Author: Kevin

You Need to Read This

I’m STILL struggling through Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (after the first 350 pages it’s either getting better no other option or I’m getting numb) but one of the points she bludgeons into a bloody pulp makes is absolutely true, and still relative – as illustrated by Randy Barnette’s most recent post to GlennReynolds.com. Excerpt:

As you probably know, the idea that truth is “socially constructed” has been in vogue in academia for some time. I never took it that seriously and only mention it in passing in The Structure of Liberty. I did not think very many people could possibly believe it, or at least believe that, if true, it had any practical implications. Hey, even if the world is socially constructed, if we cannot willfully reconstruct it as we prefer, then it’s pretty much as irrelevant as the old speculations that we are just a brain in a vat or that the universe exists in a drop on some cosmic chemist’s workbench.

Since the 2000 election, however, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world — a world where “truth” is their own construction.

Go read the whole thing.

And think. Hard.

Dept. of Our Collapsing Schools

I found this by way of Caerdroia. Sung to the tune of Gilbert & Sullivan’s “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General”:

I am the very model of an Education Minister;

My arguments are tortuous, my motivation sinister;

But though my plans are ropy, and my reasons even ropier,

I’m laying the foundations of a socialist utopia.

I’m well aware the arguments the Tories use to blame us is

that schools without competition will foster ignoramuses.

But tolerating independent schools will be hypocrisy

since freedom’s incompatible with genuine democracy.

I want to see that everyone learns socialism properly,

and this is only possible inside a state monopoly;

All schools that I don’t recognise will therefore be prohibited

and any private tutors will be flogged or even gibbeted.

All middle-class morality I promise to eliminate;

Exams I shall abolish, since they certainly discriminate;

A college with a vacancy selecting its own candidate

will quickly wish it hadn’t, when it finds I have disbanded it.

I’ll throw away all covenants and charters international

with which I disagree, and which must therefore be irrational;

I short, in all of Europe from the Parthenon to Finisterre

I’ll be the most intolerant, intolerable Minister.

It would be funny if it weren’t apparently true.

It isn’t Paranoia if They ARE Out to Get Ya!

Sitemeter let’s you look at quite a bit of data for free. One thing it tells me is that about 1% of my visitors come from the server at Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP (Hi there!!) and among the services provided by Emmet, Marvin & Martin, LLP is “Intellectual Property Litigation.” In fact, they say:

Our litigators also have expertise in the area of intellectual property. Our attorneys in the department have had extensive experience in litigating claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition in both federal and state courts, and claims under the Copyright Act. We have also represented clients in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark office. In addition, we have developed expertise in the areas of false advertising, trade secrets and theft of ideas litigation, rights of privacy and publicity, and libel and slander (both individual and trade libel or disparagement).

Should I be worried?

BOHICA! (Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)

It would appear from initial reports that someone, either a council member or someone accompanying a council member, managed to get into the New York City City Hall and opened fire on one or more councilmembers. Security guards returned fire, at least a dozen rounds were fired, and at least two people were hit. One, councilman James E. Davis has died. Mr. Davis was heavily involved in gun control. According to this Fox News report, he was speaking to the shooter when the man drew and opened fire. According to this MSNBC report the shooter targeted one person and shot him several times (I assume the victim was Davis.)

As of this moment, the situation is extremely confused. The second person hit has also reportedly died, and is the shooter. Police are apparently still looking for a man in a blue suit. (In NYC? Please!)

Mayor Bloomberg has stated that the act wasn’t terrorism, but how he’d know is beyond me.

Apparently the shooter was able to sneak a handgun past the metal detectors and kill a gun control proponent.

Wanna bet the gun control groups use this incident to fight for renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban?

Update: Reports are now that the shooter, one Clarence Askew, is dead, and that Davis shot him, or, alternately, a security guard did. Apparently they came in together, and neither had to go through a metal detector. Odd.

I think I scooped Instapundit on this one.

Further update. Reports that Davis fired back are apparently in error. The perp was killed by security.

More: Here’s the AP release on the incident. More of the same.

Oh, Sure. This’ll Work.

Emasculated England Dept.

Reuters reports that those wacky Brits are considering a new tactic in the fight against crime, asking the criminals to apologize in order to avoid court.

Criminals could avoid being taken to court if they agree to apologize personally to their victims, under plans outlined by the UK government Tuesday.

The proposals — dubbed “restorative justice” — could see offenders held to account by their victims, in some cases by-passing the court system, Home Secretary David Blunkett said.

“Supporting victims and witnesses better is not just about what happens in the courtroom, it is also about the impact that crime has on their lives,” he added in a statement.

“Being a victim of crime can be a harrowing and traumatic experience…Restorative justice means victims can get an apology from their offender.

“It (also) provides the victim with an explanation of why the crime was committed.”

Doesn’t that just make you feel good? Isn’t that just caring and spiritual?.

The announcement comes just a week after figures showed a 28 percent rise in violent crime in England and Wales over the past year.

The data also showed a 16 percent increase in drug-related crime, although overall crime dropped by two percent.

The Home Office said the initiative would target offenders guilty of anti-social behavior as part of a wider strategy to put victims at the center of the criminal justice system.

It will be used to keep some offenders away from court, as well as being tied into sentencing and probation conditions, a spokesman said.

The scheme brings victims and offenders into contact, either face-to-face or through a mediator. As well as helping victims, restorative justice “forces offenders to understand the damaging effect their crimes have on their victims,” the spokesman said.

The Chief Executive of charity Victim Support, Dame Helen Reeves, said the strategy was good news for victims of crime.

“This strategy brings the promise of statutory rights for victims…which should bring substantial benefits for people whose needs have too often been overlooked in the past,” she said.

How about caning for “anti-social behavior.” Then the perp can apologize.

Spoons was right.

Randy Barnett Makes an Excellent Point

Randy’s been guest-blogging for Glenn Reynolds at GlennReynolds.com over at MSNBC. I commented on an earlier post below. His most recent entry is about “reasonable regulation,” and it’s a good read. Some excerpts:

Several readers have offered comments on the issue of “reasonable regulation,” which I said no individual rights scholar claims to be any more objectionable than time, place, and manner regulations of speech. They only insist that, under the Second Amendment, such regulations would be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as regulations on speech and the press. No more, and no less.

That had been my position prior to what it is now: This far, no further until the right is recognized as individual and protected under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment against infringement by the states. Randy has something to say about that, too:

There is less gun regulation today precisely because the right to bear arms is not protected by courts. Because prohibition and confiscation are not off the table – constitutionally speaking – gun-rights advocates feel the need to resist politically almost every gun regulation being proposed as a stepping stone toward prohibition and confiscation.

—

Here then is the irony: If those who truly believe in the necessity of some gun regulations would only concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and the courts would accept this position as well, gun owners would relax and many more regulations – even unreasonable ones – would pass. Those who sincerely believe in gun regulation should urge the courts to protect the right to arms. We will only reach a “middle ground” when the right to keep and bear arms is secure.

And he’s right – especially about “even unreasonable ones.” If our guard is down, (as it has been regarding the Fourth and Fifth amendments when it comes to “The War on (some) Drugs” and now “The War on Terror”) then we’ll let our legislatures pass laws that we otherwise would not. It is because the courts have not recognized the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental, individual right that we are ever-vigilant against ever-increasing infringement of that right.

Perhaps the NRA’s maneuverings aren’t as self-serving as they often appear to be.

He has much more to say, especially about registration, but he ignores the sheer logistical idiocy of the task in favor of discussing the risk of future confiscation. (I prefer to cover all the bases, myself. I’ll cut him some slack because he did comment about the length of his post.)

Larry Elder Notwithstanding, I Still See Only a Dime’s Worth of Difference

Cox & Forkum (of course)

And I’m not alone.

I’m not yet willing to entertain the idea of voting for someone other than Dubya next year.

But it’s not a done-deal, either.

I Bet the Decision Gave Him Heartburn, Too.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein, after a jury found manufacturers not at fault, rendered his decision in NAACP v. AA Arms Inc. saying (according to this Washington Times report):

While agreeing there is “clear and convincing evidence” that gun dealers are guilty of “careless practices,” U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein ruled that members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People were not “uniquely harmed” by illegal use of firearms.

“Pish, tosh! A mere technicality!” squawks the anti-gun crowd. While the defense of this lawsuit cost the defendants upwards of $10 million.

This isn’t just an effort to legislate through the courts, it’s also an effort to bankrupt the manufacturers.

If you’re interested in reading the decision, it’s available here in four parts in Adobe PDF format.

I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but these stood out:

That the industry has improved its practices in recent years was demonstrated by defendants. The number of individuals and entities licensed to sell firearms at the distributor or dealer level, FFLs, has been sharply reduced, making supervision by the ATF, manufacturers, and distributors easier.

That’s not an “improved practice” of the industry but the result of ATF rules changes. And yes, it does make supervision by the ATF easier. Supervision by the manufacturers isn’t part of their job description. The distributors are supposed to comply with the applicable laws. Then there’s this:

Members of the industry continue to fail to take many obvious and easily implemented steps, such as requiring retailers to avoid multiple or repeat sales to the same customers. Such steps are an effective way of checking illegal handgun diversion as revealed by the fact that Virginia, which was a major supplier of illegal hanguns to New York, almost immediately largely choked off that supply when it enacted a law limiting multiple sales to the same person.

What happened to the BATF investigating multiple sales? Sellers already have to report multiple purchases to the BATF. What the hell are they doing with the information? Wouldn’t it be better to investigate multiple purchasers and prosecute them if they prove to be gunrunners? Where is the law enforcement liability here?

And finally:

In short, the NAACP has demonstrated the great harm done to the New York public by the use and threat of use of illegally available handguns in urban communities. It also has shown that the diversion of large numbers of handguns into the secondary illegal market, and subsequently into dangerous criminal activities could be substantially reduced through policies voluntarily adopted by manufacturers and distributors of handguns without additional legislation.

Apparently the good judge hasn’t taken Economics 101. The one Father Guido Sarducci sums up succinctly in his “Five-minute University” bit as “Supply and-a Demand. That’s it.”

Ask the English all about Supply and-a Demand, Judge. The market will be served.

Can We Hang the Remains From those Big Swords?

According to this AP report:

“We are certain that Odai and Qusai were killed today,” said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez at a news conference in Baghdad. “The bodies were in such a condition where you could identify them.”

Well, there goes two biological weapons.