Know Them By The Words That Come Out of Their Mouths

Due to my recent schedule, I had to drive for an extended time again this morning. Which meant my senses were assaulted for the third morning in a row by the political ad of Mayor Steve Lonergan, attacking his fellow Republican candidate for New Jersey governor, who I believe is Chris Christie.

This ad makes much hay out of Mr. Christie's statement to "Know people by their words" and then goes on to attack him for not being sufficiently aggressive in cutting taxes, for recognizing that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and concluding he is not a conservative.

So, I will judge Mr. Lonergan's campaign by his words, which inexorably leads me to the conclusion that conservatism has been reduced to tax cuts and opposition to womens' reproductive rights, no matter what.

That's it? Because those are your words.

Sure, who doesn't want to pay less taxes? But what about other considerations, like balancing budgets and fiscal strength and responsibility? What about schools, roads, and the common good, in general? Not conservative enough?

And then there is the tired old saw of abortion. Really, can conservatives just get out of the bedroom, and out of the womb. What? Two Supreme Court decisions on abortion aren't enough? What, you want some more do-overs?

Abortion is the the right what gun control is the left: an albatross.

How about working to make abortion less necessary? Assisting in making adoptions easier? In counseling more young single mother's to be, and supporting health care for them and their children in utero? Because you are not winning the argument now.

Seriously, in brief, this continued cynical attempt to thwart the lawful process by appointing judges of certain predispositions on the Supreme Court, only so they can toss nearly 40 years of precedence out the window is truly myopic. And they complain about judicial activism!

Anyway, moving on, my next target is once again, the man who would love to be Darth Vader, Dick Cheney [sorry, Darth]. This guy just cannot shut his trap. He spent eight years hiding from the press in a secure, undisclosed location, refusing to tell his bosses, [us], who he spends his time with, and coming up with nefarious plans to poke holes in the Constitution. The man blocked his house on Google Earth!! Now he cannot find a microphone he doesn't vomit his stupidity into.

Apparently, according to Politico's Ben Smith, Mr. I Had Other Priorities So I Got Five Deferments While Nearly Sixty-Thousand Fellow American Boys Died For The War I Supported has poured forth this gem from the gullet of Hell that is his mouth:

""Everybody's in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve," Cheney said. The negotiations are "bound to fail unless we are perceived as very credible" in threatening military action against Iran, he said."

So, Dick has finally been revealed to be the paranoid-in-need-of-serious-meds that he truly is, and further, his war mongery knows no bounds. Back in 1971 Black Sabbath wrote a poignant song, and Dick Cheney fits the bill. As sung in War Pigs:

"Politicians hide themselves away. They only started the war. Why should they go out to fight? They lead their own to the boar."

Mr. Cheney failed to see the wrongheadedness in the misadventure in Southeast Asia; he failed to anticipate anything but a smooth invasion and occupation in Iraq [as if history would teach anything but]; and he now calls for intimidating Iran into giving up their nuclear ambitions. This guy should quit while he is still in double digits in poll ratings.

Let's see: the Bush administration's hard line on Iran and North Korea bore so much fruit that we could almost have enough to paint a still life. In that time the Hermit Kingdom, which lacks enough oil to keep the lights on in Pyongyang over night, went from zero nuclear weapons to about six, and actually exploded one small one [though it might have been a dud]. They also were so terrified of Dick Cheney they launched several long range missiles, happily all of which were dreadful failures. And Iran went from being the pariah nation in its region to veritable non-nuclear regional superpower.

Who would have thunk taking out the biggest counterweight to Iran in a vain war of choice would have upset the regional balance of power? That's almost more difficult to divine than a hurricane over-topping the levies. Except you can't control hurricanes, which is unlike whether or not you choose to invade a country that never attacked you.

With geopolitical skills like this Dick Cheney's talents were wasted as Vice President. He should have gone out for something more challenging, like firearms safety instructor. Err, whoops. Maybe dog catcher.

Somebody please indict this war criminal just so he will have an attorney tell him to shut up and not incriminate himself any further!!

Finally, I would like to point out that if Mr. Cheney would actually have liked to intimidate the Iranians militarilly, it would have been nice for him to have not handed the incoming administration two land wars in Asia. You know what they say about land wars in Asia.

As today is thursday, I am going for the trifecta, and the third victim of the Witchhunt is the newspaper I love and hate equally, the New York Times.

Today, in the Op-Ed section there was an editorial about an amendment to a credit card bill which permits visitors to national parks to opening carry firearms.

Initially, my response to this is "So what?" Firstly, it's not as if the bill permits the open carrying of firearms in Times Square [not that I would mind so much]. It's in a National Park. And not that it is a prime concern, but at times there are animals that might need a little more than the usual incentive to stay away. And of course, there is the most dangerous animal one might encounter in a national park: Man.

And then the writer begins to get truly shrill, failing to make a cogent argument, and rather, descended into the logical fallacy of the red herring:

"And why should the national parks, which are supposed to be peaceful preserves, be filled with loaded AK-47's and other war weapons?"

Apparently, the writer of this incredibly stupid Op-Ed piece has no idea what they are talking about, and decided to mask this by going straight for the hyperbole. What if a law abding citizen just wanted to carry his trusty old shotgun? Would that be okay with you, Mr. or Ms. Shrill?

And when you thought it couldn't get worse, it does. Continuing:

"The gun lobby already has poisoned the proposal to let the District of Columbia have a voting representative in the House. The Senate's gun lackeys tacked on a vindictive amendment to strip the district of basic gun control powers, inviting assault and sniper rifles designed for military battlefields into homes and businesses."

Hmm, let's break this one down a little bit. The first clause of the second sentence uses "vindictive", as if the gun lobby, or anyone else, had a score to settle with D.C. What, I don't know. Maybe someone just needed a cool sounding word to sex up the sentence.

Then the writer goes into "inviting assault and sniper rifles designed for militarybattlefields into homes and businesses." First off, why lump assault and sniper weapons together? These are totally different types of weapons, for different uses. Further, most sniper rifles are modified bolt action sporting rifles. This truly evinces the total ignorance of the author, who is more interested in fancy words than reality. And the use of such sporting weapons in crimes is so minimal as to approach nil.

Next, I continue to take umbrage at the term "assault rifle." I dare anyone, especially those in favor of their banishment, to come up with a workable definition of an assault rifle. Truly, an assault rifle is more of a chimera than anything. And the fact tht the ignorant bandy around the phrase is what chills the lawful gun owners in America.

Moving on, the phrase "designed for military battlefields" is clumsy, as well as extraneous. Are there any other types of battlefields? And what does their design have to do with the issue at hand, which is lawful ownership? Doesn't every single police and sherrif's department in the country have such weapons? And for what reason? Because those are what modern firearms are comprised of. I fail to find any actual argument underneath these explosive words.

However, such weapons like the aforementioned AK-47, as well as other similar semi-automatic rifles, are ideal for home and business defense. Which brings me to the third clause: "into homes and businesses."

It would seem that the writer at the Times has abandoned any pretext, such as 'put these weapons on the street' or 'in the hands of criminals' and instead have gone after lawful ownership of weapons for home and business protection. As if such ownership is not an individual right guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the Consitutition, and pursuant to the recent Heller decision. As if such ownership is a bad thing.

And this piece castigates the 27 Democratic Senators that voted for it. Ummmm, helloooo New York Times!! If you would take a second and come down from your ivory tower it would be obvious that the Democrats control Congress largely because of the election of centrists who favor gun rights, not bans.

Honestly, this is why people hate the New York Times.

Know them by their words, indeed.

Yeah, Actually Gun Control IS a Bad Strategy

I used to write letters to the New York Times regularly.  As of now I will write my responses here.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I value the NYT as an excellent in depth source of news, and I have read the Op-Ed pages since college, and am a current subscriber.  I tend to agree, or at least sympathize with the opinions there.  That is, except when there is a piece about gun control.

Since the election, The Times has run several pieces on gun control, always from the anti-gun left, specifically by Bob Herbert and former President Jimmy Carter .  I am part of the pro-gun left, and my panties get in a bind when I read their pathos based arguments.

The most recent example of this dynamic is a piece by Dorothy Samuels entitled "The Deadly Myth of Gun Control in Electoral Politics," which postulates that the assault weapons ban of 1994 did not cost the Democratic Party the House in 1994, and therefore, the Democrats should stand up to the NRA.  Obviously, Ms. Samuels, living in whatever bubble she does, hadn't taken notice of all those red states going blue via pro-gun Dems the last two cycles.  Can anyone say "Jim Webb"?  It's only two syllables.

President Obama, his past be damned, has been smart enough till now to moderate on gun control, and say good things about the Heller decision.  He is an astute politician, who games out each situation, and is not likely to swing hard one way or another.  Considering his votes in the past, this is a smart thing to do, and I am sure it contributes to his overall popularity, notwithstanding the reported panicking among gun owners awaiting the "Obama Ban."

However, the point that Ms. Samuels misses, but which the Dems seemed to have learned, is that they only lose elections over the issue of gun control.  There is an excellent reason for this: the people that care most about the issue are the millions of Americans who are gun owners, and gun control laws tend to be badly written by people who have no knowledge of firearms.  As was pointed out in President Carter's Times piece, there are 280 million guns in the United States.  That's about 20 for every illegal immigrant, and we all know we can't get rid of all those immigrants, so we certainly can't get rid of all those guns.  But that also means there is a MASSIVE portion of the electorate who have a vested interest in preventing gun control, especially when widespread bans are written by the same people that brought you the Tax Code.

For instance, a recent bill in the legislature of the great State of New Jersey sought to ban .50 caliber weapons.  All .50 cal weapons, whether it be a .50 cal Hawkins or a .50 cal S&W or a .50 BMG.  Now, if you, gentle reader, don't know the difference, yet think it might be a good idea, that's my point.  And if you do, you can see the idiocy, and can understand why gun owners are a powerful voting block.  The apparent idea behind this was that .50 is a large bore, so it must be very powerful, so it must be banned.  The problem is that one of the above guns is a black powder weapon from the 18th Century, the second a pistol, and the third an extremely powerful rifle round that has never once been used in a crime.  Why would anyone waste paper, much less time in a legislative session trying to ban any of them, except due to ignorance?

Therefore, gun bans tend to be written by people who are unfamiliar, and therefore afraid of guns.  Gun owners are legion.  The Democrats are successful when they allow people to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment, and not make them into criminals overnight by the stroke of a pen.

Ms. Samuels attempts to make arguments that because President Obama won, that the NRA gun lobby has been defeated.  This misses the point.  The NRA does not speak for all gun owners, and rather has relegated itself for the time being to the fringe.  Perhaps it was Mr. Obama's astute moderation which ameliorated the lobby's screeching of an impending gun ban.  But to fall into the trap, and actually put forth a gun ban, would be the stupidest piece of "strategery" since I heard Sarah Palin argue that we don't need to know the causes of global warming, only what we have to do to stop it.

How about this: since 280 million guns are too many to dispose of, instead of making this a for guns/against guns issue, let's make it about being responsible gun owners.  Remember those bloody films they showed high school kids about the dangers of driving like an idiot, with titles like Bloody Asphalt and Death on the Highways?  Perhaps American should come together, accept like adults there are so many guns, like there are so many cars [which are umpteenth times more deadly than weapons], that we have to all work together for responsible ownership.  Such a position would please the people who are reflexively anti-gun, as it increases overall safety, and would please the gun owners, as they are not being treated like proto-criminals.