The Guns Of Britan

Michael C. Moynihan posted this over at Reason:

"Following the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, in which seventeen people were killed by a man armed with two 9mm pistols, Britain passed a law outlawing the ownership of most handguns, despite researchers finding "no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession." It's a law so severe that the Britain's Olympic shooting team is forced to train abroad, lest one of its members try to shoot up a grammar school. So how effective has the law been? A doubling in gun-related crimes since the ban, naturally."

Naturally. Isn't it simply amazing how well intentioned laws passed in the heat of the moment often end up bring about exactly the opposite of the intended effect? You can not legislate people's actions, even if you are motivated by the best of intentions.

CWCID: Instapundit

Totalitarianism Lite

Mark Steyn recently wrote at NRO:

“To require law enforcement to police every routine area of social interaction is to render civilized life impossible and to make more and more citizens the arbitrary victims of a kind of Totalitarianism Lite.”

How true.

Since we no longer hold people accountable for their actions at the appropriate level nor do we have agreed upon standards for civilized behavior anymore, the unwitting result is that we all suffer from an extremely subtle and invasive form of totalitarianism in a country that used to pride itself on its rugged individualism.

A case in point – I was once phoned by our young miss, who at the time was about 12, and told that she had been chased home by a group of girls from her school that were intent on beating her up. She was understandably upset and had run all the way home with this group in hot pursuit. When I arrived home we went back to the school to visit the vice principle who after hearing us out told me, since the incident had not occurred on school property, he could not do anything. He assured me that the girls in question were frequently in trouble at school and that he wasn’t the least bit surprised by their behavior. Then he suggested that I file a police report!

After I finished laughing he again urged me to contact the police. When I told him that I thought the police had more important things to do he said that filing a police report was what he would do. I again assured him that I did not think the police needed to be involved and that the parents could and, more importantly, should be the ones to solve the problem. He provided me with everyone’s phone numbers after we came to an understanding about how I had obtained them.

I am happy to report that after a number of phone calls and more than a few adult discussions about appropriate behavior apologies were offered all around and accepted. End of problem.

But what of the school administrator who felt so strongly about involving the police? What about all the ridiculous restrictions placed on our institutions which, in turn, actually contribute to and promote this type of behavior? When did we as a nation devolve into citizens who were unable to mediate the problems of a handful of pre-teens without the intervention of the police?

Perhaps most importantly, why are people so comfortable with this state of affairs and what is it doing to our national character?

Quote Of The Day

"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up. "
- Lily Tomlin

Liberals Read More Than Conservatives?

Leave it to Pat Schroeder, the liberal former Congressional Representative from Colorado and current president of the American Association of Publishers, to make something like reading, political. Here are her comments from a recent interview:

"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes’. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Then, of course, it takes a conservative woman, author and publisher, Mary Matalin, to bring something like common sense into the discussion when she said "As head of a book publishing association, she probably shouldn't malign any readers," It seems that the APP might want to reconsider their choice of association president since I didn’t notice “Alienate conservative readers” anywhere in their mission statement.

While the AP-Ipsos poll apparently found that liberals out-read conservatives, the truly disheartening news was that 27% of respondents had not read a single book during the last year. How are we to have a vigorous and informed debate of the issues if citizens do not read? And those that did read were reading mainly popular fiction and religious books, not political works.

So, in rebuttal to Ms. Schroeder I would say “Patsy – I’d be willing to bet that once you subtracted the pop-up books the liberals counted in their responses, the conservatives would have a commanding lead.”

After all, there is something to be said for quality over quantity.

The Definitive Word On Global Warming

Would You Accept A Glass Of Kool-Aid From These People?

This article has to be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated - How We Won the Mainstream By Susan Gardner and Markos Moulitsas, published in yesterdays Washington Post. I swear, if I read these fools touting their role in Ned Lemont's primary victory over Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the last truly decent men in the Democratic Party, ever again.... It is unfortunate for our entire electoral process that these political neophytes fail to recognize who currently represents the state of Connecticut in the United States Senate - AND IT AIN'T NED LEMONT.

But its the dawn of a new age in Progressive politics don't you know.

"In fact, we pushed the party so far left that we positioned it squarely in the American mainstream and last year won a historic, sweeping congressional victory, something the "centrist" groups had been unable to accomplish for decades -- not even in the DLC's glory days of the 1990s."

What?

Anyone that believes this unadulterated nonsense is in for a really unpleasant, life-altering, political awakening. The claims made in this article are based on the thinnest of political resumes and can only be promulgated by those drinking from their own personal gallon-sized Kool-Aid container.

All I want is a front row seat to watch this entire juggernaut crater and burst into flames.

Cheeseburger Imperialists

Who could possibly combine NASA's underwhelmingly reported correction of their global warming statistics together with The New Republic's fake Iraq diary story and top it off with spot on commentary about how the United States is viewed throughout the world?

Why, Mark Steyn, of course.

God Save The BBC

Antony Jay writes with a former insider's prospective at Times Online about how, after increasing public scrutiny, the BBC has discovered its leftward leaning tendencies. These four sentences deftly summarize my thoughts about liberals in this country as well:

"We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual elite, full of ideas about how the country should be run. Being naive in the way institutions actually work, we were convinced that Britain’s problems were the result of the stupidity of the people in charge of the country.

This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world."

Apparently, it is a global hallucination.

Please take the time to read the entire article. It offers observations from the inside of this particular institution and provides a historical perspective about how the BBC evolved to its current state.

If the British are re-evaluating the role of the BBC, hopefully we will see other bastions of media liberalism coming under increasing scrutiny as well.

But It Wouldn't Hurt....

As usual, Mark Steyn is spot on with his comments at NRO about Stu Bykofsky's column:

Nuking Cleveland Won't Help [Mark Steyn]

Stu Bykofsky filed a column this week headlined "To Save America, We Need Another 9/11":

"What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?
A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically... America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack...
Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?
If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail..."

Our pal Michelle Malkin responded:

"He wants more Americans murdered on American soil to “sew us back together?”
We don’t need healing. We need the half of the country that doesn’t believe we are under threat from global jihad to wake up and smell the suicide bomb smoke."

And that's right. But there's another point to be made.

I get a ton of mail every week along Bykofsky lines: "Oh, this country won't get serious until there's another attack." Sorry, but don't look to a big smoking crater in Buffalo to save us.

For a start, the author overstates the immediate unity post-9/11. Even then, there was a big difference between the "righteous rage" crowd and those who wanted to wallow in bathetic weepy let's-hold-hands-and-drone-"Imagine" candlelight vigils and retreat into antiquated tropes about "root causes" like global poverty (notwithstanding the middle-class backgrounds of Mohammed Atta and co). The second time round, there won't even be a momentary veneer of unity. The angry left will be demanding by lunchtime "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" and citing eminent scientists such as Professor Rosie O'Donnell to demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have been anything but an inside job. The less angry left will demand not a punitive military response but a 12-month blue-ribbon commission co-chaired by Lee Hamilton to call witnesses and investigate where the Administration went wrong. Less motivated types will be convinced - like British public opinion after the Glasgow attack and the sailor kidnappings - that it's blowback for Iraq. And a big chunk of the rest may even plump for the Spanish option post-Madrid: Oh, dear, we seem to have caught your eye. What would it take for that not to happen again?

The split in this country is real. The so-called "singular purpose" of Fall 2001 was mostly illusory. Lightning won't strike twice, even if the Halliburton Tsunami-Hurricane Machine wants it to.
08/10 04:34 PM

And don't misunderstand my position - I think Steyn nails it with his analysis and I agree with him wholeheartedly. My title for this post is not to be construed as agreement with Bykofsky in any shape, manner or form - it is merely a play on the old Borscht Belt joke.

Fred Thompson Fact

As always, from IMAO:
"When will Fred Thompson enter the race?
The day after what from then on will be known as Fred Thompson Eve."

Then, of course, the first comment had to be "And that day itself will be forever known as "Fredmas"."

At The Corner K-Lo is reporting that Fred Thompson will announce on September 5th according to Tim Russert on Meet The Press.

From Kossacks to Centrists?

This ridiculous statement is being reported at Pajama's Media (emphasis added):
"At his opening day press conference for the annual YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, Kos told the assemblage: “There is no Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party anymore. We are the center.”

Someone ought to have pointed out to Markos that if he and his "progressives" are "the center" then he has a much larger political problem than he originally thought - because that means the vast majority of this country is to his right. And always has been.

Markos also said this during his keynote address at YearlyKos:
"I’m given a great deal of credit for our movement’s success. But let’s be brutally honest – what I’ve done is... build a website.
Let me say that again – my chief accomplishment the past five years has been building a website."

The second quote certainly illuminates the first.

Fred Thompson Fact

From IMAO:

Newton's Three Laws of Physics:
1. Object's in motion tend to stay in motion.
2. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.
3. Don't mess with Fred Thompson.

More Bumper Stickers

I love bumper stickers, though there seems to be a raging debate that they are useless since you can not fit your entire world view on them. Franky, I'd be more concerned if you could. All that follow were stolen from the comments section at Villainous Company:

Running from conflict has never worked before. Why would it now?

Afraid of having to fight for your freedom? Do NOT volunteer.

United States of America - Spreading freedom, One victory at a time.

Intelligent debate means never having to shout louder than your opponent

Before entering into an exchange of ideas MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AT LEAST ONE

Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry, accountable or accurate.

Frederalism

The following is from a recent article written by Fred Thompson. Take the time to read the entire article and see if you don't agree with his position.

"The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t."

No - they certainly don't.

This is all about power; how we protect ourselves from too much power being concentrated in too few hands and about how we maintain our liberty from our own government. And the fact that since we don't teach American history in our schools anymore, that one in ten voters would probably not be able to define Federalism for you.

Bumper Sticker Watch

I saw a car with Ontario license plates traveling south on I-71 today. It had the best bumper sticker I have seen for quite some time:

"If you can not stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them."