Clever.
And unfortunately more accurate than many would prefer to admit:
Tag: politics
Your Government at Work.
A piece by my favorite Pulitzer prize-winning political cartoonist, Mike Ramirez:
Ayup.
Now, read this. Excerpt:
Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for Exxon Mobil last year) but frustrate those companies’ desire to use those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Perversely, higher prices discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenue, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.
Quote of the Day.
For generations our primary vision of a dystopian future has been that of Orwell’s 1984. This was a fundamentally “masculine” nightmare of fascist brutality. But with the demise of the Soviet Union and the vanishing memory of the great twentieth-century fascist and communist dictatorships, the nightmare vision of 1984 is slowly fading away. In its place, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is emerging as the more prophetic book. As we unravel the human genome and master the ability to make people happy with televised entertainment and psychoactive drugs, politics is increasingly a vehicle for delivering prepackaged joy. America’s political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.
Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 20
Couldn’t let that one pass unquoted.
Yes, Exactly
From the Toronto Star – “A look beyond the handgun ban”:
David Kennedy, an anthropologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, is the godfather of this approach. In 1996, when he was a professor at Harvard, Kennedy launched the Boston Gun Project, the first intervention of its kind. It reduced gun crime in the city by 60 per cent. Since then, it has blossomed to a number of cities across the U.nited States.
Kennedy views bans, like the one Miller is pushing for, as a symptom of the problem, not a cure. “For people desperately searching for a solution, it seems like it makes sense,” says Kennedy. “What they don’t understand is that there are better tools that don’t require law to implement, and are practically cookbook and off-the-shelf.”
Chicago’s Project Safe Neighbourhoods is close to Kennedy’s prescription (he helped advise on the project); Cincinnati’s Initiative to Reduce Violence is its full manifestation. In Cincinnati, gun-related homicides spiked in 2006 to 89, more than double the annual average, since 1991, of 43.
Kennedy’s research team unpacked what he calls typical trends: They identified 69 distinct street groups, comprising about 1,000 people. Of the 89 homicides, these 1,000 people – less than half a per cent of the city’s population – were connected to more than 75 per cent of them.
Identifying the problem makes the solution relatively simple, Kennedy says. “If we change the behaviour of these people, we solve the problem.”
(Emphasis mine.) Precisely what I’ve been saying since I started this blog. In America, and I assume pretty much worldwide, the vast majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny percentage of the population, almost all of whom have prior criminal records. As I have noted here in the past, American homicide rates are heavily skewed by the fact that young, black, urban males – who make up less than 13% of America’s population – commit and are the victims of well over half the homicides America suffers each year. And on top of that, the young, black, urban males that actually commit the murders are a tiny fraction of that 13%.
But the political response to this is “gun control”?
As SayUncle says, “Gun control is what you do instead of something.”
But the philosophy says the number of guns is the problem, not the behavior of a tiny, identifiable group of people, and since the philosophy cannot be wrong, the consistent failure of the “solution” – gun control – cannot be because the wrong path is being pursued. No, no! The failure must be due to improper implementation! The only response must be to do it again, only HARDER!.
(h/t: Say Uncle)
UPDATE and correction: Chris Byrne in comments notes:
Actually, blacks as a whole are about 14% of the population.
Young, male, urban blacks, are about 3% of the population.
Of those, 24% have a felony criminal record.
It’s not about race, it’s just demographics.
He’s right, and I knew that. According to the CDC’s data:
2005 – Total population 296,507,061
Black males 10-34 years old 7,763,680, or 2.62% of the population.
Homicides (all) – 10,438
Black males 10-34 – 5,181,
2.62% of the population, 49.6% of the victims.
One-gun-a-month laws, closing the “gun show loophole,” licensing, registration, “assault weapon” bans, and handgun bans will somehow make this all go away because “the number of guns” in America is the problem.
No it’s not.
Identifying the problem makes the solution relatively simple, Kennedy says. “If we change the behaviour of these people, we solve the problem.”
Yes indeed.
Quote of the Day.
Both campaigns are showing how green they are by filling mailboxes with metric tons of ads printed on the pulped carcasses of dead trees. The airwaves are jammed with promises that Barack will heal the sick and the blind, Hillary will get you a gold house and a rocket car, and both of them are promising they’ll not only slash gas prices and punish rich fat cats, but they’ll also get you a great-paying job and your own personal physician to live at your house and fix what ails you for free, Free, FREE!
Tam, from Misunderstanding the concept
Read the whole thing, because she’s bang-on about what the job of President is supposed to be limited to.
And McCain? His only saving grace is he’s not promising you your own personal physician. Like I said, he’s the least objectionable repulsive Democrat in the race.
Quote of the Day.
Obama wants me to believe that a candidate who: (1) was utterly supine and silent for 20 years in his own church as racial hate was propagated by the pastor; (2) who refuses to condemn a prominent supporter and fundraiser for whom bombing American sites is still seen as a good thing, and (3) who has said not a single word on the campaign trail as his party heavyweights removed post-Abramoff earmark reforms… is a candidate who will stand up to Washington interests and change the way business is done. While helping get America past its racial issues, and healing its political divides. That a candidate talking up charter schools as part of the solution, who has received positive ratings from teachers unions for blocking them, is to be taken at face value.
50 bucks for that whole bridge, you say?
Joe Katzman, Straining Belief: The Obama Campaign & Michelle’s UCLA Speech
RTWT.
New Bumper Sticker on the Sidebar.
Click it for the full-size image. I got the idea here.
How Did I Miss This?.(Quote of the Day)
Via Ninth Stage, from James Likeks, February 20:
On the radio today Medved and Hewitt both asked Obama supporters to call and say why they were supporting their man. Specifics, please. The replies were rather indistinct. He would end the division and bring us together by encouraging us all to talk about common problems, after which we would compromise. He will give us hope by giving us hope: for many, the appeal has the magical perfect logic of a tautology. It’s a nice dream. But compromise is impossible when you have a fundamental differences about the proper way to solve a problem. I believe we can achieve a fair society by taking away your house and giving it to someone else. I disagree. It is my house. Then let us agree to give away half of your house. Compromise! But that is not a compromise. You have taken half my house. We have compromised on your behalf with those who would have taken it all. Let us not return to the politics of division. There are strangers living in my spare bedroom. Then we have truly come together. Look, this isn’t a matter on which we can compromise, because we have conflicting premises. You’re pretending matter and anti-matter have the same relationship as Coke and Pepsi. They don’t.
If he wins, I do look forward to dissenting; since it’s been established as the highest form of patriotism, I expect my arguments will be met with grave respect. Shhhh! He’s dissenting.
RTWT.
More Right-Wing Language Manipulation.
It’s getting to be all-Markadelphia-all-the-time around here (and that sh!#’s going to cease, soon) but here’s his latest comment on my previous post, which – once again – requires a response:
Alright, so I guess I am little perplexed here.
Surprise, surprise.
When you first posted on my blog, Kevin, it was in regards to the Zumbo affair. You assured me that the large majority of gun owners were not Nazis and that Zumbo was out of line for calling people who owned AKs terrorists.
They are not, and he was. But you skipped over the part where he called for a ban.
You also have assured me that gun owners , especially the ones that read and post here, are fighting for their individual rights. You have accused liberals of being fascists, insisting and demanding that their way is the “right” way, forcing people to think and believe their truth and that you are not like that.
And here we have the redefinition of terms.
Markadelphia’s “fascist” point is brought up by the recent discussion of Jonah Goldberg’s current bestseller Liberal Fascism, wherein Mr. Goldberg points out the philosophical underpinnings of the modern Liberal/Progressive movement, and that those underpinnings share – in remarkable lockstep – the same basic philosophic principles of actual fascism. Problem is, there’s no real agreed-upon definition for the word “fascism,” because it’s been abused to the point throughout the last seventy-plus years that it has simply become synonymous with “bad.” Mr. Goldberg presents his own definition, going back to Mussolini, which I think is an accurate one:
Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore is defined as the enemy.
Apparently Markadelphia’s understanding of the word “fascism” is limited to the last sentence of that definition.
He is, as usual, in error.
I listened to Schoenke on the radio today and he made it pretty clear that he is the enemy of NRA and gun bloggers like yourself. I have read the things that have been said about him, including the Confederate Yankee blog, and I have to say I see a pattern developing here that doesn’t jibe with what you have told me. I’m afraid I’m having trouble seeing any allowance for individuality at all. Instead, I see a group of people saying basically the same thing:
Think like us..exactly like us..ANY wavering and….you are against us, are our enemy, and do not support 2nd amendment rights.
Correct me if I am wrong (Glad to.) but isn’t this the very thing that you accuse liberals of doing?
If the reaction occurred with just the Zumbo thing…well…he did call decent people terrorists…but now Schoenke? Who will be next?
Here’s the difference for you, Markadelphia:
Mr. Schoenke and his compatriots want to use the government (“the state”) to take any action that they deem necessary to achieve “the common good.” You know: “The last law didn’t help, but the philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, only HARDER!“
I, and those like me here, want the government to do only that which it is chartered to do, and part of that charter is to protect and defend the pre-existing right to arms. As you note, Mr. Schoenke has declared us his enemy, because we don’t want state power used against us in his quest to achieve that which they believe is “good.” We oppose his objectives. It just so happens that we all believe (largely) the same thing – that the state should not do what he wants it to do. Some of us (David Codrea comes immediately to mind) are far more militant than others, but what we all share is a common understanding of what our form of government is not supposed to have the power to do. It’s the niggling details on which we disagree. But David is not my enemy, nor am I his.
None of us want to use the government to “impose uniformity of thought and action.” Ray Schoenke does, and his excuse is the achievement of “the common good” according to his beliefs.
So which of us fits the definition of “fascist” better?
Re-read Mr. Goldberg’s definition of “fascism.” Read up on the history of Mussolini prior to WWII.
Then think very hard about your support for Barack Obama in conjunction with the sentence,
“It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people.”
I would ask: “Recognize yourself?” but I know that question would be futile.
I’m Not Fast Enough…
In comments to my previous post, Markadelphia proffers his “proof” that Barack (middle name shall not be mentioned) Obama is not anti-gun:
And now comes the comment that you all have been waiting for…demanding that I give you..I have to admit that even I was shocked when I heard this just a few short minutes ago driving home….
http://www.huntersandshooters.co…d=212& Itemid=70
Read and weep, folks. Could this group be part of the “millions” who were offended as Kevin says? And what could this piece of legislation be that Mr. Schoenke is talking about?
http://www.senate.gov/legislativ…on=2& vote=00202
So, could it be true? Did the “gun grabber” Obama actually vote in favor of gun rights? Are their some gun owners that favor Obama? Well, Unix and Ed asked for proof that Obama was not a gun grabber. There’s your proof, fellas.
According to Schoenke, he thinks the latest furor is “a bunch of nonsense.” He also went on to say that Senator Obama is a “firm supporter of 2nd amendment rights.”
Oh, but wait…according to other gun advocacy groups (and I am CERTAIN everyone here
) the American Hunters and Shooters Association aren’t a “real” gun advocacy group. They are anti-gun. Odd, because their web site sure looks like they enjoy guns quite a bit.
And you believe everything you see – as long as it matches what you expect to see. We’ve been all through this, ad nauseam, in the comment threads.
So, there you have it, folks. A group of gun owners who weren’t offended by Obama’s comments, have endoresed him, and actually listed key legislation that he voted for in favor of 2nd amendment rights. Shocking…appalling….whatever will you do?
As I’ve mentioned before, one of the “problems” with the growing gunblogging community is getting something posted before someone else does it first – and better.
I give you Confederate Yankee’s take. Please, go read.
Mark, don’t bother.