Heard About that Berkely “Study” of the Psychology of Conservatives?
Jonah Goldberg disassembles it – with great humor – at National Review Online.
Link via Dodd from Ipse Dixit. Same place I found the cartoons mentioned below.
If You Like the Political Cartoons I Post Here…
Go to Cut On the Bias for three terriffic ones.
THIS is Why I Read Lileks!
Today’s BLEAT:
My favorite article today concerned the French computer game industry, and yes there is such a thing. Turns out that it’s in the pissoir for all the usual reasons – the companies can’t fire anyone when business heads sud, the taxes are onerous, and, uh, the games suq. But the French PM believes that the industry deserves to be subsidized, because French computer games reflect European values.
Well, yes, if they’re subsidized, bought by no one. It got me to thinking about French versions of some popular games:
Half-Life. An interdimensional gateway opens up, and thousands of murderous creatures from another world spill through. Your mission: help them establish their own parallel society in your country.
Doom: An interdimensional gateway opens up, and the minions of Hell itself enter a Martian moonbase. Your mission: nothing! Lucky you, they invaded in August, and that’s your month at the beach.
Grand Theft Auto: You steal Deux Cheveaux and attempt to escape from the police at speeds up to 30 MPH
Medal of Honor: WW2. This was a massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on the Resistance. At its peak it had 400,000 members who logged on and did nothing. Then someone named “Yank44” signed on, and the system crashed when all 400,000 members attempted to remove the picture of Marshal Petain from the wall of their cottage.
Accurate, Pithy, and Gun-Related!
Cox and Forkum, of course!
I Hope it’s a Best-Seller
Looks like Tony Martin’s going to write a book, and title it My Right to Kill.
I expect that will result in a mass case of the vapors.
Good.
Another School Shooting
In Germany. Four shots fired, one teacher wounded, shooter commits suicide.
Yup. It must be the guns.
(Link via Keepandbeararms.com)
THIS Got the Secret Service’s Panties in a Wad?
(Mike Ramirez, LA Times)
I like this one, too:
Of course, in this one Bush is holding the gun.
Don’t those Secret Service guys have anything better to do?
Civilian Disarmament Proceeds Apace in the UK
According to this BBC story
Gun permits at all-time low
The number of firearms and shotgun certificates issued in Scotland has dropped to its lowest recorded level, new figures show. There were just under 80,000 certificates at the end of 2002, a drop of nearly 4,000 from the previous year.
But the number of legally-held weapons rose slightly from 2001, according to a report from the Scottish Executive.
So there are 4,000 fewer permit holders but more gun owners with “arsenals?”
According to the 2001 census, the population of Scotland was about 5,062,000 of which about 3.8 million were above the age of 19 and eligible for a firearm or shotgun certificate. That means the percentage of legal owners is just about 2% of the eligible population. And declining.
More on the NYC City Council Shooting
According to this KeepandBearArms.com article, Councilman James E. Davis was carrying a concealed weapon, but didn’t have a chance to draw it. The CNN story linked reports
Davis was known to carry a licensed gun, but was unable to draw the weapon
(“See! See! Concealed weapons are useless for self defense!” shrill the gun control groups.)
The KABA.com piece does raise the valid question: If Mr. Davis was opposed to gun violence and in favor of gun bans, why did he have a gun?
The CNN piece also continues with the comments of Mr. Davis’s brother, Geoffrey:
“The system killed my brother,” he shouted. “Just the same way they killed Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, the system knew that my brother would continue fighting for the betterment to stop violence. That’s who killed my brother. The system.”
No, Mr. Davis. Mr. Askew killed your brother.
Unless it was those invisible brain-altering psychosis-inducing waves that guns give off…
More on the D.C. Gun Ban
I covered the introduction of Sen. Orrin Hatch’s bill to repeal the D.C. gun ban here, and pointed you to Publicoa’s coverage of it here. Now the Cato Institute responds. Excerpts:
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
—
Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
—
Thankfully, on July 8, federal judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing “to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case,” denied the NRA’s motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Sen. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Hatch’s D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Ashcroft when he’s so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, “If we can’t control the litigation, there will be no litigation.”
Tuesday in response to a Randy Barnette piece, I said “Perhaps the NRA’s maneuverings aren’t as self-serving as they often appear to be.”
Then again, perhaps they are. Hanlon’s Razor says “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” However, the NRA leadership has never struck me as stupid. The jury, at least for me, remains out.