"......how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm..."
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
More evidence here. I think it's time you gave that Nobel back, Al.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
"Being tenured in the liberal arts building is hardly an indication of brilliance. It merely suggests that one had an abnormal tolerance for being lectured to as a young man and an overwhelming urge to lecture others as an old man."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Update: This post from Bob Krumm is interesting too. It's mainly about the immediate politicizaton of the tornados that swept over parts of the South earlier this week but he alos highlights what's wrong with our approach to the whole question of global warming:
"I’m not a GW-denier but I am a skeptic. I’m also a statistician and I haven’t yet seen the evidence that indicates the following:
1. The world is warming outside of normal variations
2. Man is a significant cause of that warming
3. On balance the effects of warming are more bad than good
4. Man can take steps to reduce the bad effects of the warming
All four of those conditions must be true before anything we do anything has any positive effect but only the first has any evidence to support it–and even that is inconclusive. Yet some people want to jump straight from #1 to #4. That’s preposterous. And it’s certainly not science."
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Glenn Reynolds happened on a comment Bill Whittle made about the situation and as usual, Bill has exactly the right perspective on the situation:
After seven years of watching and fighting against Americans who wish to see the country suffer so that they can get at George Bush, the last thing I wanted or expected to see was conservatives saying they would rather see the country suffer than support John McCain over Clinton or Obama, so that they can "get the blame."
A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either.
I am not impugning anyone's motives. I believe I have a reasonable understanding of principled behavior. But if your goal is to see the country punished because---
You can stop right there. If your goal is to see America punished, and her people open to attack and/or ruined financially in order to prove a point for any reason, then you do not deserve politial power nor are you likely to achieve it. A party is a compact. It is, essentially, a pledge of mutual support. As a matter of fact, it's nothing more or less than a promise.
A political party is a series of personal compromises in order to achieve a goal unattainable by the perfect political party: one's own self. If McCain is the legal and lawfully selected nominee, and Republicans decide to walk away from their party in droves, what makes them think they will be able to count on those who, you know, actually went out and voted Republican either joyfully or through clenched teeth, in order to prevent The Deluge?
If your idea of any political party is one that means unlimited support for your personal values if your candidate is ascendant, while you in turn owe none to those you dislike or even disdain, you might be in for a surprise in future elections.
Speaking as a FredHead myself, I am bitterly disappointed that I did not even have the chance to vote for a man I admired, and am more distraught still to find myself in the position I now occupy. I see many, many worrisome things about John McCain, but being tough on terror and spending are not among them. We could do worse. Two names come to mind immediately.
Much is said about principles, and since I am not able elect anyone BY MYSELF I have entered into this pact with the group of people who I feel most comfortable with in terms of values. If they, as a body, choose a candidate who is not my first, second, third or fourth choice, then I can look to the Democrats. There I find views so antithetical to everything I believe that I realize there is indeed something to this idea of party loyalty.
And I cannot help but think that such a kind and practical man as Ronald Reagan would be amazed that his name was being invoked so frequently in order to insure that the most liberal, socialist, power-hungry statist in my living memory is elected. I'm glad he's not here to see this because if he knew the consequences of what was being done in his name, I believe it would kill the man.
As John McCain's own mother suggested, if he is the nominee, I'll just have to hold my nose and vote for him. I won't be happy about it, but as Bill makes clear, the alternative is far, far worse.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
"In his recent memoir, Alan Greenspan says he's been pushing a constitutional amendment of his own devising. It reads: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." If the Greenspan amendment is ever enacted, it will at last clear the field for Fred Thompson, who might then become president. But not until then."