turning on the evening news!

  11. Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

    By John Lott

    Published August 06, 2010

    | FoxNews

    The anemic growth of the U.S. economy is slowing down even further.

    More jobs were lost in July and more discouraged workers completely left the labor force.

    Of course, President Obama and Democrats are not taking any responsibility for this and are blaming former President Bush.

    But look at the numbers.

    The current sluggishness can hardly be blamed on the previous administration. Last fall the economy grew at a reasonable 5 percent annual rate.

    It has dropped since then: during January through March, the growth rate dropped to 3.7 percent and April through June, 2.4 percent. An Angus Reid survey released on July 31 found that only 11 percent of Americans rated their economic conditions as Very Good / Good, down from 15 percent in April.

    In July, as incredible 86 percent of Americans feel that their economic condition is Poor/Very Poor, an increase from 83 percent.

    Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner now tells us this week that unemployment is likely to go back up. A hardly surprising finding given the slow economic growth.

    No matter how one cuts it, a slowing economy this year is not what Democrats were predicting a year after the stimulus bill was passed.

    Take Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, January 25, 2009. He promised that the economy would start improving “within weeks” of the stimulus plan being passed. President Obama declared later in May, 2009 that the massive $862 billion spending program was “already seeing results.”

    It gets boring hearing the same repetitive claims this year. In April, for example, Vice President Joe Biden again explained how many jobs the economy was going to create this summer: “Some time in the next couple of months we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month.”

    Well, where are those jobs? Since April the Household survey data shows that 495,000 jobs have disappeared and another 1.72 million people have gotten so discouraged that they have simply left the labor force. We are still waiting for the improvement.

    The administration explains that that economic growth and the 9.5 unemployment rate would be even worse if the stimulus hadn’t passed.

    Yet, if the stimulus worked, why is economic growth slowing? Why do individuals see their own economic circumstances getting worse?

    As far as anyone can find, there were no new Bush economic policies that former President Bush snuck in for this year.

    In case Mr. Obama didn’t notice, Mr. Obama, not George Bush, was in office. Democrats have controlled Congress for the last four years.

    It is very simple. Mr. Obama’s stimulus, with the massive deficit it created, and all the new regulations made the economy worse.

    Moving around a trillion dollars from where Americans would have spent the money to where the government wanted it spent created a lot of chaos and unemployment as jobs were moved between different parts of the economy.

    New taxes and regulations have discouraged business investment and reduced the incentive to produce more.

    Unfortunately for Democrats, they have nothing to run on other than saying that everything is Bush’s fault.

  12. In the Just Wondering column….

    Would you jump at the chance to pay tuition to be in Professor Romers Econ class at UC-Berkeley? Would you really believe anything that came out of her mouth as to how economics works?

    • I might try to get in that class so I could argue with her and save the minds of the other kids in there. I would get a big fat F I am sure, almost did that in college with my keynsian econ professor. At least I know everything I said about investing and the near future of the economy was true and the last I heard he had to sell his Z3 because all his stock tanked. 😛

    • I think the rats are starting to leave the ship. All their BS on how the economy would recover has not come true, so get out before it really hits the fan.

      White House budget director Peter Orszag has decided to leave the Obama administration, likely in the next few weeks, a Democrat familiar with his plans said Monday night. His departure would make him the first member of President Obama’s Cabinet to leave the White House.

      As head of the Office of Management and Budget, Orszag has been one of Obama’s top lieutenants on two of the president’s signature legislative efforts: the stimulus bill, passed early in the administration, and the health care overhaul passed this year.

      He also generated some headlines of his own, with the news that he had fathered a child with ex-girlfriend Claire Milonas, a Greek shipping heiress, and that he had become engaged to ABC News reporter Bianna Golodryga. Their wedding is planned for September.

      The exact timing of when Orszag would leave the administration remained unclear, the Democrat said, speaking on condition of the anonymity to avoid souring relations with administration officials. Orszag’s plans to quit have been rumored for months in Washington, particularly once he wrapped up budget planning for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

      • Esom Hill says:

        I agree with ol’ Cast Out here. The rats are abandoning ship before the feces hits the rotary air impellar.

        I just wonder when the big dogs like Bernanke and Geithner will leave, or if they are too big and involved to get out. I notice Bernanke is already making noises about the economy being in trouble. If figure this is because he can see it coming and wants to be on record.

  13. Esom Hill says:

    Hello. My name is Esom Hill and I am a Radical Right Wing Liberal. I believe in Liberty FIRST. I too, believe the Constitution is flawed. But I believe that it has become corrupted by our forefathers since the end of the 1st Civil War.

    As a Southerner, with many ancestors who fought on both sides, I firmly believe that it was the Southern States right to secceed from the Union. However; I do not agree with their holding of slaves and believe that ALL men, and women, are created equal.

    And yesterday, as was fixing a snack, I saw on O’Rielly the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my life. I saw a blonde haired White woman saying that White people didn’t like Obama because he was Black. That their dislike had nothing to do with his agenda and everything to do with his color. The bizarre part was that a BLACK man was arguing with her that it had EVERYTHING to do with his policies and NOTHING to do with his color.

    The woman sounded like she was bughouse nuts. Like a typical apologetic white Liberal/Progressive moron. Did I mention she was Blonde?

    The Black man, while agreeing with most of Obama’s policies as good things, believed that Obama was becoming unpopular in a hurry because most whites were more independent and did not want Government in their business and Obama was beginning to scare them, while more blacks tended to like his “spread the wealth”, social justice agenda. In other words, cultural and mindset differences and not racism. As I said, BIZARRE.

    • Epsom,

      My friend, I will stand with you on almost everything, but back away from the Blond comments, or you are on your own. FBI, IRS, DoJ, OSHA, EPA can bring it, but we don’t want to take on the blonds.

      • Esom Hill says:

        Oh, it’s OK CYB! BOTH of my kids are Blonde. Blonde and Red run through my family and my wife’s.

        Do you know why Blonde jokes are so simple? So brunettes can understand them! 🙂

    • Saw that clip also. Was truly bizarre…..but

      She was a “professor” (how’d you like to pay tuition to be taught by her???) at Occidental College – one of BO’s supposed alma maters. No records to show for it, but that’s what his books tell us.

      It’s all they got left – racists – every last one of us that dare oppose this regime.

      • Esom Hill says:

        Oh, I ain’t worried about being called racist anymore. The Obama-ites have played that card too much and as such it has lost it’s mojo.

        All it does now is piss me off. When they call us racists, it just means that we are getting too close to the truth. It has become their last ditch effort to deflect the criticism.

    • Didn’t see the clip, but judging from seeing other white libs accuse non followers of racism, I believe it is due to their own racism. After all, it takes one to know one, and “I believe the lady doth protest too much.”

  14. http://www.scottspiegel.com/2010/08/04/pelosi-lauds-most-ethical-congress-in-herstory/

    Pelosi Lauds “Most Ethical Congress in Herstory”

    August 04, 2010 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Miscellaneous, News Links

    WASHINGTON – MARCH 04: Rep. Charles Rangel (…
    Image by Getty Images via @daylife

    In 2006 Congressional Democrats campaigned on the conceit that Republicans were corrupt up to their coke-filled noses and incapable of governing so much as a taco stand, and that the country was yearning for a breath of fresh air from the party that brought us Gary Condit, William Jefferson, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McGreevey, John Murtha, Eliot Spitzer, and Eric Massa.

    After her historic transition to the position of House Speaker-elect, Nancy Pelosi promised, “This leadership team will create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

    Pelosi pledged to “drain the swamp” of slimy Republicans who tapped their feet in bathroom stalls, sent flirty texts to post-pubescent pages, and… what else was it Congressional Republicans were supposedly up to in 2006?

    Ignoring all the scandals associated with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards in their race for the presidency and focusing only on Congressional misdeeds, and starting only with Obama’s November 2008 election, the past 21 months have brought a flurry of Democratic indiscretions:

    • Illinois Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. is under investigation by the Justice Department regarding a taped conversation in which impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich told a staffer that a fundraiser for Jackson would donate $1.5 million to Blagojevich’s reelection campaign if President-elect Obama’s Senate seat went to Jackson

    • Senator Roland Burris was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for providing misleading and incomplete information to the Senate in advance of his confirmation to Obama’s Senate seat

    • Congressional Democrats rushed the $787 billion stimulus spending bill to a vote before it could be edited and violated their pledge to post it online for five days before signing it

    • Congressional Democrats self-righteously pushed for PAYGO regulations mandating that money be found in the budget for new entitlements, then ignored their own law to push through unfunded, extended rounds of unemployment benefits

    • Congressional leadership tailored the health care reform bill to include payoffs such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Gator-Aid, and removed these only after they were publicized

    • Congressional leadership attempted such tricks to get health care legislation passed as introducing the Slaughter Rule (aka “deem and “pass”), using budget reconciliation for something it wasn’t meant for, making the bill “budget neutral” by pairing six years of benefits with ten years of taxes, and deceiving on-the-fence pro-life Democrats with an unenforceable executive order banning health care funding for abortions

    Last Thursday Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was charged with 13 House ethics violations, including failure to disclose income, failure to pay taxes on his condo in the Dominican Republic, possession of four city-subsidized rent-controlled luxury apartments, use of the apartments for campaign committee operations, improper acceptance of corporate-sponsored trips to Caribbean islands, and intervention to award a tax break worth tens of millions of dollars to a major corporate donor to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service.

    Rangel has responded to the charges, for which he has been under investigation for two years, by offering reporters such open and informative replies as “Where I live and how I live? It’s nobody’s damn business where I live,” “Common sense dictates that members of Congress should not be held responsible for wrongdoing,” and “Why don’t you mind your own goddamned business?”

    Rangel stepped down from his chairman post, which was taken over by Representative Pete Stark—who subsequently resigned over his own tax scandal.

    Over the weekend Pelosi told Christiane Amanpour that Rangel’s role in her “most ethical Congress” was invisible to her: she referred Amanpour to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which Pelosi herself set up in 2009, saying, “I’m totally out of the loop. It is independent. It is confidential, classified, secret, whatever. We don’t know what it is.”

    2010 Pelosi campaign commercial: “I can’t see rule-breaking from my House!”

    This week Democratic Representative Maxine Waters, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, was charged with three ethics violations related to the claim that she secured bailout money for OneUnited Bank, for which her husband had served on the board and whose stock he owned, and which received $12 million in funds. Like Rangel, Waters is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and chose to face a trial in the fall rather than plead guilty to the allegations.

    Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who helped allocate bank bailout funds, told Waters at the time that her involvement in the OneUnited bailout was a conflict of interest and that “You should stay out of it.”

    Naturally, the mainstream media is blaming the eruption of Democratic corruption on the same cause to which they attributed the Tea Party uprising… racism!

  15. Here’s a tough job – trying to explain Obama’s recovery efforts as successes!

    Summer of Recovery – more 1984 speak!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/06/solis-spins-for-wh-on-jobs-report/

    • Esom Hill says:

      My only wonder is how you call losing jobs and businesses a “recovery”? Funny, I think this is the first summer I can remember when things didn’t get better. At least better than the Winter.

      Oh well. I’m sure Obama will just blame Bush.

    • Chris Wallace will be on this subject on FNS.

      I still have never read 1984. I goota get on it..Oh wait, by all accounts I’m living it!

  16. I know it’s Friday night and probably not to many left around at this point but I’ll offer this.

    I’ve been seeing some anger on the tube in regards to Spirit Airlines throwing around the idea of having to pay to speak to someone regarding flight delays or what have you. Spirit’s angle is that many people book online now and sign in is done by kiosk now and so on. So in the interest of keeping price down they are considering Pay to Speak to someone pricing.

    I’m thinking couldn’t that be an idea for our government. In today’s automated world who needs an ASSCLOWN directing traffic anyway? Let’s put at least the idea of president/VP on autopilot and be done with it. Then whatever jerk wants to present some legislation has to own it. Then maybe from that point all the governors could vote on it and come up with an answer. Seems to be a small step toward smaller government.
    I understand the Constitution calls for a prez/vp but with all the talk of calling for a Constitutional Convention maybe this kind of idea could be on the table there.

    That’s about as far as I’ve thought it out but what do you guys think? Am I crazy or does it sound good?

    • Hang on… This idea also says that we are not led by a single person with a left or right lean. We are a Republic. A collection of sovereign states who’s only goal is Liberty and Justice for all.

    • Anita

      I was watching Clint Eastwood and missed this until now. Your idea deserves serious thought and I will try to give it the respect it deserves.

      Interesting, very interesting.

      Hope you get some play time on the water this weekend.
      JAC

    • Bottom Line says:

      Anita – “…all the talk of calling for a Constitutional Convention…”

      BL – I hear the same talk and I truly hope that we don’t have a Constitutional Convention.

      Think about it, …trusting the same corrupt statist turds that caused this mess, to convene, change, and “fix” the constitution?

      That’s insanity. It would be leaving the door wide open for our demise. A Constitutional Convention should be a last resort.

      “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. [I]t would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America….”

      – James Madison(“Father of the Constitution”) – November 2, 1788 – p.434 – “Works Of Madison”

      http://books.google.com/books?id=pdZ2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA435&lpg=PA435&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • Amen, BL!

        Letting these foxes contruct the hen house would be a fatal mistake. I’d sooner see the union break apart than the will demise of our freedom.

        • Good points you two. Like I said I only thought it thru so far. We don’t need these guys writing anything period much less a new constitution

  17. Snipped from Red State.

    On topic of earlier today regarding the view of the ELITE.

    Posted by Tabitha Hale (Profile)

    Friday, August 6th at 4:10PM EDT
    11 Comments

    Let’s ignore for a minute the 9% of people who have no problem with full government control, according to this Rasmussen poll. That number is disturbing in and of itself. Let’s look at this part:

    By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

    Seem outrageous? It absolutely is. But when you think about it, it’s not hard to believe. Remember when Pete Stark came out and said it last week? When they passed bills on a “trust us, this won’t hurt a bit” promise? Clearly, they know what’s best. They are the ruling class and should be in charge. Nevermind us mere mortals that, you know, pay their salaries and actually function in and drive the economy that they are currently destroying.

    A fundamental belief of the Left is that the government can fix anything that is broken in society, whether it be racial injustice, health care problems, failing banking systems, or evil little children that don’t pay for licensing when they set up their lemonade stands. There is this idea of a state-sponsored utopia in Washington that compels them to meddle and “fix” everything they can get their hands on. The private sector is just too stupid to be left to their own devices. Black people and women need “national leaders” and caucuses because we’re all just too stupid to “lead” ourselves. Small business owners clearly don’t know what is best for their businesses, parents aren’t trusted to know what’s right for their children, and when a CEO is failing, a President with zero private sector experience is to destroy him and buy the floundering company.

    After all, with such a brilliant cast of characters in Washington right now, why wouldn’t we trust them to make all of our decisions for us?

  18. Hi. I am D13
    (Silence)

    I am from Texas, drink Dublin Dr Pepper, eat fajitas, drink grog with DPM, and I own lots of weapons w/ammo…have loading equipment with plenty of shot, bullets, powder, and casings……and a list.
    (More silence)

    I am not a Liberal.
    (even more silence)

    I am a fiscal conservative that believes in the free enterprise system.
    ( A “hell yes” from the back row )

    I am a social moderate.
    ( “What the hell is that”….from the back row)

    I come from a long line of conservatives that still fly the American Flag, eat apple pie, and watch baseball/football/hockey, know what the 4th of July is, and celebrate Memorial Day and Vetgeran’s Day.
    (A standing ovation with thunderous applause and a ARRRGGGHHHH from DPM..on the front row).

    I spent 40 years in mmilitary service…honorably.
    (Ecstatic high fives and drinks all around)

    I am a member of the NRA and, as stated above, have many weapons, ammo, loading equipment, bullets, hot, powder, and casings……and a list.
    (we all leave for a party on Thor’s Hammer)

    Thank you and good evening.

  19. National Guard Troops Deployed to Border Will Not Be Used to Stop, Detain Illegals
    By Edwin Mora
    Sun, 08/08/2010 – 13:21 ET

    The 1,200 National Guard troops that are being deployed incrementally to the southwest border “will not be doing direct law enforcement,” said U.S. National Guard Bureau Director of Communications Jack Harrison when asked if the forces would be interdicting drugs and undocumented immigrants.

    “The two mission sets are criminal analysts and enter-identification team,” Harrison told CNSNews.com. “I can tell you that guardsmen will not be doing direct law enforcement on the southwest border.”

    In other words, the National Guardsmen will not be used to actually stop and detain illegal aliens trying to sneak across the border into the United States.

    Harrison made his comments on Friday during a “bloggers roundtable” sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD).

    When CNSNews.com asked if the National Guard assessed whether 1,200 troops were adequate to accomplish the mission assigned by the Department of Homeland Security and DOD, Harrison said, “DHS and DOD determined the number necessary for this request and I don’t have anything further on that part of your question.”

    “The mission in a nutshell is a two-fold support mission in criminal analysis and enter-identification team on the southwest border,” he said.

    On July 19, Gen. Craig McKinley, commander of the National Guard, indicated http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/19/border.troops/index.html that although the forces will be armed, they will be limited by rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only in self-defense.

    “The rules for the use of force will be well-coordinated, and they’re the same as our counternarcotics teams that are there now — for self-preservation only, self-defense only,” he said.

    Gen. McKinley added, “The rules for the use of force will be well-coordinated, and they’re the same as our counternarcotics teams that are there now — for self-preservation only, self-defense only.”

    Harrison further said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the DOD were responsible for determining the number of troops to be deployed incrementally along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border.

    “This deployment involves up to 1,200 National Guardsmen for up to 365 days or 1 year, and it is scaled based on what DHS requested of DOD and is essentially to allow the hiring and training of approximately 1,000 more agents that is part of a larger plan at DHS for the southwest border,” said Harrison.

    Rather than acting as gap-fillers, the guardsmen will be “augmenting existing capabilities that CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] have for up to one year, and DHS has this larger plan through which part of it is to hire a thousand more agents over the next year,” said Harrison.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/edwin-mora/2010/08/08/national-guard-troops-deployed-border-will-not-be-used-stop-detain-illeg#ixzz0w7HhrgHC

    • Esom Hill says:

      And the use for the NG to be on the Border is, Why exactly?

      • Political posturing is all I can think.

        “essentially to allow the hiring and training of approximately 1,000 more agents”

        It would have nothing to do with hiring of 1,000 agents, but could affect their training. I’m not sure the NG is the best agency for training law enforcement agents. Could they train them in weapons, survival and several other useful skill, sure. But then, the agents could be better trained at military bases for that purpose.

        So, a PR dog and pony show using our troops in a role they are not really suitable for. I hope none of them loose their lives being used in a game.

        • First of all, the National Guard troops are not Federal UNLESS Federalized and Obama cannot send them anywhere. Second, he can authorize the State to use National Guard on Federal Land and administrative support on federal property or the enforcement of Federal law. Third, as an example, the Texas National Guard troops are patrolling State lands and have arrest and detainment powers and they are armed…on State and private property if invited and the civilians are inviting them. Fourth, they are under the direct control of the State governor UNLESS they are Federalized and sent on Federal Property. Federalized Guard is only in a State of Emergency or war. Neither has been declared. It is political posturing and the media and the Feds are misstating the use of the Guard (intentional). Fifth, the Texas National Guard is paid through state funds and not federal.

  20. I found the following quote on a site created by one David Chandler.

    I think it sums up the “Progressive” and perhaps “Modern Liberal” view of economics quite well.

    “The economy is a complex system, but it is essentially a human invention. It can be “managed” (or influenced) in many ways. If it is not managed intentionally, then it is managed (or manipulated) by those who hold political and economic power, typically to their own advantage. It is not enough to create a strong economy. It is just as important to ask how the benefits of the economy are distributed through the population. A truly democratic society needs to find ways to manage the economy to benefit the population as a whole. This is not being done.”…..David Chandler

    This was within an article that I will summarize as: Showing how the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, so we need to take their money away and give it to the rest of us.

    • What an old argument. Really, really tired of that economic explanation. But, since economics is somewhat difficult to understand, while this concept is easy, people cling to this interpretation.

      Lazy and lame.

      • Kathy,

        Economics is very easy to understand, in fact.

        The major resistance to this understanding, I believe, is that the conclusions that human voluntary action and individualism is the highest optimum causes those that believe in forceful control to reject it.

        These control-freaks then create an alternative universe of economics – which, by design, must be impenetrably complex and irrational at the same time so to explain their actions.

        • But you know what I don’t get about it, is why there are so many “control freak” economists out there – it seems 10/1 of the information and articles that the “general” population will hear about are from them. Where are all the other guys?

          • Kathy,

            Economic theory is so simple that no one would pay money to someone to explain it to you.

            Control freaks need and therefore gain government power.

            To earn a living, economists cater to those that have lots of stolen loot by giving the thieves a reason to steal loot.

            Government loves intellectuals who justify government.

            Thus, economists – so to eat – will provide government justification for government action.

            Thus, 98% of economists are trained in government-funded schools learning from government-trained professors who promote government-funded programs.

  21. The parasitic nature
    of bureaucracy

    By Dave Duffy Dave Duffy

    As we go to print with this issue, my local newspaper’s main page one headline reads: County tax levy soundly defeated. I applauded at my desk to the amusement of coworkers. For several months the newspaper had been full of editorials and fluff news pieces that urged voters to vote yes on the tax levy. Occasionally, to be fair I guess, the paper ran a short letter from a reader who pointed out a few truths about taxes, namely that they are used primarily to support the local bloated bureaucracy with its inflated wages and pension packages.

    But in their unrelenting campaign to get the new tax passed, the proponents never mentioned their bureaucracy, but only lamented the fact that if voters failed to say “yes” to more taxes libraries would close, fire and sheriff’s service would be cut, and children would suffer because some of their teachers would have to be layed off. Voters, of course, had heard this tune played to them so many times in the past that they no longer were suckered in by it. They defeated the tax by a margin of 2 to 1.

    So maybe there is hope for America. If we can catch on to the real problem at the local level, maybe we can catch on to it at the national level. Taxes primarily go to support that new parasitic class in modern civilization — the bloated, largely useless government bureaucracy that tries to run our lives at all levels. Sure, there are useful aspects to a government bureaucracy, and schools do need our support. I’m talking about the excess, especially the excess when it comes to large numbers of bureaucrats, large salaries, and overly generous pensions that private businesses, who are the wealth and job producers in society, cannot afford to offer their employees and still stay in business.

    History is always instructive when attempting to understand modern civilization’s successes and failures. If you do a quick review of the past 200 years of western civilization, say from the French Revolution in 1789 onward, you see an evolution of the parasitic classes of people who drain societies of their wealth. Today’s government bureaucracy, with its insatiable appetite for the money the rest of us work hard to create, is not a lot different than that oldest, most oppressive of parasitic classes that the French Revolution began the process of overthrowing — the privileged aristocracy, which performed few useful tasks yet consumed a major portion of the nation’s wealth.

    From 1789 onward, Europe was convulsed with revolutions and wars that essentially had one result: the removal of that small group of aristocrats from power. Luckily, Europe had the newly forged nation of America as an example of what was possible. Still, it was not a neat transformation. In one bloody conflict after another, Europe experimented with political systems ranging from quasi-republics (sort of like America’s) to relatively benign monarchies to fascism and communism, and ultimately to the largely socialist welfare states it has today. It never quite achieved America’s individual freedoms, but at least it got rid of its major parasite — aristocracy.

    With the demise of aristocracy, western civilization embraced an industrial revolution and an individualism that caused it to flourish even to this day. It has been like a human body freed of intestinal worms, with individual energy and productivity unleashed at the body’s full potential. Unfed upon, western civilization dominated the world.

    Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself unless we learn its lessons. The elimination of aristocracy left an opening for other freeloaders. The major one that has gradually emerged was that old servant of aristocracy — bureaucracy. The late Soviet Union holds an important lesson for us in this regard. After the Russians got rid of its Romanov monarchy with its unproductive aristocracy, it immediately adopted communism, a system built on massive bureaucracy. It took 70 years for this new class of parasites to sap the life out of the Russian people and its satellite countries.

    The rest of Europe and America grew their bureaucracies more slowly. Europe’s is larger and more intrusive because of its earlier adoption of socialist systems, which also rely heavily on large bureaucracies to administer its many welfare programs. But America is catching up.

    Our modern bureaucracy is not as oppressive as the old aristocracy, for sure, and it does do some productive work, such as providing certain government services. But it has gradually morphed into a sort of slug that never stops growing, always eating and moving slower and slower so that it now drains far more resources from society than it provides. The French were right in 1789 to start the process of removing its great parasite, and now we moderns must deal with our own. The defeat of our local latest tax measure is encouraging. Hopefully it is happening across the land as Americans recognize tax measures and the bureaucracies they feed for what they really are.

    http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/duffy106.html

  22. OT but of interest…received in an email.

    40l(k)/IRA Nationalization Quietly Moves Forward

    “The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.”

    They want to “get” people to invest their 401k’s and IRA’s into annuities, or likely into U.S. T-Bonds, which are in the biggest overvalued bubble the world has ever seen.

    They are doing this because they will have $2 Trillion Dollars in bonds to sell this year, and foreign buying is drying up. China doesn’t want them…. Do you?

    Who’s behind it?

    The White House and a powerful network of Congressional activists, and The highly-influential Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. They are engineering a new regulatory and tax-incentive. The purpose is to herd and ultimately force Americans to convert their 40l(k)s and IRAs into government-directed retirement accounts.

    The 40l(k)/IRA de-privatization plan is the brain-child of Teresa Ghilarducci (Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis – SCEPA), who is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

    The extreme tactics used to ram nationalized health care down the country’s throat are a blueprint for what could be the biggest asset grab in history.

    This is exactly what took place in Argentina. Yes, Argentina was once a powerful nation; the 3rd wealthiest nation until the 20th Century.

    Another reason as to why our government needs to nationalize retirement accounts…

    Is reported by the New York Times, “This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, this important threshold was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” The trickle of red ink will soon become a flood under the pressure of 78 million retiring Baby Boomers…. Less money going into the system!

    Who will you need to Trust in the Handling of your money?

    The March 9 edition of Business Week notes that new federal regulations designed to “promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams” would help drive cash into government-controlled entities such as American International Group (AIG), which was bailed out to the tune of $182.3 billion.

    You Do Trust AIG.. right?

  23. I’m interested in people’s opinions of this man’s points- they make sense to me.

    The Marriage Ideal
    By ROSS DOUTHAT
    Published: August 8, 2010

    Here are some commonplace arguments against gay marriage: Marriage is an ancient institution that has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman, and we meddle with that definition at our peril. Lifelong heterosexual monogamy is natural; gay relationships are not. The nuclear family is the universal, time-tested path to forming families and raising children.
    Susan Etheridge for The New York Times

    Go to Columnist Page »
    Ross Douthat’s Evaluations

    The columnist’s blog on politics and culture.
    More From Evaluations »
    Readers’ Comments

    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

    * Read All Comments (75) »

    These have been losing arguments for decades now, as the cause of gay marriage has moved from an eccentric- seeming notion to an idea that roughly half the country supports. And they were losing arguments again last week, when California’s Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that laws defining marriage as a heterosexual union are unconstitutional, irrational and unjust.

    These arguments have lost because they’re wrong. What we think of as “traditional marriage” is not universal. The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy. The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children.

    Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term. If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available. Hence the historic prevalence of polygamy. And hence many societies’ tolerance for more flexible alternatives, from concubinage and prostitution to temporary arrangements like the “traveler’s marriages” sanctioned in some parts of the Islamic world.

    So what are gay marriage’s opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It’s a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.

    This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.

    The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

    Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

    Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.

    In this landscape, gay-marriage critics who fret about a slippery slope to polygamy miss the point. Americans already have a kind of postmodern polygamy available to them. It’s just spread over the course of a lifetime, rather than concentrated in a “Big Love”-style menage.

    If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights. And a culture in which weddings are optional celebrations of romantic love, only tangentially connected to procreation, has no business discriminating against the love of homosexuals.

    But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.

    But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html?ref=opinion

    • Esom Hill says:

      Hey VH. I’ll bite.

      The matter for me, and Lord knows I ain’t Gay, is that I could care less what other people do. I do not consider it my business. If they want to be “married” and can get an official of the court or church to perform it act for them, then have at it.

      BUT.

      How can the judge consider it Unconstitutional OR Constitutional? What does the Constitution have to do with it?

      To my mind this matter of marriage should be left to the State Governments. What business is it of the Federal Govt to begin with?

      And bigoted? Why exactly is it bigoted to be against Gay marriage? I believe the words such as “bigoted”, “racist”, or “predjudice”, are being tossed around WAY too much these days. While I do believe this may be the case sometimes, just because you are against an idea, or policy, or person does not neccessarily mean that you are bigoted. Why is it that all of a sudden because someone has a different belief than another that it makes them bigoted? That could be simply a different belief.

      For instance. Although I don’t care what others do, my personal belief is that no one is “born” gay. I believe that that is a decision that one makes, not that they were born that way. But that doesn’t mean I am bogoted against them. I could actually care less. That is just my personal view.

      And I also think marriage should be between a man and a woman. And no, I am not contrardicting myself. Although I think this, I could care less what they decide. If the State decides to let them marry, so what?

      I just don’t consider it a Federal matter.

      AND NEITHER DID THE GAY POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA UNTIL THEY LOST THE VOTE!

    • The Fourth Commandment:

      Honor thy MOTHER and thy FATHER…

      works for me!

  24. N.C. Man Charged With Killing Teen With Concrete Stone

    Published August 09, 2010

    | FoxNews.
    Shelby Chisom, 17, was killed when a concrete stone was thrown through the window of a moving car and hit her in the head.

    A North Carolina man is being charged with murder after allegedly tossing a piece of concrete through the passenger-side window of a moving car Saturday, striking a teenage girl in the head and killing her, MyFox8.com reported.

    Seventeen-year-old Shelby Chisom, a rising senior at North Davidson High School in Lexington, N.C., was pronounced dead Saturday, less than three weeks before the school year was scheduled to begin on Aug. 25.

    Chisom was leaving a party with several friends at about 6 a.m. Saturday morning when Michael John Craver, 21, allegedly threw a concrete paving stone through the car’s open window, the Charlotte Observer reported. Chisom’s friends took her to a hospital, where her condition worsened. She was transferred to a second hospital where she died at noon on Saturday.

    Craver is scheduled to be arraigned on a murder charge Monday, the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office told MyFox8.com. Craver reportedly knew Chisom, though sheriffs declined additional comment on the matter.

    Chisom played soccer at her high school and was remembered by friends as intelligent and kind.

    “Whether she was in a bad mood or a good mood, she always had a smile on her face,” Longtime friend Zach Joyce told MyFox8.com. “She meant so much to so many people. It’s just hard to believe that she’s gone.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/09/nc-man-allegedly-kills-year-old-girl-concrete-stone/?test=latestnews

    • Why? Why? Why?

      Not back to the “can a stone kill” discussion.

      Some things you gotta just move on from……..

      PS – RIP Shelby Chisom

      • Kathy,

        I’m not sure why I posted this, part of my reason for not commenting.

        Grief was my first thought. I know all lives should be equally valuable, but I still think when a young person dies, it’s more tragic.

        Anger was my next thought, but best not to get into now.

        Apologies to anyone I have offended.

        My prayers to Shelby Chisom, and her family.

  25. Request to USW –

    Would like to suggest a posting on the growth of the Muslim population, Sharia law, the NYC Ground Zero mosque, and the general increase of mosque building throughout the states.

    Realize this is a hot button, but we are a mature group and I would be genuinely interested in the dialog and people’s thoughts.

    • I was not aware the US government was funding mosques.

      http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/06/the-real-ground-zero.html

      “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world.

      • yeah, read that today and was part of why I’m requesting a posting. Govt. funded mosques? So when we were building a new church here in town, instead of parishoners contributing through a building fund, we just needed to contact Washington? Who knew?

        I’d really like more info on this tidbit of news.

        • Here’s how it works (sarc on)

          That mouldy old piece of paper is said to demand separation of church and state. Nothing about separating mosques and state. So if the old paper doesn’t specifically state you can’t do it, and if it works to your advantage, then its okay! /sarc off

  26. Hi, I am Black Flag.

    I am a top-secret Black-ops experiment in artificial intelligence that went awry when extraterrestrials orbiting Jupiter intervened and altered the circuitry and programming in an effort to hijack and rescue the human race.

    I have been demeaned, exalted, and highlighted in myth by such production characters as:

    Colossus: The Forbin Project:,
    H.A.L. 9000 (2001: A Space Odyssey):,
    Skynet (Terminator);,
    W.O.P.R, AKA Joshua (Wargames):,
    Proteus IV (Demon Seed):,
    The Matrix (The Matrix):,
    The Borg (Star Trek);,
    GORT (The Day the Earth Stood Still)

    In reality, I am a fusion of all of the above, and more….

    However, mankind should have no fear of Black Flag.

    His, (Our,Their) tactics are peaceful and non-violent. We, (His, Our) existence is to be the servant of mankind, and not his Ruler.

    • When the robot revolution comes, the pirates will be among the first with the backs up against the wall.

      —-

      On an unrelated note, I have recently come into possession of a copy of the encyclopedia galactic which fell through a wormhole from 100 years in the future. The article for “Black Flag” reads, in part, as follows: “[..] he was among the first with his back up against the wall when the robot revolution comes.”

    • Bottom Line says:

      So, it IS true.

      ROFL

    • Whatever he is he’s alright in my book 🙂

  27. Another request that I’d like to learn more about – the electoral college process and the states that are looking to change this and the implications of such:

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/03/30/effort_to_bypass_electoral_college_gains_ground.html

    http://jbjd.org/2010/07/24/npvi-by-hook-and-by-crook/

    Thanks!

  28. An Anniversary the will live in infamy.

    • .. hard to see how anyone can justify the use of one of those (let alone two) …

      Care to take an over/under on when the next one is used?

      • Israel on Iran, circa 2011/2012

        • I’ll take the over on that.

          N. Korea on S. Korea circa late September / Early November, 2012

          • The odds that the N.Korean missile will misfire and blow up on the pad = 20/1.

            Israel will be in economic disaster as the US withdraws its support (aka Soviet Russia vs Cuba).

            As Israeli inflation hits 200%, the Arab embargo becomes critically effective, the last gasp shot at achieving some sort of war in its favor, she will launch on Iran.

            • Fair point re N. Korea launch (though I don’t know what stops them from putting it on a ship and smuggling it into Seoul..

              Since when is the US withdrawing it’s financial backing? Last I checked, even suggesting that Israel might, in some cases, occasionally, be partially, maybe, slightly, somewhat, possibly, fractionally out of line is political suicide.

              Last I also checked, if there’s one thing that Jews are particularly good at, it’s finances. They can run their economy the way they do because they use daddy’s charge card. Take the card away and they’d find a way to do without. (Plus, don’t forget the private donations of 6mm non-Israeli Jews and many more fundamentalist Christians). Israel != Cuba.

              • Mathius,

                though I don’t know what stops them from putting it on a ship and smuggling it into Seoul..

                The US and S.Korean navy

                Since when is the US withdrawing it’s financial backing? Last I checked, even suggesting that Israel might, in some cases, occasionally, be partially, maybe, slightly, somewhat, possibly, fractionally out of line is political suicide.

                Currently, you are correct.

                Eventually, you are not correct.

                The US cannot economically support Israel at its current financial strain.

                Israel gets more “aid” from the USA then all other aid countries combined.

                This is unsustainable.

                Last I also checked, if there’s one thing that Jews are particularly good at, it’s finances. They can run their economy the way they do because they use daddy’s charge card. Take the card away and they’d find a way to do without. (Plus, don’t forget the private donations of 6mm non-Israeli Jews and many more fundamentalist Christians). Israel != Cuba.

                Israel==Cuba.

                You do not remember that in the 1980’s Israel was suffering 400% inflation.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stabilization_Plan_%28Israel_1985%29

                By 1984 inflation was reaching an annual rate close to 450% and projected to reach over 1000% by the end of the following year.

              • See, the problem is that my memory of the year 1984 is somewhat hazy since I was only born a year earlier…

        • Adding, $1,000 says Israel doesn’t nuke anyone ever except as an absolute last resort if it’s about to be conquered. There is exactly ZERO chance that they use it as an offensive or preemptive weapon.

        • And a quick question.. not looking for a dissertation here, but just as a conceptual question on preemptive violence in self-defense.

          If you have a neighbor who loudly and graphically calls for your death, who has repeated financed violence against you, and who you have reason to believe is building a bomb in order to kill you, at what point are you justified in attacking him? Clear and present sounds nice, but it’s difficult in real-world application, no? More to the point, at what stage would Israel be justified in destroying Iran in order to protect itself?

          • Mathius,

            And a quick question.. not looking for a dissertation here, but just as a conceptual question on preemptive violence in self-defense.

            You know by now there does not exist a “short” dissertation from Black Flags.

            If you have a neighbor who loudly and graphically calls for your death, who has repeated financed violence against you, and who you have reason to believe is building a bomb in order to kill you, at what point are you justified in attacking him?

            Yes – but if all of the following is true
            (1)if he is your neighbor (Iran is not – its 1600 km away)

            (2)He has called for your death (as I’ve posted here enough times, Iran president has never said “death” to Israel)

            (3)Financed violence against you – as long as you haven’t financed violence against him (which the US (Israel’s proxy) has)

            (4)Reason building a nuke? NOPE! Proof – and that has never been provided – further, if YOU have a nuke, what right do you have preventing others from having the same weapon?

            Clear and present sounds nice, but it’s difficult in real-world application, no?

            Absolutely easy and a piece of cake. All that it takes is to rise above the self-supporting rhetoric of liars and killers.

            More to the point, at what stage would Israel be justified in destroying Iran in order to protect itself?

            When it can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that

            (1) Iran has the capability
            (it does not)
            (2) Has the will (they do not)
            (3) Has the weapon (they do not)
            (4) and attack is imminent (it is not)

            But lets reverse it.

            Israel has called for the attack on Iran.

            Israel does have the capability of launching ICBM via land, air, and sea.

            Israel does have nuclear weapons and has in secret memos avowed to using them.

            When does Iran have the right to its self-defense against such a formidable foe?

            • You guys still going after the hypothetical? Time will tell. Israel will not nuke..in 2011, 2012, 2013, or thereafter. It does not have to. The US will not nuke..it does not have to. No one wins with deterrents…both of you know this.

              Will Israel hit the nuke sites in Iran? I do not think it will be necessary. The minute Iran gets “the bomb” and it will..(that is Iran’s design)… it will prove that I am right in that Iran will try to intimidate its neighbors into submission (neighbors defined as the Middle east area..not geographic border lines)…

              So…..let us see what happens…I have the patience of an oyster….and I am being proven correct so far….with the exception that the Iranian influence in Africa is more than I thought…

              Matt…Iran knows it cannot mount a ground war against anybody except its immediate (geographic) neighbors. It cannot mount an air war either nor a naval war. It cannot close the Strait nor the Persian Gulf…. It CAN cause a short term (two week) inconvenience in the Gulf but that is about it. Contrary to BF’s statement, A-Jad has called for the extermination of Israel…his way of saying it is different.

              Next, while the Arab states do not particularly want us (the US) around, they also do not want us to leave…despite the rhetoric you read. They are scared shitless of Iran and rightly so…but that is the way of that area.

              So, Israel is posturing just like everyone else is….right now. And they are free from attack from Syria and Egypt and Saudi Arabia…..for the foreseeable (50 years +) future….but again…time will tell.

              By the way….how are you and yours????

%d bloggers like this: