Saturday, January 31, 2004

Well, CRAP!

OK, so I had a lot on my plate today, but I figured I could get it all done. Wake up before light, head over to a friend's place. Had to help a friend move out of a bad situation. Not just bad, but really screwed-up bad. Drive down to Tacoma to pick up U-Haul truck. Problems start. U-Haul is dicking around with my pal on the truck rental. Bad juju. Finally get the truck, and drive to house where we're grabbing stuff from. Get there late. Can't help move much except the heavy shit, because I have to get back to my house in order to meet with Analog Kid and work on new pistol. Get stuck in traffic. Pierce County can officially kiss my ass, and the next time some idiot wants to pull in front of me and hit his brakes, I ain't slowing down asshole! You'll have the brushguard of my truck RIGHT UP YOUR ASS!

Get out of Pierce County, hit Seattle, I-5 N is at a standstill. Find out that screaming "YOU ANNOY ME JUST AS MUCH AS YOUR CROTCH RASH ANNOYS YOU!" while waving middle finger at other drivers is not an effective method of communicating the fact that they're driving like a 90 year old granny on the interstate. Finally get away from Seattle, scream north at around 30-40 miles over speedlimit in order to get home. Miss Analog Kid by a few minutes, as he's already figured out that my lame ass is way late and has left.

Proceed cussing. Scare dog.

Spend a while reassuring dog that she's a good dog, and that Dave is just cussing out his own dumb ass.

Rinse, lather, repeat. I hate this town, the drivers in this town, and all the other various sundries that turn my life into a complicated play rather than a simple, smooth process.
The Council has Spoken

This weeks winners are The Heart Of Change by Alpha Patriot, and Saddam Lied, People Died, by Dean's World. You can find all the results here.

Friday, January 30, 2004

Coming soon to a theater near you!

William Saletan is great. Agree with him or not, he tends to have pretty objective reviews of the Democratic debates.

A few great quotes from this one:

Worst question. Brokaw to Clark: "Should there be, in your judgment, some kind of a compromise so people who believe in the Ten Commandments, or people of the Jewish faith ..." (I don't know what kind of Jews they have in South Dakota, but everywhere I've been, people of the Jewish faith are people who believe in the Ten Commandments.)


"In other words, Clark knew in October 2002 that the resolution wouldn't have served as leverage for a U.N.-based solution, because Bush intended to use it to go to war anyway. Which leaves Clark back in the position of trying to explain what the Clark of October 2002 was thinking, now that the Clark of January 2004 has discredited the Clark of September 2003. "

And Dean continues to prove that "YEEAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!" is not an acceptable campaign slogan.
More Proof that Michael Moore Lies

Brought to you by Useful Fools

They say that Bush "took the easy way out" by "using his connections" to fly in the Texas Air National Guard. My childhood best friend, John Robert Kelley also took this "easy way out." They had his memorial service in Albuquerque in July 1972 after he died in a training accident, flying a fighter jet in the New Mexico Air National Guard (the "Tacos"). Yep, that was the easy way out! John loved life. He was a fun guy, always with a prank or two, athletic and very intelligent. The last time I saw him, he was scheming how to get me a ride in his jet. Oh, and John didn't use any connections to get into the ANG, because it wasn't necessary. Every time I hear Bush slandered, I sadly remember this loss, and wonder at the lack of respect for the military so common on the left.

For your Consideration

I present this.

House Democrats yesterday proposed granting legal residency and the eventual option of U.S. citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants now working in the United States.

Laying out their own principles for revamping the nation's immigration laws in response to what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called President Bush's "political ploy," Democrats went beyond Mr. Bush's plan for a temporary-worker program and called for a system of "earned legalization" for illegal aliens.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Democrats proposed allowing illegal immigrants who have worked in the United States for a yet-to-be-determined minimum period of time to stay here and be granted permanent legal residency, creating a "pathway" to eventual citizenship.

So, Bush's bill is a bad thing (and I really can't find anyone who thinks it's a GOOD thing), but now the Donk's are going to take it one step further? I knew they were idiots, but I can't believe that they're this damn stupid.

Well, I can believe it with Pelosi, but the rest of them?

"The president's proposal is a political ploy, and not the solid foundation on which we can build an improved immigration policy," said Mrs. Pelosi of California. "Democrats have a better way."

Excuse me you Botoxed Bitch, but the fact that you can say that with a straight face tells me that your plastic surgeon overdid it with the needle. The only way you couldn't laugh after saying that was the fact that you are physically incapable of laughing.

Mrs. Pelosi said Mr. Bush's recently proposed plan doesn't create a meaningful way for illegal aliens to become U.S. residents or citizens; doesn't reduce the backlog of U.S. citizens' petitions on behalf of relatives who are here illegally; and doesn't help tens of thousands of teenage illegals attend college here and eventually be granted legal status.

In addition to proposing measures to address those concerns, Democrats endorsed a temporary-worker program that would give foreigners the option to stay in the United States and eventually earn permanent legal status here.

President Bush's plan, in contrast, would allow illegal aliens already here, as well as newcomers, to work in the United States legally for three years under a temporary-worker program. When their three-year permits expired, such immigrant workers would be required to return to their home countries.

"doesn't create a meaningful way for illegal aliens to become U.S. residents"? You're damn right! BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL, YOU BRAINLESS BINT! Let them come back when they've filled out their damn paperwork! Swimming across the Rio Grande doesn't mean you get to live here! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! HAS THE ENTIRE CITY OF WASHINGTON DC LOST THEIR EVER-LOVING MINDS???? DEAR GOD, IF THE ENTIRE CITY WERE BOMBED TO THE GROUND, THE AMERICAN IQ AVERAGE WOULD RISE BY AT LEAST 30 POINTS!!!

I couldn't believe Bush's proposal would help America. I still don't. It's a steaming pile of crap, and everybody with half a brain knows it. But this is even worse. You want to know why Bush can get away with ALL the crap he does? Because every time is base supporters are getting alienated, the Donks show that they're ten times worse. Every dollar that Bush spends, the Donks try to spend ten. Although when your party is led by a fucking communist, you shouldn't be suprised when they go off the deep end.

Anyway, John Cole (who the link above goes to) has this to say about the whole thing:

There are only two ways to look at, as either a cynical ploy or additional bumbling by these clueless nitwits. Let's examine the possibilities.

1.) A Cynical Ploy- While phrasing the President's policy proposal on illegal immigration and undocumented workers a 'political ploy,' it is entirely possible that this is nothing but sheer cynicism on their part. One of the major problems that Democrats in general have is on perceptions of national security, and one of the major difficulties for a Democratic candidate is a credible rush to the center after proving he was a worthy leftist in the primaries.

With that in mind, it might be possible that they floated this ludicrous amnesty for illegal aliens proposal so that the Democratic nominee can come out lodly and denounce it, thus having a Sister Souljah moment. The candidate could then swerve to the right of Bush, and point out that not enough has been done to secure the borders, etc. This is the only way I can see this proposal in a positive way for the Democrats.

2.) Additional Bumbling from the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight- There is a possibility that the hard left in Congress, led by Pelosi and Daschle, simply hate Bush so much that they created this short-sighted proposal just to have another opportunity to attack Bush and to do a little recreational race-baiting. If so, then they have cut off their collective noses to spite their faces.

Either way, Pelosi needs to be taken out back and shot. If not for this, then for the fact that she's used enough Botox for the entire San Francisco district.

I loath the Donks more and more with every passing day.

Thursday, January 29, 2004

That's right folks, it's time for the Third Installment of the Puget Sound Area Bloggers Meet, Greet, and Shoot. (which would make it PSABMGS III, but nobody would understand me if I put it that way)

Date: Saturday, February 14th
Time: 1000 hrs. (that's 10:00 AM for you civies)
Place: Wade's Eastside Guns (and range)
13570 Bel-Red RD.
Bellevue, WA 98005

MapQuest directions can be found here

Come one come all! Blogger or not, you're invited. Beginner, novice, intermidiate, advanced, or expert, we want you to show up. If you want to learn about guns, we will loan you our guns, our ammo, advice and pointers to get you started. I'll be bringing my .45 pistol, .38 revolver, and .22 rifle. We always have a good time, and you can't beat the companionship with a stick. Because the companionship will hit back. The range is indoors, so weather doesn't matter. You'll know who we are, because we'll be the big group outside in front, waiting for the doors to open.

Y'all c'mon en have a GOOD tahm!

Posting from me is probably going to be a little light over the next few days. I've got a lot on my plate, and I can't afford to slack off and not get it done. But I just had to link to an article that I found over at Ravenwood's place.

THE number of violent crimes soared last year, shock Government figures revealed yesterday.

Police recorded a 14 per cent rise in offences involving violence

Britain isn't doing so well on the crime issue, as I've tried to point out time and time again. They've disarmed the law abiding citizens, and now only the criminals have guns. The predictable crime wave is ongoing. I'm not going to post the whole thing, just the one part that I wanted to show everyone.

Britain dominates the top five in the crime league of Western countries, with only Sweden above them.

England and Wales have 10,608 crimes for every 100,000 citizens, followed by Scotland and Northern Ireland with 8,315.

Germany has 7,734, France 6,880 and America — known for violent crime — just 4,157.

Let that sink in for a bit. As of right now, thirty-six states have "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits. Anyone with a clear background can get a permit and carry a gun. The hoplophobes screamed that there would be shoot-outs in the streets, massive amounts of gun violence, the sky would fall, seas would boil, and the poles would reverse their polarity. And yet we have less that HALF of Britain's violent crime. LESS. THAN. HALF.

People who take on the responsibility of carrying a gun are not the criminals who commit crime. This is a fact that needs to be pounded into the politicians heads. I have a four pound sledge that will do the trick quite nicely. The BENEFIT of people carrying guns covers EVERYBODY, not just those who carry. How does a criminal know who's carrying a gun? They don't. They have to take their chances. And with every new carry permit issued, the chances that they'll get shot while committing violent crime goes up. As that happens, criminals either find a new venue for their crimes, or they find a new line of work. Everybody benefits from a concealed carry law, except the criminals.

The next time someone tells you how "violent" America is, just smile. And then re-educate them.

UPDATE: US Bureau of Justice statistics are in line with this report as well.

UPDATE 2: This map ties in very well with this post. It's a map of states that have shall issue CCW permits, from 1986 to 2004. Granted, it's not quite accurate, since many of the states it claims had no permit at all in 1986 allowed people to carry guns openly. But, it'll give you the idea. Found it at Random Nuclear Strikes.

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

USS Clueless has hit a condition that in anyone else would be called speechless. Why? Because of this:

In her new book, Danish Liberal EU spokesperson Charlotte Antonsen questions the use of referenda as a useful way to build up European democracy.

The book - "Towards the European Constitution" warns that the EU could fall apart if the Danish practise of consulting the people in referenda over important EU treaties is copied by other member states.

"Referenda have a very conservative effect on development. If the other countries copy us, the EU will fall apart", she writes.

Mrs Antonsen, a member of the Danish Parliament for the ruling Liberal party, argues that representative democracy is just as democratic as referenda.

"Referenda are in fact pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately".
(emphasis mine)

In short, if we can't get those stupid plebes to do what we want, we shouldn't let them vote. The arrogance, elitism, and lust for power are framed in five tiny paragraphs. It's breathtaking.

No wonder the Donks love the EU so much.

Someone is hiring.

BTW: if you have some money to invest and are looking for something promising, check out TYC.
Sometimes the Truth Hurts

The Myth of Unemployment in America

I am thirty-one years old and have never been unemployed. Let me qualify that statement: I have never been involuntarily unemployed. Every time I needed a job, it never took me longer than a week to find one. I looked in the "Help Wanted" section of my local newspaper, called to arrange interviews, and usually within a few days found myself hired. Some jobs paid better than others, some required physical labor, and most required long hours. But they all fulfilled the most important criteria of employment: they allowed me to pay my bills and keep Uncle Sam's well-chewed titty out of my mouth.

Yes, welfare bums, that was a slur aimed at you. For all of you out there on the dole (which is to say, on MY nickel), complaining about how you lost your job and you can't find work, my advice is this - GET OFF YOUR ASS. If you're on your sixth month of unemployment benefits, it's not that you can't find work, it's that you're in hiding, hoping that work doesn't find YOU. The excuse "There are no jobs out there" is bullshit. I defy anyone to show me a newspaper from any sizable American town with an empty "Help Wanted" section. The excuse at this point usually morphs to "Well, there are no good jobs out there."

Now we're getting somewhere. You're too good to drive a truck, cut grass, clean toilets, cook food, wash dishes, or paint houses, but you're not too good to accept handouts indefinitely. So, if that Wal-Mart greeter job paid $40,000 per year, you could conceivably be bothered to apply for it, but until that day, you'd rather Uncle Sugar just took some of my money and handed it over to you. So what you're really saying is that you don't want a JOB, you want a CHECK.

Bingo. I have never taken a dime of unemployment money, not even when I was laid off. Because I frigging WORK! And as long as it'll pay the bills, I'll do it! And if I don't like the job, I'll keep job searching, and looking for a way to improve my life, but dammit I'm gonna be working my ass off at the same time! I. Will. Pay. My. Rent. And I will do it by my OWN damn sweat and blood.

Trust me, you'll want to read the entire thing.

Hat tip to Random Nuclear Strikes.
Suffering Slings and Arrows Needlessly

I am venting frustration that my representative leadership shouldn't make a half assed effort to defend their postions.....or hesitate to go on the offensive in order to ensure that they are properly represented.......this applies equally to any journalist, pundits, and even bloggers that share our ideology.

Check this:

Former US weapons inspector says Iraq war was "prudent"
Tue Jan 27, 8:35 AM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - David Kay, who recently resigned as the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq (news - web sites), said it was "absolutely prudent" for the United States to go to war there.

"In fact," he told NBC television, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war.

"It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and ... terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."

Kay pointed out that prior to the war, the French, the British, the Germans and the United Nations (news - web sites) "all thought Saddam (Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction. Not discovering them tells us we've got a more fundamental problem."

He said "the tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House, is absolutely wrong."

Saddam "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could."

"We have collected dozens of examples of where he lied to the UN, violated Resolution 1441 and was in material breach," Kay added.

He noted that Saddam "had the intent to acquire these weapons. He invested huge amounts of money in them. The fact is, he wasn't successful."

In addition, he said it was "quite common" for Iraqi scientists to be "reporting back successes that they were not having." There was "a tremendous amount of corruption there and lying that went on there" in Iraq.

He said the scientists described to him an Iraq, from 1998 on, "that was descending into the utter inability to do anything organized. Corruption was there. They couldn't get the equipment. Money was wasted."

But Saddam's intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction "was absolutely there," Kay told NBC.

The White House insisted Monday that the US-led war in Iraq was "the right decision," despite growing doubts about US charges that the Iraqi leader possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a dangerous and gathering threat, and the president made the right decision to remove him from power," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Monday.

McClellan strove to limit the fallout from remarks by Kay, who just resigned as chief of the US-led effort to find the weapons at the center of President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s case for launching the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Kay said Sunday that he did not think Saddam possessed such arms at the time the war began. US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said a day earlier that it was an "open question" whether that was the case but insisted that the ousted Iraqi leader planned to develop them.

That almost sounds like Kay totally thinks we did the right thing doesn't it?! So WHY out of all the coverage of Kay's statements, would one get the impression that the only pertinent information Kay divulged was "WMD didn't exist in Iraq before OIF"?

We know why we thought they were there. Donks would rather we forget! The possibility that they were evacuated, hidden and the key to their location destroyed, or disposed of in some other way still exists. Kay even mentions that they could have moved some stuff to Syria and or that records that have been destroyed could shed further light on the issue.

Answer: For one, Bush did a pathetic job of explaining this to the press in the interview I saw (he was visiting with a world leader). For another, I went through all of the online conservative news resources to see if Kay's statements had been addressed......nada (but maybe there are a few I am unaware of)!!! Even the conservative blogging community has (for the most part) failed to address this new information in a way that supports our efforts. We know better than this, and we are wasting opportunity and resources while our adversaries and their press work tirelessly to destroy us. If we (from Bush to Bloggers) don't address critisism as quickly, directly, and effectively as possible....we are pissing away all the good work we have done.

BBC chairman to quit over Hutton

The poor dumb bastard sexed himself right out of a cushy job.

David Kay: “I think at the end of the inspection process, we’ll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war.”

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

These people are, in my opinion, the enemy. As usual, all emphasis is mine.

Dylan Huber, a 31-year-old from Berkeley, drove the Kucinich "Democreation" bus from California to New Hampshire. Dylan, who usually doesn't vote Democrat, got turned on to Kucinich by a friend.

"I vote Green, or I write somebody in," he said. "I'm pretty much a nonbeliever." Asked what that meant, he said, "What's the word? Disenfranchised. That's me."

Oh really? He's disenfranchised? Let's look that word up, shall we? From


adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote

Has he been deprived of that right? No, he's driving a bus for his candidate! That's just about as far from disenfranchised as you can get! These people are voting, and they can't even figure out what the hell they're saying!

"We came from Colorado," said Dara Blumenhein of Boulder. Her companion, Mel Rensier of Boulder, said "Our goal is to raise the issue of youth politics and music."


Danielle Feris of New York City stood in the snow holding a Kucinich sign for hours.

"I love Dennis because he shows me how we can have a world where I can be free to be who I am, I can feel safe, and everyone in the country can be safe and happy. Um, yeah."

Yeah, that's the ticket! If we could all be free to be who we are, the world would be a happy place with snuggly bunnies and rainbows! And I think I just figured out who our troll is!

Back at the UNH rally for Kucinich, which was dubbed a "party," not a rally, the scene was more laid back. No one pressed his views on anyone else. Everything was "cool, man." Derek Garcia, a 22-year-old volunteer from Albuquerque, said he was first attracted to Kucinich by "his courageous stance against the 1972 ABM treaty, which begins to allow the weaponization of space."

So a treaty that bans ballistic missiles caused the weaponization of space? Um.... sure buddy, go take another toke. Go read some of the descriptions of people. It's insane. These are quite honestly some of the most idiotic people I've ever read about. They're almost painfull in their stupidity.

Kucinich himself arrived at the party after 10:00 and roused the crowd with phrases like, "Are you ready for free college tuition?!" and "Are you ready for social and economic justice in a nation that doesn't have any?!"

DUDE! Free beer and pizza for everybody! FREE FREE FREE! And like, I'll end all war and have like, PEACE, dude!

After Kucinich left, the party calmed and people began to file out into the subzero New Hampshire air. Walking by the "Democreation" bus, which was parked in front of the event, one student summarized her thoughts about the evening to a friend.

"It's an awesome idea," She said. "A world where everyone lives in peace and harmony, where there's no war. It's a f***ing awesome idea! But you know what? It's never gonna happen. A billion dollars in my pocket is an awesome idea, too. But you know what? It's never gonna happen."

Probably the only semi-intelligent thought from the entire night. These are practically the people that Ari and I are surrounded by. I have co-workers with "Kucinich for President" stickers all over their cars. Kucinich bankrupted a major US city, and these people think he can do any better with the entire country?

Even worse, these people are still going to vote, after Kucinich loses the Primary. Dear god.....

What Al Franken did with his arms and back, academia does every day by fiat on campuses across America.

And while we're at it, it's been almost a year since Glenn over at InstaPundit started drawing attention to the "crushing of dissent" across America and across the world. I think that in the beginning he did it to lampoon the American Lefties who were waxing uberIndignant about the Dixie Chicks getting tossed off ClearChannel and Susan Sarandon being uninvited from the Baseball Hall of Fame and stuff like that. But it's doesn't seem funny anymore. Go here:

InstaPundit.Com Search

Search for "Crushing of Dissent".

Just remember folks, when the Donks talk about free speech, they ain't saying that it's for YOU. It's only for THEM.

Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.

Why did Stuart Smalley, the world's least funny third-rate hack comic assault someone?

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

So, because he's for free speech, he tackles someone who excersising that right. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Sure. Remember folks, the Left will be the first group to scream about free speech, and they'll be the first group to stifle it.

Censorship is almost exclusively the tool of the left now. When was the last time anyone on the right even tried to silence someone? John Mitchell couldn't even make his own wife shut up. But the left does it all the time. They try to get Rush taken off the air. They pass Orwellian, authoritarian rules on college campuses, essentially forbidding anyone to say anything negative about anything the left likes. They throw eggs at Arnold while he campaigns for governor. They barge onstage while President Reagan tries to accept awards. Now they've progressed to outright beatings.

Ah well, just another reason to dislike the Left.

So those people at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who are decrying bad intel re: Iraq were trumpeting that same intel just a little while ago.

People are arriving early at the airport and they are stting around and they are getting soused at 10am and this is happening more and more and more often. If I wasn't a total shitforbrains, I'd have bought stock in Aramark and other companies who manage concessions at airports. But I am a shitforbrains, so I didn't.

John Kerry on Gun Control

Zogby: They're not just for Democrats anymore! (I don't think they ever were, but the title sounded good. So no offense to the Zogby guys)

Anyways, on to the bad news! (for gun grabbing communists gun-fearing wussies anti-gun moonbats "gun control" advocates) As usual, all emphasis is mine.

Zogby International has conducted the first installment of its 2004 Zogby Values Poll, surveying 1,200 voters nationwide on issues that included firearms and hunting. Working with the Tower Center for Political Studies at Southern Methodist University and the O`Leary Report, Zogby`s questions interestingly examine differences in thinking between people living in the states that voted for George Bush in 2000 (Red states) and Al Gore (Blue states).

The survey examined how Americans feel about Right-to-Carry laws, with the pollster asking: "Currently 36 states have laws that allow residents to qualify for a permit to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they pass a background check, if they participate in firearms training and pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Do you feel this is a good law or a bad law?"

Voters overwhelming favor these self-protection laws by a margin of 79% to 18%. Right-to-Carry drew better than 70% support in every demographic group, with even non-gun owners indicating their backing by 73% to 23%.

Communists, you have a problem. You can't take over a country when most of the people have the means to resist you, can you? It's pretty hard to implement a system that takes away private property when the person who owns said property can blow you away.

More importantly, I think this shows that the American public realizes that people have the right to defend their life and home through any means possible. People understand that criminals don't care about anti-gun laws, background checks, or any of the other gun-control measures put in place. A gun in the hands of a private citizen is the failsafe, if you will. It's the last measure when all other measures fail, and unfortunately those other measures fail with alarming regularity.

Voters were asked: "Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal product that is not defective should be allowed to be sued if a criminal uses their products in a crime?"

Voters in both Red and Blue states strongly oppose such lawsuits - 74% of the former and 72% of the latter. In fact, a majority in every demographic group opposed the lawsuits; the most strongly opposed, at 83%, were current members of the military and their families.

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, do you sue the hammer company? If you stub your toe on a table, do you sue the table company? If you drive your car off of a cliff, do you sue the car company? Then why the hell would you sue a gun manufacturer for the use of a gun? It's not the gun that commits a crime, it's the person HOLDING the gun! Once again, people see that.

The survey also asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime; Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control."

By a better than two-to-one margin - 66% to 31% - voters nationwide agreed with Statement B. Only self-identified liberals called for more laws, by a 53% to 44% margin. Moderates solidly favored better enforcement, 62% to 34%.

Once again, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! You could come out with a law that says all gun owners have to wear orange hats, and law abiding citizens would be easily identified. Criminals would continue to ignore the law and commit crimes! Every new law restricts a private citizen, while the criminal just ignores it. How many gun laws are on the books now? I've heard the number 20,000 bandied about, and I wouldn't doubt it a bit. How much good are those laws doing? Zilch.

Voters were asked: "Do you agree the NRA is right to fight gun control on both the federal and state levels?" NRA`s support stood at 64%, with a party affiliation breakdown showing Democrats siding with NRA 54% to 42%, and Republicans 73% to 22%.

You think you're going to see this particular poll in the Mass Media? I'll bet anyone $5.00 and a pound of smoked salmon that this piece is buried as far in the back as possible. You show me a local paper with this poll on the front page, and I'll send you the salmon and a check.

More and more people are realizing that a gun is an intert object, capable of doing nothing on it's own. It's a piece of metal and plastic that is only activated when someone uses it. If you want to control crime, you have to control the people who commit the crimes. Restricting private citizens from owning firearms doesn't do you one bit of good. All you do is turn that person into a victim.

I'm not a victim, and I refuse to be turned into one.

Hat tip to Kim du Toit.

Al Franken speaks at a Howard Dean fundraiser.

Monday, January 26, 2004

If you don't click here and listen to Wing's cover of The Carpenters epic ballad "Close To You", I guarandamntee you that you will spend the rest of your life feeling like you missed out on something.

FINALLY THEY GOT AROUND TO IT!!! Kobe Bryant might be being accused because he's black.

Today I got an email:


I finlaly was able to lsoe the wieght I have
been sturggling to lose for years!

And I couldn't bileeve how simple it was!
Amizang pacth makes you shed the ponuds!
It's Guanarteed to work or your menoy back!

Come on. Is anyone **really** clicking around when they receive this shit?

Here is something interesting from "Democracy Now!" It features a reporter following Wesley Clark around a New Hampshire town, asking him questions about civilian targets struck during the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO troops led by Clark.

What I found most intriguing is almost off topic. When asked about the NATO bombing of Radio Television Serbia, in which sixteen civilians died, Clark says: "Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew."

He personally called CNN and had them leak the story?

Warning - Nudity!

British Labour uberLeftist Clare Short is trying to shut down the Sun of London's breast-laden Page 3.

Page 3 is returning fire.

"Mother Nature made them, Mother Nature made men love them! Go away fool."


I'm not dead, and the Patriot Act sucks

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.

Today, a portion of the Patriot Act was declared unconstitutional. As far as I'm concerned, the less of that act that goes into effect, the better.

My feelings on terrorism and security are simple: our security measures do nothing to help fight terrorism. All they do is inconvenience us.

Let's use airplanes as an example. Consider this: over the last 15 years, maybe half a dozen American planes have been hijacked (coming out of America, not coming into America). This includes the 9/11 planes. Now let's do some math -- let's say, for argument's sake, that 500,000 planes take off from airports all across America in any given year. This gives us a total of 7.5 million flights over the past 15 years, of which 6 have been hijacked. Those hijacked planes represent 0.00008% if all of the flights.

Or, to put it another way, 99.99992% of all of the flights in the last 15 years had no incidents.

Folks, we consider that a nearly perfect success rate. It's not 100%, but nothing ever is. Most security plans aim for 99% effective or higher -- maybe 99.99% or so. This is above even that.

So we have to ask ourselves: what is the use of these security measures? My answer is the same as gun-control laws: none at all. In the extremely unlikely event that someone wants to do something, they will find a way around it. They always do. Think a law banning knives will keep them out of airplanes? Try again -- I could build a knife that would get past metal detectors, and I know virtually nothing about building weapons. Someone who does know something could do much worse.

So what do these laws actually do? Well, they inconvenience everyone because of a very few. Because someone hijacked an international flight, my flight from Seattle to Chicago goes through insanely stupid security measures. Come on, let's face it: no one wants to blow up a domestic flight for the same reason that no one wants to blow up the McDonald's down the street for me: there's no press in it. Not internationally, anyway. And in the end, terrorism thrives on press.

The Patriot Act exemplifies this mindset: because a few people aren't very nice, we have to spy on everyone. There's no real reason for it except to give the government more power to spy on its citizens... something which it has no business doing. "Innocent until proven guilty" means that we are assumed to have done nothing. The Patriot Act ignores this.

Like it or not, we have a reactive justice system -- we catch criminals after they have committed a crime. It's integral to our way of life, and it's enshrined in our Constitution. Things like the Patriot Act and airport security measures give us the illusion of protection in exchange for our personal liberty, and the sooner we expunge that mindset from this country the better.

Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security.
-- Ben Franklin
Reason #1,456,823,859 to NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!

Because the Feds don't keep their word.

The Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently reversed itself and said it would publish personal information--including e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, and phone numbers--of those who had commented on a government proceeding in 2003. The TTB is the successor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the enforcement sections of which are now part of the Department of Homeland Security

Just remember that when they talk about firearm registration. "Oh, we'd never use it for X or Y, we only want it for Z!" Yeah right. Uh huh, suuuuuuure.

The brouhaha began in March 2003, when TTB solicited comments about a proposal to raise the tax rates of flavored malt beverages, such as Smirnoff Ice, which combine beer and distilled spirits. At that time, the TTB announced in the Federal Register that "for the convenience of the public, we will also post comments received in response to this notice on the TTB Web site. All comments posted on our Web site will show the name of the commenter, but will not show street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses."

News of the proposed changes spread, and by October, TTB had received some 9,900 e-mailed comments and about 4,800 delivered via fax or mail.

Then the department changed its position on posting private information

Giving money and power to the government is like giving car keys and a bottle of whiskey to a teenager - P.J. O'Rourke

The TTB's decision, based strictly on convenience, is one, that if taken by a private firm, would draw the attention, and likely the ire, of consumers and governmental regulatory agencies alike, said Hunter.

"If a private sector company had done this, solicited personal information under the promise of privacy and then reneged, they would undoubtedly have attracted attention. It would be the grounds for a lawsuit if a private-sector entity attempted it."

Sounds like a good idea to me!

Hat tip to Kim du Toit.

Andrew Sullivan rips into John Kerry "to a fare thee well".

Legendary Philadelphia Flyers broadcasters Gene Hart used to use that term on a regular basis, as in: "The Flyers are forechecking the Capitals to a fare thee well."

The things that make it to print in Knight-Ridder newspapers, my goodness. This one is entitled "20-somethings respond to Bush" but all it does is regurgitate Al Franken.

Examining media bias regarding firearms.

BTW, did anyone catch the C-SPAN2 "debate" between Al Franken / Eric Alterman and Laura Ingraham / Tucker Carlson? It was very instructive, most notably on how rude Alterman and Franken are. Alterman spent the entire night making pithy remarks and then smirking lovingly at someone in the audience; one person, all night. Perhaps his girlfriend, or boyfriend, or publisher.

But the question is this: are Conservatives dimwitted? There's Franken with his incessant attempts are dry humor (which the audience lapped up) and Alterman with his caustic rhetorical questions, and there's two people on the other side who can hardly muster a sentence. Are there no quick-witted Conservatives?

Check out this "media mutual fund projects" page at RTMark. I like the first project where you strap stencils across your bicycle tires, fix a little paint roller and paint tube to your bike seat, and your bike becomes a rolling graffiti machines. Also note the quick bio of the person who manages that little corner of Moonbatland.

Make sure you read the project descriptions. Some are pretty neat.

Sunday, January 25, 2004

Attention RNS Fans!

Nukevet has finished upgrading the Random Nuclear Strikes website, and the new URL is Adjusting the blogrolls would be appreciated, as his old host has been a royal pain in the ass, and is refusing to transfer the old domain name to the new domain. For those who want to run their own blog, avoid iPowerWeb like the Black Plague. Nukevet can give you the horror stories.

In any case, you can find them at the new URL. And since I'm all about that Linky Love, let me give them their first link at the new digs!

Apparently, you can buy anything over the web.

You love me! You REALLY love me!

This weeks winners in the Watcher's Council were my very own entry, and Good Morning Mesopotamia! Chapter 12: Near a War Zone; In a War Zone by A Mullings Travelogue. You can see all the results here.