November 29, 2003
Tis the season....
This is one of the reasons people hate this time of year. "Merry Ch....Hey that's on sale! STAMPEDE". I can't even stand to be in malls / department stores anytime from Today until well after the holidays.
I started doing all my shopping online, about 6 years ago. And I never looked back (It's even better now - since I live cross country from my Family, and would have to ship everything anyway).
To those of you with your long lists and tight schedules - I wish you luck as you shop. Please, though, try not to trample anyone in order to get that deal on a DVD player.
Comments:November 28, 2003
Iraq and the Left
Can we agree that referring to Iraq as 'Vietnam' is counter-productive and intellectually dishonest. I'm very open to reasons as to why Iraq was a bad idea - but even I start turning off people who utter 'Vietnam' in the same breath as the current war.
Comments:Bush in Iraq
I have to say, going to visit the troops in Iraq was a dramatic move by Bush and he deserves credit for the effort. There may be some debate as to whether it was a smart move (in terms of flying him into a war zone), but I'm sure it had a significant impact on the troops.
I'm also sure there was the intent of sending another message to those who still fight in Iraq. Yes, secrecy. Yes, light off. But, the president of the United States flew into Iraq - which must be interpreted as a lack of fear from those who fight.
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't change much, but I thought it was a worthwhile move.
Comments:November 26, 2003
If only they had used Linux!
CalPundit brings us the story of Republican Orrin Hatch's staff hacking into Democrat's computers to steal memos and the like. Kevin seems surprised that the 'liberal' media seem to have buried this story.
Of course, the other side is going to suggest that the Dems are not upset at the theft, rather that the memo got out. And I agree, which is why I recommend starting a Democratic Hacker Corps. Maybe we can use our Hollywood ties, to get some of the hackers the record Companies are planning on using to crash the systems of people who illegally download music.
Comments:Gay Marriage update
Well, a bill to change the constitution has been introduced in the senate, mirroring the bill in the house.
`Article --
`SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.
Reminds me of a great Simpson's episode.
"But if we change the constitution....
.... We can make all kinds of crazy laws."
Shooting my mouth off
Brett, is a gun owner / collector/ firer type of guy. He pointed out in my post about the town requiring people to own guns, that there are plenty of dumb gun controls laws too. These, Brett thinks, are worse than the town who requires guns. I admitted a certain amount of ignorance about guns in general, and the CA Assault Weapons Ban, specifically. Brett offered me a primer on weapons and the AWB. So, here's my liberal, lefty response.
In the first place, so-called "assault weapons" have never been shown to pose a disproportionate threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens in the state; in point of fact, only about 8-10% of gun crimes are committed with longarms of any sort
It seems to me what would be important, less than the percent of times used, is how many people are killed per instance with Assault Weapons vs Non-assault weapons. I haven't been able to find any stats on this, but will keep looking.
The purpose of all guns is to kill. The purpose of the 'Assault Weapons Ban', as I read it, is to try and keep killing sprees less frequent and less deadly. Whether or not you agree with the law depends a lot on what you think the purpose of the law is about. Clearly, if you think it's about the government harassing gun owners - then I can understand your displeasure at it, but I'll disagree with the conclusion that it's a bad law.
In the second place, so-called "assault weapons" manifestly do not have a higher rate of fire or "capacity for firepower" than a garden-variety deer rifle: all "assault weapons" are semi-automatic firearms, which means that they fire a single round per trigger pull
That's 'Semi-true', but not quite all of the story. Semi-Automatics are automatics which have been altered to prevent automatic firing. However, they still load the next round almost instantly. So, you can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, while non-semi's generally have a much slower rate of fire. Especially for someone who is not familiar with the weapon. Semis allow novices to fire very fast. (About 45 rounds / minute , I think, for most Semis?).
Note that these are all purely cosmetic features: of the five, only the grenade launcher can be said to have any relationship to the weapon's firepower, and even then, actual grenades are heavily restricted as "destructive devices". For all intents and purposes the 1994 law bans semi-automatic rifles that are politically-incorrect looking.
Again, I don't know that I would agree that these things are only cosmetic. Let's look at the items 'banned'.
A folding or telescoping stock.
Certainly, the concept here is to hinder making these weapons concealable. Yes, there might be an argument from sports hunters that that is a benefit - but is it really a hindrance not to have it? Where as, if you want to hide the gun (which, as far as I can see only needs to be done for illegal reasons) it's a huge help.
A pistol grip.
The inclusion of a pistol grip allows for these weapons to be fired single handedly, and for two of these weapons to be fired at the same time. It also give you more stability when firing multiple rounds - making it easier to counter the 'lifting' that usually occurs when you keep firing.
It also allows you to fire from the hip, which gives you greater ability to keep firing if someone is in close to you, trying to prevent you from firing.
What is the argument for needing this. Especially, if it's only cosmetic?
A bayonet mount.
I have no argument here. Unless, I'm missing something. If a guy with a Semi-automatic weapon has been reduced to attacking people with a bayonet - at least he's stopped firing.
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one.
The purpose for this is obvious. The only purpose, that I'm aware of, of a flash suppressor is to keep you from being spotted. Yes, I understand there are 'blast' directors (or some such) which are designed to direct the blast away from the shooter - but I'm not sure how much difference this makes in hunting.(And, if it's self defense, I don't think you're going to be worrying about it).
A grenade launcher. (I think, more specifically, a mount which would allow the attachment of a Grenade Launcher)
I don't even think I need to touch this one.
It also happens to be the round used by the M60 machinegun. Both the .308 Winchester and the .30-06 rounds are significantly more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO round chambered by the M16 A2 and the Bushmaster rifle above. Yet despite this, and despite the Garand's pedigree as a military rifle (compared to the Bushmaster, which is a semi-automatic civilian clone of a military rifle), the Garand is perfectly legal in California.
The difference being, basically, that the Garand is designed to be shoulder fired while the Bushmaster can be fired 'from the hip'. Why is this a big difference? Because, if you need to disarm someone (say who was shooting up downtown LA), it's easier to disarm a man with a shoulder fired weapon, than it is to disarm a man who is firing down low. That, in fact, is why the Government created these 'assault weapons'. They are easier to use, and require less training to be mor effective (and not just in terms of Rate of Fire). Otherwise, they would have stuck with the older guns.
Springfield Armory sells "California-legal" models which replace the flash suppressor with a muzzle brake. The rifle is significantly more accurate and powerful than the Bushmaster guns.
Ironically, I don't think the purpose of the AWB is to ban 'deadly' weapons, as much as 'weapons which have the capacity to kill lots of people, with little training'. For instance, I don't know whether or not the weapon ban would have prevented the Malvo from owning his sniper weapon. The fact is that weapon, in his trained hands, killed a lot of people. However, if the 2 kids from Columbine were using that weapon, I don't know that the death toll in that case would have been as high. People still would have died - I'm sure, but less. That, from what I understand, is the purpose of AWB laws.
I recognize there is a larger debate here, which is whether or not the government can keep lawful citizens from owning items which other people use for illegal means. While tired, there is some reality to the 'why not outlaws knives, or cars, or hammers, all of which can, and have, been used to kill people.
I'm not at all for removing someone's right to own guns. While I do think pro-gun people tend to mis- characterize the second amendment by focusing more on the 'Shall not be Infringed' part and less on the 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' part. However, I strongly believe in registering guns and don't think that people should be able to own any firearm they want. These bans, as I see them, do not prevent people from protecting their selves, nor from sport hunting. They do, however, reduce the options you have in pursing these actions.
The fact is, that sometimes to Government just draws a line in the sand and says 'This is ok' this is not, in the name of protecting the larger community. Few people, even very enthusiastic gun people, I think will argue that the Government is wrong for banning Grenade Launchers. The problem is, when you get close to the line, things which are allowed are not all that distinguishable from those which are not.
Is the line exactly where it should be? I don't know - but I'm glad there is a line.
Comments:Zjonni said (at November 26, 2003 04:40 AM):
1: Check FBI Uniform Crime Report for killings made with a single weapon. Assault rifles don't significantly spike the curve.
2: Semi-automatic is not always or often a 'modified automatic'. Usually it is an entirely different mechanism.
3: Semi-automatics are not inherently 'faster to shoot'. World speed-shooting records are made using revolvers because a semi-automatic is likely to jam when they pull the trigger in such rapid succession.
4: Having owned folding and non-folding stock rifles. Folders are NOT more concealable. You still need a long, heavy coat...And with that you could conceal a non-folding-stock longarm. It does make a difference in comfortable carry through dense brush such as when hunting.
5: Only in Hollywood does being able to fire two weapons simultaneously mean a damn thing except missing twice as often. NOT a valid tactic. It does not necessarily give you more stability to resist muzzle-climb unless combined with a stock. Note that pistols are subject to significant muzzle climb with weaker rounds than fired by many rifles. A pistol grip is also not necessary when firing from the hip. A full stock to hang onto is recommended by most CQB trainers for weapons-retention techniques. A pistol grip is more comfortable and ergonomic for long-range firing.
6: The difference between having and not having a muzzle-brake which is the item you're trying to describe, can be the difference between exposing your ears to punishing levels of sound even with protection, or not. A well-designed muzzle-brake also reduces recoil impulse by venting gas to the sides/rear to absorb recoil, and thus increases accuraccy. Accuraccy is safety and responsibility in both hunting and self-defense situations. Some systems are calibrated to reduce muzzle vibration during the projectile's transit down the lands, thus increasing accuraccy even further.
7: The Garand can be fired with effective short-range accuraccy from the hip.
8: Due to the inaccuraccy of the rest of your statements I question your authority to speak of the ease of disarmament of a shoulder-fired weapon. Having been trained in, and trained others, in CQB techniques and fundamentals of weapons retention, I am inclined to believe you haven't done much personal homework here but are passing along the misconceptions of others.
8: Assault rifles were not produced to 'require less training'. They were produced to be more efficient in short-range engagements than battle rifles. While they have reduced range, soldiers can carry more rounds for them. Modern assault rifles are not, in point of fact, fully automatic, but tend towards two and three-round burst technologies, which do not permit an infantryman to spray wildly, but do mean that a well-aimed shot will put two or three rounds in a target rather than one. You appear to be confusing the role of the assault rifle with the role of the outmoded submachinegun.
9: The AWB laws, like most criminal laws passed in recent history, are often designed to make politicians look good in order to get more public support in the voting booths. Most of these laws transit well-worn territory that is already covered by other laws. Feel good anti-firearm laws have not helped in the UK, nor in Australia, nor in Canada.
10: It may interest you to know that in some neighboring nations (cf: Cuba) it is illegal to unchain your kitchen knife from the board it is chained to in the kitchen. People still kill each other with rocks, sticks, and rum bottles. And, astoundingly, guns which were not turned in when the government requested them.
11: From your third to last paragraph, I am inclined to believe that you have never faced a situation where you have had to defend yourself against lethal force.
12: In this nation, in theory, the government does what the people permit.
13: Clearly you, Brett, and I all disagree on where the line should be. Given the points raised in this post I am inclined to believe that Brett and I have spent more time in actual study of what the line in question affects, as opposed to what propaganda and public disinformation suggest it does, than you have.
Without in any sense meaning to sound insulting, I would counsel you to spend more time in research of things you wish to speak out on, and to ensure as best you can the validity of your sources rather than blithely repeating hearsay. It will enable you to carry forth your arguements and monologues with greater understanding of the subject and consequences of your speech.
Henry said (at November 26, 2003 05:27 AM):
1) I plan to.
2) My point was semi-automatic weapons are not the same a deer rifles. They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Yes, as I pointed out to Brett, trained people may be able to shoot both just a quickly, but untrained people clearly can shoot more rounds from a semi-automatic. Race Car drivers can drive their cars at 175 miles an hour, in very close traffic. I don't think that it's a good idea to raise the speed limit to 175 for the general population.
3) Yes, as I said, I don't know a lot about guns. Does that mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion? One, I might add, that I'm not alone in as there are AW bans both on the state and federal level. Yes, politicians are aware of making people happy, but there are more to AW bans than that. Whether it is the right or wrong approach, it is about trying to prevent people from having ready access to weapons which make killing multiple people easier.
4) As I said, I realize that banning certain weapons won't stop violence. I never made that claim. AW bans have a different purpose, which I have already stated.
6) I have luckily never been in a situation where I needed to defend myself from lethal force.
7) I agree. We control what the government can/can not so - within the confines of the constitution. However, the Government is responsible for protecting us.
8) I can't help but detect a pro-gun, anti gun laws stance from you - which I could also label propaganda. You seem to be saying 'I know what I'm doing with a gun, so there should be no bans'. The point is, that there isn't any knowledge requirement to own these weapons. Not everyone respects them, and people use them to kill. Even knowledgeable people.
9) Thanks for the counsel. As it's my blog and my dime, I will continue to 'blithely' repeat whatever I choose. This is an my opinion site, and this is my opinion. You are free to disagree, as indeed you do. However, I am just as free to disagree with you - whether or not I have ripped a gun out of someone's hand, or taken down a steer at 40 yards. I've never shot up heroin either, but that doesn't stop me from having the opinion that shooting heroin is a bad idea.
Zjonni said (at November 26, 2003 05:52 AM):
You confused my points-numbering system a little in your responses, but attempting to carry on:
1: Good. Always glad to point people towards an opportunity to broaden their educations.
2: There are semi-automatic deer rifles. Deer rifles as they currently exist, even the bolt-action ones, are descended from military weapons circa WW1. Even a bolt-action rifle fires as fast as you pull the trigger and cycle the bolt. Someone who intends to be a problem and practices can do that far faster than you apparently believe. To your second statement I would suggest that an untrained individual can miss just as fast. Rapid firing and accuraccy are, as suggested by some of my commentary back at Brett's ranch, invariably at odds with each other. I'll come back to the 'general population' issue in a moment since you bring it up again.
3: I have attempted to present you with verifiable and specific statements in order to further your education. You are entitled to have an opinion. If you publicly come forth with a clearly uneducated opinion, others are entitled to believe you might appreciate having some factual basis to form opinions on. Veni, vidi... Clearly, the entire purpose of these discussions rests on the facts that the bans do, as you say, exist. Their existence does not determine their right to exist. There is more to AW bans than making people happy and keeping politicians in office, but what more there is does not include successful reduction of criminal behavior. I give you the UK and Australia for estimation of the 'success' of such behaviors.
4: A person interested in killing multiple people will find other means than are legally available. Cars. Pipe bombs. Aircraft. Making things 'legally unavailable' does not prevent their acquisition in the real world. See also, Prohibition, Teetotalers.
5: There is no statement five to respond to.
6: On the one hand I must say this gives you less ground to formulate an educated opinion on the need for personal access to force for one's own defense. On the other hand I must say that I envy you deeply, being not so privileged.
7: No, in point of fact the government of the United States and your state and municipal police cannot be held accountable for damages to yourself or your property due to their action or inaction. I am not merely saying that the police can't protect you every waking moment. I am saying that they have explicitly stated that they cannot and will not be responsible for doing so. Should you desire specifics, I will have to go hunting court records.
8: I should hope so. I'd hate to think you read this while asleep. Propaganda, via Websters: 1) Methodical propagation of a particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests. (True) 2) Material spread abroad by the advocates of a doctrine. (True) Propaganda is not, in and of itself, a dirty word. It is information distributed with intent. Note that I also included specifically the word 'disinformation'. Any of the statements I make as 'statements of fact' you are encouraged to look up the validity of. If you are not a good researcher, I may take the time to find links for you. Specifically this applies to my points 1-7, the second 8 (miscounted, oops!) and 10. Statements with 'I believe' in them are not subject to this guarantee, being grounded in opinion.
9: It being your blog, you are, of course, free to repeat anything you like that does not fall under slander laws, and I will not discourage you. It is notable, though, that when a fellow says something false once, it is easy to give him the benefit of the doubt and to believe he may not know better. If he is remanded to study the facts of the matter, yet the song he sings remain the same, other conclusions are likely to be drawn.
Your comparison to injecting heroin, while whimsical and having some shock-value, isn't particularly applicable. Medical proofs exist regarding the hazards of such activities and it is conclusively against the law. Firearms ownership is against some elements of our law, while it is upheld and supported by other, foundational laws.
Makes these debates interesting, doesn't it?
Greg said (at November 26, 2003 06:20 AM):
Hi Henry!
Two points.
1. A pistol grip does not necessarily allow for one-handed shooting. True, it makes it feasible, but you'd have to be 'Ahnold' and on a Hollywood movie set to actually hit anything with, say, an M16A2 (my expertise) whilst holding the rifle with one hand.
2. The older M16's had a flash suppressor that directed the flash equally in all directions outward from the muzzle. They improved upon that to direct it in a upward 180 degree arc which was to counteract the natural upward kick of the barrel upon the recoil of the rifle. It wasn't much of a help, but there was a noticable feel between the A1 and the A2.
So, flash suppressors don't really hide the flash, they just direct it somewhere, hopefully out of the line of site of the shooter.
Henry said (at November 28, 2003 07:35 AM):
Okay, I admit, I probably over reacted to Zjonni's post. I tend not to respond well to arrognace - and his pst was littered with it. That said, I responded more to his tone, then his points.
The main point, to which he was correct, is that I lack a strong enough foundation to adequate debate these things. I don't know one end of a gun from another - so I'm going to do some reading.
I may have more to say on the subject in a while.
Watergate with Wires
When I did my first entry on the whole GOP Hack into Dem computers thing, I (unlike some others) avoided the obvious Watergate tag. While the parallels of a GOP 'operative' breaking into a Democratic headquarters for dirt are there, this hardly rises to that level.
Then I saw Rush is comparing the leaker to Daniel Ellsberg.
This guy actually is our Daniel Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg was a hero. Daniel Ellsberg became famous during the Watergate era for something called the Pentagon Papers. He leaked official government documents to the press, The New York Times, particularly, about the Pentagon and the Vietnam War. He was hailed as a hero by the New York Times for leaking all sorts of stuff that the government was doing. He was elevated to liberal icon status. Why doesn't the left take this Republican Senate staffer and elevate him to icon status? If they liked Ellsberg, they've got to love this guy, if they are to be consistent, which, of course, they are not.
So...if we're going to be consistent, Watergate it is!
Comments:November 25, 2003
Matrix Revolutions
I finally went to see it. (Actually, I saw it on an IMAX screen, which was cool).
Overall, I thought it was a good movie. I don't mind the 'philosophical' elements woven through, and didn't think the 2nd one was too preachy. I find it interesting that some people viewed the 2nd one as all action, no plot and others thought it was too preachy. I guess those things aren't necessarily contradictory. [Warning - Some obvious spoilers to follow]
I do have a problem with the whole thing. There is supposed to be an, albeit fragile, peace between machines and the humans at the end. I keep replaying the end with the Oracle, and Neo and the 'Machine', in my head, to see if I missed some subtle suggestion that the peace is illusionary.
See, my problem is thus. As dumb a concept as it was, the original premise is that the machines had enslaved man because it needed man as an energy source - since during the war man blotted out the sun. So, how can there be peace. Isn't that basically a surrendering of the machines? And, if the machines can live without the human batteries, why did they use them to begin with? Why not just wipe them out?
I, like many people, have been assuming that the whole Zion - outside the matrix - concept was just another layer of the matrix - which would explain Neo and Smith's ability to exist in both places and have power in both places. There were plenty of hints towards this end, especially the whole cyclical concept that this struggle between 'the one' and the machines have all occurred before.
Though, if that was the intent, I missed any 'wink' at the end to clue the viewers in. The Oracle's conversation with the Architect at the end didn't really do it.
Knowing the attempt to weave a philosophical discussion into the movie, I can only assume I'm missing something.
Comments:Greg said (at November 25, 2003 11:51 AM):
I just finished the second matrix movie the other night. Having a little one around the house is a real touch hurdle to seeing anything at the theaters ;-)
The whole matrix layer thing was exactly what I thought when the cloned agent smith got zapped into the phone line ... a program couldn't exist outside of a system ... or so the theory goes. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the third one when it comes out on DVD.
Have fun!
Henry said (at November 25, 2003 11:55 AM):
Or when Neo stopped the 'squid' outside of the Matrix. He shouldn't have been able to do that.
His (Neo's) powers outside the matrix is stronger in the 3rd movie.
Loosening up
By the way, in case you're wondering if they're really campaigning (or if you're curious as to what the VP has been up to), let's look at Official Bush-Cheney fundraisers for November (Up to and including today). These only include 'official' BC events - not generic GOP or other political events. I give the date, then who appeared. (BTW, I'm pretty sure that on days where both appeared, it was separate events. Also, the VP sometimes did 2 a day. And I only listed the one).
25
24
19
18
17
14
13
10
7
3
Out of 25 days, I count 10 days with fundraisers. That's one out of every 2.5 days (1 out of 1.7 days, if you don't count weekends).
Comments:What to say, what to say...
I know that speaking at fundraisers is all stump speeches. I don't expect the topics to differ, nor for there to be any remarkable speech. However, someone on the President's team needs to work on his speech giving - especially his jokes. It's a little scary to see how closely he keeps to the script (Yes, This probably isn't overly important. Just.... interesting):
(Oh yea, these are excerpts, obviously, and not always in the order they came in the speech).
I want to thank all the grass-roots activists who are here with us today. See, it's important to make sure that we're well-funded; it's also important to make sure people get on the phones and put up the signs and go to the coffee shops and put out the word that this is an optimistic and hopeful administration who's getting the job done for the American people. (Applause.)
We're laying the foundation for what is going to be a great national victory in November 2004. (Applause.) I'm loosening up. I'm getting ready. But politics will come in its own time. See, I've got a job to do. I want you to tell your fellow citizens, this President is going to work on behalf of everybody to keep this country safe and secure, prosperous and free. (Applause.)
She's a great wife, a wonderful mother, and I'm really proud of the tone she has set and the job she's doing as our nation's First Lady. (Applause.)
Our country has had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. Mother may have a different opinion. (Laughter.)
When you're sitting around your coffee shops and community centers, you're talking up the campaign -- which I hope you do -- remind the people that I put together a great team on behalf of the American people -- people from all walks of life, people who have come to our nation's capital to serve their country....
Today we're laying the foundation for what is going to be an Ohio victory and a national victory in the fall of 2004. (Applause.) And I'm getting ready. I'm loosening up. (Laughter.) But the political season will come in its own time. I have got a job to do. I've got a job to do for all Americans, and that is to keep this nation secure and strong and prosperous and free.
My one regret about this event today is that Laura isn't travelling with me. She is a fabulous First Lady. She's doing a great job. (Applause.)
Dick Cheney, our country's greatest Vice President we've ever had. (Applause.) Mother may have a different opinion. (Laughter.)
We need you going to your coffee shops and your houses of worship and your community centers, and reminding everybody that this administration has got an optimistic, positive, hopeful agenda for everybody who lives in America. (Applause.)
I'm getting ready, and I'm loosening up. (Laughter.) But the political season will come in its own time. I've got a job to do. And there's a lot on the agenda in Washington. I'm going to continue, though, to work hard to earn the confidence of every American by keeping this nation secure and strong and prosperous and free. (Applause.)\
And I've got a great wife. (Applause.) I'm really proud of Laura. She's a fabulous mom, a wonderful wife, and a great First Lady for our country. (Applause.)
Our country has had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. (Applause.) Mother may have a second opinion. (Laughter.)
And by that I mean, when you go to the coffee shop -- and I know there are a lot of farmers here who go to the coffee shops -- (laughter) -- tell everybody, or when you go to community centers or your places of worship, you tell them that this administration is dedicating its efforts to making sure our country is hopeful for every citizen, that our message is optimistic
And I'll do my part, but the political season is going to come in its own time. I'm warming up and I'm getting ready, but I've got a job to do. I've got a job to do for our country, and there's a lot on the agenda. And I'm going to continue to work hard to earn the confidence of every American, regardless of their political party or where they're from, by keeping this nation strong and secure and prosperous and free. (Applause.)
But she is great. I am a lucky man that she agreed to marry me, and she's a fabulous First Lady.
We've had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. (Applause.) Mother may have a second opinion. (Laughter.)
When you put up those signs at the right time, knock on the doors, when you go to your coffee shops -- if you live in a community with a coffee shop -- you tell them that this administration is working for everybody
You know, I'm loosening up for this campaign. I'm kind of getting ready. (Laughter.) But the political season will come in its own time. I've got a job to do. I've been entrusted to lead this great nation, and I will do so. We've got a lot on our agenda in Washington, D.C. And what I'm going to do until the political season comes, I will work hard to earn the confidence of every American by keeping this nation strong and secure and prosperous and free.
Speaking about Laura, she just got back from a sensitive, diplomatic mission -- (laughter) -- you probably saw the picture in the newspaper. (Laughter.) But I'm proud that she represented our country, because she does it with such class. She is a fabulous First Lady. (Applause.)
Richard B. Cheney is the greatest Vice President our country has ever had. (Applause.) Mother's got a second opinion. (Laughter.)
I'm going to ask you to go to your coffee shops and drug stores and community centers and remind the people that this administration has got a message that is positive and hopeful and optimistic for every single American. (Applause.)
I'm getting ready and I'm loosening up. But there's a time for politics. This political season will come in its own time. Right now I'm focused on doing the people's business. I've got a job to do, and there's a lot on the agenda. I will continue to work hard to earn the confidence of every American by keeping this nation strong and secure, prosperous and free. (Applause.)
Speaking about wives, I notice Laura was doing a little diplomacy today. (Laughter.) I'm really proud of her. She is a fabulous woman, a great mom, a great wife, and a terrific First Lady for the people of this country. (Applause.)
Our country has had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. (Applause.) Mother may have a different opinion. (Laughter.)
I'm going to count on you for more than just contributions; I need your help. I need you to put up the signs, to mail out the brochures. When you go to the coffee shop, you look them in the eye and you tell them this administration has got a hopeful and optimistic vision for every single American. (Applause.)
There's a lot of talk in the air, a lot of political talk, and the truth of the matter is I'm loosening up, I'm getting ready. But the political season will come in its own time. I've got a job to do. I'm focused on the people's business in Washington, D.C. I've got a lot on the agenda, and I will continue to work hard to earn the confidence of all Americans by keeping this nation secure and strong and prosperous and free
Our country has had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. (Applause.) Mother may have a different opinion. (Laughter.)
Most of you probably wish you were at the fundraiser a month ago when Laura was the keynote speaker. (Laughter.) If so, you've got great judgment. She's a fabulous First Lady. (Applause.)
The man's been getting ready and loosening up since before September. How long does he need? (Or maybe, it's how much does he need?).
A little room to Breathed
I liked Bloom County, and was sad when it ended. So, like a lot of people, I was excited when I heard Opus was going to make a comeback.
Now, as I am an 'online' kind of guy, I missed the premier (which was paper-only), but read that people were disappointedwith it. Yes, I know, there was a lot of criticism about the demands B.B. made around the new Opus. It has to be large, only runs once a week, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway. The point is, that I saw the first cartoon, and I thought it was funny. Was it a clever political deconstruction of some pressing issue? No. It's not like he could have plunged Opus into the middle of a plot or whatever.
Instead, It gave us a glimpse into what Opus has been doing the last 10 years (Not much). The point is, that being critical about the first cartoon seems a little dumb
Give Opus a chance to shake off the cobwebs and find out what's going on in the world.
Comments:Why didn't they fix the 'nodding' too?
This story is making it way around the blogs.
Apparently, the RNC wanted to use a portion of the State of the Union Address in an pro-Bush, anti-Dem ad. The problem? Bush stumbled a little bit on one word in that section - so they edited it for the ad. It's unclear if they just fixed it digitally, or if they had Bush re-record the line.
While it may not have been the best idea for the RNC, I think it's a little overkill to make this an issue. It's not like they changed the meaning, or edited out something which later turned out to be wrong. They just fixed a flub.
Lets find better things to worry about, no?
Comments:November 24, 2003
the NRA is reported to be ...."pleased"
I'm not sure how I missed this, but apparently a small town in Kansas has passed an ordinance requiring all households to have guns and ammo. I'm not sure if they're trying to prove the theory that a heavily armed populace will prevent crimes, or just felt like they had nothing to do during that meeting.
The law would require that all homes within the community be equipped with a gun. The ordinance states that, "In order to provide for emergency management of the city, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition."
Alas, there seems to be a bump or two in the road to arming a city.
The legality of the law is currently being looked into, and a report is expected to be given at the next meeting of the Council on the first Monday in December.
Gerald Gilkey, Sumner County Sheriff, also expressed some concern over the proposed law.
"I obtained a copy of the ordinance and got a copy sent to the Attorney General," Gilkey said. "I think there are some loopholes in this, and I don't know if there is any constitutionality to it. It is my understanding that the law has been passed by the city council, but it has not been published yet, so it really has not yet become law."
Yes, there might be some constitutional problem with forcing people to keep guns and ammos inside their house.
Some.
Comments:Brett said (at November 24, 2003 04:57 AM):
But, according to the left, no constitutional problem at all with banning big guns, small guns, expensive guns, cheap guns, accurate guns, inaccurate guns...
There's an awfully long list of idiotic gun laws deserving of ridicule and derision -- California's "assault weapon" ban is a good start -- long before you ever get to this one.
Henry said (at November 25, 2003 07:54 AM):
Well, I'm not a gun person, so I don't understand what the problem is with the assault weapons ban, personally. I'm sure it's because they outlawed something which is not an 'assault weapon'.
This is a little off topic, but here's a funny thing about the 1989 CA law. It came, mostly, as a result of gun manufacturers who were trying to invalidate an early, much less broad, law. They either changed the name, or made small cosmetic changes, or both to guns that had been outlawed - in order to sell them.
So, the CA legislature responded with a much broader defined law, using federally defined characteristics as to what an 'assault weapon' is, rather than a name and a vague description, which had been thwarted by the gun companies.
I agree there's a lot of bad law around guns. The current trend of holding gun makers liable for things people do with those guns seems idiotic.
I think this law (requiring people to possess guns within their homes) is much worse than the 'Assault Weapons Ban'.
But as I said, I'm not a gun owner and don't understand what the problem is.
Brett said (at November 25, 2003 10:43 AM):
See, that's exactly the problem. You're like, probably, 80-90% of people out there: you don't have an understanding of the technical details of firearms. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean that you're susceptible to spin on this particular issue -- and there's an awful lot of it out there.
I'll blog a little bit on the "assault weapons" ban, to explain what firearms it does and does not cover, and also so that you can understand why the gun controllers' complaints that manufacturers "just made cosmetic changes" to the weapons they were selling are disingenuous. :)
Zjonni said (at November 26, 2003 05:18 AM):
Vide Switzerland's laws regarding militias and the landsgemainden (also here).
Perplexing Presidential Proclamations
I'm a little unclear on this Presidential Proclamation.
Strong families make our Nation better. They teach our children values and help them become responsible citizens. We must encourage families to be loving and compassionate, generous and supportive, and to serve and help others
Doers he mean all families, or just those he approves of.
We wouldn't want anyone to be accused to trying to 'destroy' families by participating if they don't meet the 1M 1F 2.5 kids, federally mandated definition of family.
Comments:Those Liberals in Washington
MSNBC has a story about the fiscal disarray that's occurring in DC.
"THE U.S. budget is out of control," the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs & Co. warned Friday in its weekly newsletter to clients.
In the final days of the congressional session, GOP leaders added billions of dollars to energy and Medicare bills to help persuade key factions to support the legislation. Overall, the energy bill would cost $33 billion and the Medicare bill $400 billion.
Less noticed were congressional moves to expand veterans' benefits by $22 billion and increase spending on forest-thinning projects from $420 million a year to $760 million to ensure passage of forest legislation promoted by the White House. Lawmakers are also trying to extend 14 expiring tax cuts through 2004, at a cost to the Treasury of more than $7 billion.
None of this is news, however. Since GWB hit the 'Trifecta', it's been spend, spend, spend and tax cut, tax cut, tax cut, and the hell with fiscal responsibility.
Now, I know the GOP is banking on the turn around in the economy to raise the money brought in by taxes - I would love someone who was more knowledgeable than me to chuck around the number that the GNP would need to increase in order to bring us back to non-deficit spending.
Anyway, You'd think, with a GOP President and with GOP control of both houses, that there'd be no question as to who is responsible for the ever expanding budget deficit. Of course, that doesn't stop the other side from pointing fingers (Emphasis mine):
"Conservatives are so afraid of losing their majority status right now that they feel a need to . . . pass the other side's legislation to prove how moderate they are," Reidl [From the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Think-tank - Ed] said. "But they're showing an astonishing willingness to spend now and dump all the cost in our children's laps, and an amazing unwillingness to reconcile the size of government with the amount of taxes needed to fund it."
That's deviously clever. The GOP gets to pass all sorts of fiscally irresponsible 'gifts' to their base/supporters - but then they claim they only did it as a nod to the Dems (or, more accurately, for the Dems - as the Heritage Foundation seems to be thinking these are Democratic initiatives). I would love someone from the Heritage foundation to explain which legislation belongs to the 'other side': Tax cuts (Most Dems were against) , increase in war spending (Many Dems wanted to make it less grants more Loans), Energy Bill (Most Dems are against), Medicare (Dems are against the legislation as written) the upcoming tax break for corporations.
I'm not saying there weren't poor budget choices made when the Dems were in charge - but you have to admit they at least tried.
Comments:The warmer side of Ann C.
I never read Ann Coulter. Well, almost never. I have, admittedly, spent time listening to Rush, Hannity, Savage, and a few other right wingers. I have always, despite the crazed anti-Clinton fever which they all seem to share, been able to stomach the ranting in order to get a glimpse of what conservatives think and why they think.
Coulter, on the other hand, make all of these guy seem like sweet old ladies. She is the most vile and inhuman columnist I have ever read. While I may not agree with the others, at least there is some semblance of an issue underneath the rhetoric. Coulter has none of that.
And, this week, in what has to be the most tasteless editorial ever, she uses the death of relatives of the presidential candidates to attack - something. I'm not sure what the point of the article is, beyond claiming these people are using the deaths of their loved ones as election fodder.
Among her thoughtful gems (Emphasis hers):
About John Edwards
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points
Howard Dean
Bizarrely, after working on the failed George McGovern campaign, Charlie Dean went to Indochina in 1974 to witness the ravages of the war he had opposed. Not long after he arrived, the apparently ungrateful communists captured and killed him. Hey fellas! I'm on your s-- CLUNK!
She even manages a dig at Kennedy
Howard Dean wears his brother's battered 1960s belt every day. (By contrast, Ted Kennedy honors the memory of his deceased family members with several belts every day.)
When will her 10 minutes be up?
Comments:
