When if not today was the relationship between freedom, individual liberty, art, guns, and ammo, ever clearer than with the release of the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, wherein the scholarly Justice Scalia blasted his way through the false and nonsensical arguments of those who would claim that a citizen has no right to protect himself, his home, his family, and his art, with a locked and loaded weapon of his choice (within reason). The Supremes blew through the facile suggestion that all rights are collective, and struck a hammer-to-firing-pin-precise blow for individualism (which is of course the first ingredient of art – ammo being the second). The brilliant court, hanging on by a 5-4 thread against the onslaught of those arguing the discredited philosophy of disarmament, recognized the right and the need for the individual to protect himself not only against criminals but against his own government!
Nothing in the opinion lifts restrictions on use or traffic in machine guns, sawed off shotguns, bazookas, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars, flamethrowers, and other radical weapons, whether or not they are in fact helpful to release of one’s true artistic essence or just plain fun. But we digress. Whether it is paint or ink or electrons or flaming tracer bullets spewed from a semi-automatic rifle, we live once again in an America protected from the creeping spread of conformity, regulatory power grabs done in the name of political correctness, and the sale of bland pacifistic impotence and surrender disguised as hip enlightenment and cool disengagement.
To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.
This was the ancient law of youth.
Old times are past, old days are done;
But the Law holds true, oh little son.
– Charles T. Davis
June 30th, 2008
Posted by
The Strafer |
Law |
no comments
Oh, the Sophistication. Roger Kimball sums up the philosophy of our times: “It is an axiom of criticism that the extent of our disillusionment is a reliable index of our wisdom: the idea that somehow the less we believe the more enlightened we are.” That’s what makes Truthers impervious to contrary data.
In that context, one thinks of Chesterton’s famous observation: “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” But do you believe Chesterton really said that?
Passing the Buck through History. “Yesterday Britain’s woes were blamed on the ‘credit crunch’. Then they were blamed on global oil price. And today it is all the fault of Margaret Thatcher. Tomorrow, it shall all be the fault of Benjamin Disraeli, and the day after it will be Julius Caesar. After more than a decade in power, nothing, it seems, is the fault of New Labour or Gordon Brown.” Archbishop Cranmer.
Passing the Buck through Sophistry. “Today, this day, 34 Americans will be murdered by guns. And again tomorrow, and the day after. America experiences a Virginia Tech massacre every day . . . but try finding a majority in Congress who’s willing to stand up and be counted, who’s willing to take on the National Rifle Association. Democrats, Republicans, independents, they’re all terrified. And people die as a result. Children, parents, police officers.” Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York.
It seems that every time one element of society goes bad, some other group engages in copycat crimes. Guns have gotten so much press that knives are now jealously trying to get into the act. We may soon see reports that cooks (who tend to own a lot of knives) are experiencing a higher rate of insubordination from their tools.
Yellow Science. “In the late nineteenth century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.” So begins the article “Yellow Science” in First Things by James Kerian. If you can’t guess the subject of the article, you haven’t been paying attention.
June 29th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Ammo |
no comments
The Canadian Human Rights Commission backed down and dismissed the “hate speech” complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s.
Macleans, the “winner” (if you can call it winning after having to defend your right to speak the truth) had this to say:
In keeping with our long-standing position that the article in question, The Future Belongs to Islam, an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s best-selling book America Alone, was a worthy piece of commentary on important geopolitical issues, entirely within the bounds of normal journalistic practice.
Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the whiners, said the dismissal was “predictable, given the political climate and the campaign against the commissions themselves.”
“We are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under (the hate speech section of the Human Rights Act),” he said.
“Inappropriate political pressure” is what you have when citizens question the HRC’s kangaroo courts. An “internal review” is what you have when you want to be sure “inappropriate political pressure” doesn’t get in your way in the future.
The real loser, the Canadian people, had this to say through their spokesman David Warren:
It is against this background the CHRC decided that the better part of valour is discretion, and that it truly did not need to be prosecuting such high-profile targets as the bestselling author Mark Steyn and the mainstream newsweekly Maclean’s, at the present time. The CHRC can retrench, and return to its bread-and-butter business of destroying little people who command no publicity — biding their time until circumstances are propitious to “extend their mandate” again.
And no doubt the HRC will continue merrily along unless the “political pressure” forces an “external review.”
June 28th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law |
no comments
Let’s Have a Picnic in the Oil Patch!
By Paul Gleiser (reprinted by permission)
Please forgive me for again going on about oil prices and the need to change U.S. policy with respect to domestic exploration and production. I know I’ve been on that topic pretty relentlessly of late but I can’t help it. There are two factors dragging heavily on the economy right now. One is credit market turmoil and the other is high oil prices. The former will work itself out over time but the latter will only get worse unless we change course now.
I have a proposition. Let’s all get together and invite Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and John McCain to East Texas. Talk about bipartisan. We’ll make history.
OK Paul. We’ll invite them. Why on earth would they come?
Simple. To eat ribs. Really good ribs. We’ll just get the four biggest names on the American political scene all together on a picnic lunch hosted by us and catered by the Country Tavern.
Why the Country Tavern?
Because it’s close to where we’re having the picnic and the ribs are really good. We’ll round up the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and the two presidential candidates, all of whom oppose drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), spread out some blankets, break out the ribs (and the sauce — good Heavens, don’t forget the sauce!) and we’ll have a lovely afternoon at the site of the Daisy Bradford #3.
Now if you don’t know your East Texas history, the Daisy Bradford #3 is the oil well drilled by Dad Joiner in 1930 and bought (some legends say won in a poker game) by H.L. Hunt. It’s the well that put East Texas in the oil business. It’s still the largest oil field ever discovered on the North American continent and it’s the well that put H.L. Hunt on the way to being the richest man in the world for a good part of the 20th century.
The Daisy Bradford #3 has been producing oil for 78 years. So have wells all around it in the Woodbine formation of East Texas. Lots and lots of oil.
Now this is the part where you have to look at the pictures.
The Daisy Bradford #3
Treating our politician guests to a picnic next to an oil well that has been producing for nearly 80 years will serve to give them a real world lesson on the impact that oil production has on the environment.
Which is to say, next to none.
The land upon which the Daisy Bradford sits and the land all around it is without question some of the most beautiful in Texas. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the pictures. The Daisy Bradford is surrounded by towering trees. (No, Ms. Pelosi, they’re not giant Redwoods like you find in the Muir Woods outside of San Francisco. But they do block out the sun and create a canopy over the road and they really are pretty and we’re proud of them.)
The well itself sits on land covered by naturally-occurring grass. Perfect for our picnic. In fact, the land would make a beautiful rural home site.
Now Madame Speaker and Senators, feel free to wander around on the site. Look for the environmental damage. Oh, no, that’s OK. Take your time.
But when you’re through looking at least acknowledge the obvious. After nearly eight decades of producing oil, the land is as pretty as it was when Dad Joiner spudded the well.
Now that we’ve had a nice lunch, Madame Speaker and Senators, you can look at the land upon which you are sitting and explain to us again why we can’t drill ANWR. You can tell us again how producing oil in a tiny piece of a large tract of federal land will cause such grievous harm that it’s worth foregoing the positive impact that nearly 1.5 million barrels of additional oil per day from a domestic source would have on the price we pay for gasoline.
And you can try to back up your assertion by pointing to the site of the Daisy Bradford #3. The fact that the land is pastoral and suitable for a picnic lunch after nearly 80 years of producing oil shouldn’t dissuade you.
Lord knows, nothing else has.
For more of Paul Gleiser visit KTTB Radio.
June 26th, 2008
Posted by
Paul Gleiser |
Politics |
no comments
Justice Alito writes:
The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
Those evolving standards of decency (in truth nothing more than the sensibilities of five judges) apparently find the rape of a child a little more palatable than in times past. This is progress?
June 25th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law |
one comment
The lost Amazon tribe photographed on the Brazil-Peru border is not a newly discovered tribe. The hoax perpetrated by environmentalists prompted this observation:
Even in an age when cynical sleuths can hyper-analyze stories for truth and accuracy, the occasional hoax still slips through the cracks. Such was the case with a so-called “lost Amazon tribe.”
Astonishing. Those who seek the truth are cynical. They hyper-analyze. And only an “occasional” hoax still slips through. It didn’t take long to expose this hoax, unless you compare it to the forged documents used by Dan Rather to tar President Bush on 60 Minutes. That hoax was exposed within the hour, although Rather still stands by it as “fake but accurate.” And “occasional”? Doctored photographs are driving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The much-hyped Haditha story has recently fallen apart.
The cynics in these instances are not the ones who expose the hoax, but the journalists who find fault with the public for not swallowing their narrative hook, line and sinker.
The Guardian has the full story of the lost tribe hoax. Carlos Meirelles, who took the photo, works the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, Funai. Funai has known about this tribe for decades. But it teamed up with Survival International, an environmental group, to publish the photos in order to influence logging policy. According to Mereilles, “Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists – now we have the pictures.”
[Survival International] defended the disturbance of the tribe saying that, since the images had been released, it had forced neighbouring Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives, as a result of the international media attention.
Now that Meirelles has harassed the tribe (they reportedly flee their homes when buzzed by aircraft) and made it famous (probably prompting others to seek it out), he takes a high moral tone on the need to leave the tribe undisturbed.
[H]e is determined to keep the tribe’s location secret – even under torture, he says. “They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else.”
After using the tribe to serve his own narrow agenda, he is determined that nobody else do the same. How laudable.
June 24th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
The issue will be taken up by the Supreme Court – whether the Navy’s job is to protect marine wildlife, or us.
So far, federal courts in California have held that marine wildlife is more important than your life. This is the mindset of those ever willing to gamble that any threat to our national security is not real. Meanwhile, the evidence that sonar is harmful to marine life is inconclusive.
Sonar, which the Navy uses primarily to locate enemy submarines at sea, can interfere with marine mammals’ ability to navigate and communicate. There is some evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand on shore.
The government also says national security interests can trump those of marine mammals, and that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn’t caused any documented harm to dolphins or beaked whales.
The court ordered to Navy to shut off all sonar use within 12 nautical miles of the coast or within 2,200 yards of a marine mammal. By this ludicrous logic, the Army should have to clear its artillery ranges of all mammals before training, and the EPA might as well mandate fuel efficiency standards for tanks and F-16s. For that matter, maybe the military should be required to file an environmental impact statement before opening fire.
The Navy’s use of sonar is a direct function of the President’s war-making powers. The courts have no legitimate function in that arena and are quite simply attempting to balance the need for national security against environmental concerns.
Some environmentalists said the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case will finally settle what takes precedence – national security or environmental protection.
That seems like an easy question to answer, but it’s the wrong question. In fact, balancing national security against the environment is exactly what the courts have done so far and what they have proven utterly incompetent to do. The real question is whether the environmental regulations should restrict the Navy’s tactics at all. The courts have said so far either that the environment is more important or that the Navy does not need to train in peacetime for the job it would be required to do when a real threat occurs.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will do the right thing, but there is no reason to be confident of that – not from the court that just extended civilian due process rights to enemy combatants on foreign soil.
June 23rd, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law |
no comments
Consider the Source. CBS News and the AP jumped on the story about how global warming is causing a massive increase in the severity of earthquakes. The story – oops, it’s not there anymore because, as these sterling news organizations discovered too late, the scientist pushing this theory is one sandwich short of a picnic. He says that global warming is also heating the earth’s core and the whole world is about to explode.
Chalko also runs a website for followers of the Thiaoouba Prophecy, which preaches that advanced beings from the planet Thiaoouba abduct one Earthling every century and impart unto the chosen-one the true meaning of life.
There’s more here.
Advice for the Canadian HRC busily deliberating over what to do about Mark Steyn. P.J. O’Rourke writes in a somewhat different context: “There are no thought crimes, no philosophical felonies, among a free people.”
Defeminizing the Schools. A feminist says women teachers (and about 90% of primary school teachers are women) need to let boys be boys.
‘I’ve been in classes with young female teachers and by the end of the session my ears hurt,’ she added. ‘Women need to step back and shut up.’
Pinochet lives on. Richard Armitage must have been “disappeared” – the tactic ascribed to former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet. How else to explain the pervasive absence of Armitage’s name in the media? The man who admitted outing Valerie Plame has been erased from history as the media spin a narrative more suited to their fantasies. Beldar has more.
June 22nd, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Ammo |
no comments
If you can’t find it at Wal-Mart, you probably don’t need it. That’s what the locals here said when I moved from the city looking for greener pastures – or actually for pastures of any color (things don’t stay green here for long). Those trips back to the city that we made frequently at first are becoming more rare. Wal-Mart is the place to go for groceries, hoses, underwear, digital cameras and, yes, ammo.
Wal-Mart is also becoming a major player in the music business. The New York Times carried an article about the deals Wal-Mart is making directly with musicians.
The deals highlight the changing dynamics of the music industry as once-powerful labels decline because of the migration to digital downloads. To fill the gap, musicians are scrambling to connect with fans, and Wal-Mart is using these exclusive deals to assume a new role: hit maker.
Groups like the Eagles and Journey are selling CDs at $11.98 and pocketing about half of that amount. The consumer pays less and the musicians make more. Hmm. Maybe the Maryland legislature or the anti-Wal-Mart blogs could find some unfairness in that.
To those who cannot pronounce Wal-Mart without a sneer, this is the kind of thing that makes Wal-Mart a success. Traditional record retailers, a dying breed, are trying to play catch-up.
Yes, Wal-Mart opened its superstore on the edge of town, and there is some empty retail space on the main street, but many of those businesses were defunct before Wal-Mart arrived. And the retailers on Main Street as a rule never offered pay and benefits that could match Wal-Mart.
This is not to say that I don’t have occasional complaints about Wal-Mart, but the vitriol that Wal-Mart generates is irrational. Some people combat terrorism, or poverty, or ignorance, or injustice – and some have such frivolous priorities that devote their lives to combating a retail chain.
June 21st, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music, Ranching |
no comments
It’s a cow! In honor of the blessed event, today’s martini should be accompanied by the traditional cigar. (I get one of these only on very rare occasions.)
(Martini Image by Ken30684 - Creative Commons)
(Cigar Image by MarkNick - Creative Commons)
June 20th, 2008
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure |
no comments
